Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-07-06 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of closed meeting

25,141 words·~114 min read·/register/2006/07/06/06-6009

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-827] Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 28, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results and intent to rescind in part the 2003-2004 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils (pencils) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part* , 70 FR 76755 (December 28, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. We have now completed the 2003-2004 administrative review of the order. Based on comments received, we have made changes in the dumping margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. For details regarding these changes, see the section of this notice entitled “Changes Since the Preliminary Results.” The final results are listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4474 and
(202)482-0650, respectively. Background On December 28, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of this review. *See Preliminary Results* . The POR is December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. On January 20, 2006, we extended the deadline for submission of case briefs and rebuttal briefs to February 24, 2006, and March 1, 2006, respectively. We also extended the deadline for submission of surrogate value information until February 14, 2006. On February 14, 2006, Sanford LP, Rose Moon, Inc., General Pencil Company, Inc., and Musgrave Pencil Company (the domestic interested parties) submitted surrogate value information. 1 On February 24, 2006, we received case briefs from respondents China First Pencil Co., Ltd. (CFP)/Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. (Three Star)(CFP/Three Star), 2 Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (SFTC), and Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co. Ltd. (Rongxin), and from the domestic interested parties. We received rebuttal briefs from CFP/Three Star, SFTC, Rongxin, and the domestic interested parties on March 1, 2006. 1 Domestic interested parties submitted a revised translation of certain documents included in this submission on February 16, 2006. 2 The Department initiated separate reviews of China First Pencil Company, Ltd.
(CFP)and Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Corp. (Three Star) based on timely requests from interested parties. In the final results of the 2001-2002 administrative review the Department collapsed CFP and Three Star for purposes of its antidumping analysis. *See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 29266 (May 21, 2004), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. The Department continued to collapse CFP and Three Star in the final results of the 2002-2003 administrative review. *See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 42301 (July 22, 2005) (Pencils 02/03), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For this review, the Department continues to consider CFP and Three Star (hereinafter referred to as CFP/Three Star) to be a single entity. On April 27, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the time limit for the final results of this review until June 26, 2006. *See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 24839 (April 27, 2006). Due to the unexpected emergency closure of the main Commerce building on Monday, June 26, 2006, the Department is issuing these final results on June 27, 2006, the next business day. *See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended* , 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain cased pencils of any shape or dimension (except as noted below) which are writing and/or drawing instruments that feature cores of graphite or other materials, encased in wood and/or man-made materials, whether or not decorated and whether or not tipped ( *e.g.* , with erasers, etc.) in any fashion, and either sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the scope of the order are mechanical pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, non-cased crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, chalks, and pencils produced under U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from paper infused with scents by the means covered in the above-referenced patent, thereby having odors distinct from those that may emanate from pencils lacking the scent infusion. Also excluded from the scope of the order are pencils with all of the following physical characteristics: 1) length: 13.5 or more inches; 2) sheath diameter: not less than one-and-one quarter inches at any point (before sharpening); and 3) core length: not more than 15 percent of the length of the pencil. In addition, pencils with all of the following physical characteristics are excluded from the scope of the order: novelty jumbo pencils that are octagonal in shape, approximately ten inches long, one inch in diameter before sharpening, and three-and-one eighth inches in circumference, composed of turned wood encasing one-and-one half inches of sharpened lead on one end and a rubber eraser on the other end. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Partial Rescission The Department is rescinding this review with respect to Tianjin Custom Wood Processing Co., Ltd.
(TCW)because TCW reported it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. *See the Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 76756; *see also* TCW's February 22, 2005, response to the Department's questionnaire. We reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)data and found no evidence that TCW made shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record of this segment of the proceeding indicating that TCW exported subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we are rescinding this review with respect to TCW. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 26, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on Import Administration's Web site at http://.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for CFP/Three Star, SFTC and Rongxin. The specific calculation changes can be found in the company-specific calculation memoranda dated June 26, 2006. These changes are listed below. As discussed fully in the Decision Memorandum, the Department corrected the calculation of the surrogate value for pencil slats to account for wood lost when pencil slats are produced from lumber for use in pencil production for CFP/Three Star, SFTC, and Rongxin. In addition, we corrected the calculation of Rongxin's slat surrogate value with respect to the percentage of wood lost when pencils are made from slats. Furthermore, using updated contemporaneous data obtained after publication of the *Preliminary Results* , we re-calculated the slat surrogate value used for producers that produced slats from timber. 3 Finally, we corrected a ministerial error made in CFP/Three Star's preliminary margin calculation program with respect to the calculation of the value of coal included in the normal value. 3 We stated in the *Preliminary Results* that we would attempt to obtain timber prices contemporaneous with the POR for use in the final results. *See* the *Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 76759. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average, ad valorem, percentage margins exist for the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004: Exporter/Manufacturer Margin (percent) CFP/Three Star/First/Great Wall/Fang Zheng 26.62 SFTC 25.70 Rongxin 12.37 PRC Wide-Rate 114.90 Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of pencils from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 114.90 percent; and 4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Assessment The Department will determine, and CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review. We have calculated customer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts for subject merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. We calculated these assessment amounts because there is no information on the record which identifies entered values or the importers of record. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APOs)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/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 determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act. Dated: June 27, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum Comments *Comment 1:* Whether the Department properly valued pencil cores. *Comment 2:* Whether the Department should use one or more respondents' market-economy purchase prices of cores, erasers and lacquer to value these factors for respondents that did not purchase these items from a market-economy supplier. *Comment 3:* Whether the Department excluded small quantity/high value import transactions from its calculation of surrogate values. *Comment 4:* Whether the Department used the wrong HTS category to calculate a surrogate value for Rongxin's kaolin clay. *Comment 5:* Whether the Department should continue to apply partial adverse facts available to SFTC. *Comment 6:* Whether the surrogate value for labor is correct. *Comment 7:* Whether to continue to treat CFP and Three Star as a single entity. *Comment 8:* Whether the Department properly accounted for wood loss in its calculation of a surrogate value for slats. *Comment 9:* Whether the Department used the correct lumber dimensions to calculate a surrogate value for slats. *Comment 10:* Whether to continue to apply total adverse facts available to Guangdong Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export Corp. [FR Doc. E6-10568 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-893] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is currently conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period July 16, 2004, through July 31, 2005. The Department preliminarily determines that sales have not been made below normal value (“NV”) with respect to Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd. (“Zhanjiang Regal”), which participated fully and is entitled to a separate rate in this review. If these preliminary results are adopted in its final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”) for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, 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)482-2243. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History General On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 05149 (February 1, 2005). On August 26, 2005, the Department received a new shipper review request from Zhanjiang Regal. On September 16, 2005, the Department requested that Zhanjiang Regal correct certain filing deficiencies. *See* the Department's letter dated September 16, 2005. On September 20, 2005, Zhanjiang Regal resubmitted their new shipper review request in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations. On September 30, 2005, the Department initiated a new shipper review with respect to Zhanjiang Regal. *See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review* , 70 FR 58679 (October 7, 2005) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). On February 16, 2006, the Department placed the entry package it received from CBP for Zhanjiang Regal's new shipper sale on the record of this review. *See Memorandum from Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Financial Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to the File: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Placing Entry Packages on the Record* , dated February 9, 2006. Questionnaires and Responses On October 21, 2005, the Department issued sections A, C, and D of the general antidumping duty questionnaire to Zhanjiang Regal, along with the standard importer questionnaire for new shipper reviews. Zhanjiang Regal submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on November 21, 2005, and subsequently submitted its response to sections C and D, and the importer questionnaire, on December 9, 2005. On December 22, 2005, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire for sections A, C and D. Zhanjiang Regal filed its response to this supplemental questionnaire on January 17, 2006. On March 13, 2006, the Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire for sections A, C, and D to Zhanjiang Regal and its importer. Zhanjiang Regal filed its response to the Department's second sections A, C, and D supplemental questionnaires on April 3, 2006, and to the importer's questionnaire on April 7, 2006. Surrogate Country and Values On November 2, 2005, the team requested from the Office of Policy a memorandum listing surrogate countries. The Department received a list of surrogate countries on November 7, 2005. On March 2, 2006, the Department notified parties of the opportunity to submit comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate values. No party submitted surrogate country selection comments, although Zhanjiang Regal submitted surrogate value comments. On May 22, 2006, the Department issued its surrogate country selection memorandum. *See Memorandum from Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Financial Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, and Jim Doyle, Director, Office 9, to the File: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country* , dated May 22, 2006 (“ *Surrogate Country Memo* ”). Period of Review The POR covers July 16, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off (including the telson and the uropods), deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the *penaeidae* family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp ( *penaeus vannemei* ), banana prawn ( *penaeus merguiensis* ), fleshy prawn ( *penaeus chinensis* ), giant river prawn ( *macrobrachium rosenbergii* ), giant tiger prawn ( *penaeus monodon* ), redspotted shrimp ( *penaeus brasiliensis* ), southern brown shrimp ( *penaeus subtilis* ), southern pink shrimp (penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp ( *trachypenaeus curvirostris* ), southern white shrimp ( *penaeus schmitti* ), blue shrimp ( *penaeus stylirostris* ), western white shrimp ( *penaeus occidentalis* ), and indian white prawn ( *penaeus indicus* ). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are:
(1)Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20);
(2)shrimp and prawns generally classified in the pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing;
(3)fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40);
(4)shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10);
(5)dried shrimp and prawns; 6) Lee Kum Kee's shrimp sauce;
(7)canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40);
(8)certain dusted shrimp; and
(9)certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product:
(1)that is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp;
(2)to which a “dusting” layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied;
(3)with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour;
(4)with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and ten percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen;
(5)that is subjected to individually quick frozen
(IQF)freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Verification On March 30, 2006, the Department issued the verification outline to Zhanjiang Regal. The Department conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by Zhanjiang Regal at its office in Zhanjiang, PRC from April 10 -14, 2006. The Department used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. The Department's verification results are outlined in the verification report, which is being issued concurrently with this notice. For further discussion, *see Memorandum from Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Financial Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to the File: Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Zhanjiang Regal Trading Co., Ltd. (“Zhanjiang Regal”) in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* , dated June 27, 2006, (“ *Zhanjiang Regal Verification Report* ”). New Shipper Status Consistent with the Department's practice, the Department investigated the *bona fide bona fide* nature of the sale made by Zhanjiang Regal for this new shipper review. The Department found the sale in question was made on a *bona fide* basis. Based on the Department's investigation into the *bona fide* nature of the sale, the questionnaire responses submitted by Zhanjiang Regal, and the Department's verification thereof, as well as Zhanjiang Regal's eligibility for a separate rate ( *see* below), and the Department's preliminarily determination that Zhanjiang Regal was not affiliated with any exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to the United States, we preliminarily determine that the respondent has met the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results of the review, the Department is treating Zhanjiang Regal's sale of subject merchandise to the United States as an appropriate transaction for this new shipper review. *See Memorandum from Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Financial Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp: Zhanjiang Regal Trading Co., Ltd.* , dated June 27, 2006. Separate Rates The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”) country in all previous antidumping cases. *See, e.g., 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* , 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. The Department has no evidence suggesting that this determination should be changed. Therefore, the Department treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the factors of production (“FOP”) in a surrogate country. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review that are located in NME countries a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of governmental control, both in law ( *de jure* ) de facto and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to its export activities. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of governmental control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter using the criteria established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as adopted and amplified in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). Under the separate rates criteria established in these cases, the Department assigns separate rates to NME exporters only if they can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over their export activities. Absence of *De Jure* Control Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of *de jure* absence of government control over export activities includes:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* at 20589. In the instant review, Zhanjiang Regal submitted a complete response to the separate rates section of the Department's questionnaire. The evidence submitted in the instant review by Zhanjiang Regal includes government laws and regulations on corporate ownership and control, business licences, and narrative information regarding the company's operations and selection of management. *See Zhanjiang Regal Verification Report* at Exhibits 2 and 6. The evidence provided by Zhanjiang Regal supports a finding of an absence of *de jure* governmental control over its export activities because it indicates that:
(1)there are no controls on exports of subject merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses required for, exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; and
(2)the subject merchandise does not appear on any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing. Absence of *De Facto* Control The absence of *de facto* governmental control over exports is based on whether the respondent:
(1)sets its own export prices independent of the government and other exporters;
(2)retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Silicon Carbide* at 22587; *Sparklers* at 20589; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). In its questionnaire responses, Zhanjiang Regal submitted evidence demonstrating an absence of *de facto* governmental control over its export activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that:
(1)The company sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)the company retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)the company has a general manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement;
(4)the general manager is selected by the board of directors, and the general manager appoints the deputy managers and the manager of each department; and
(5)there is no restriction on the company's use of export revenues. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found that Zhanjiang Regal qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria established by *Silicon Carbide* and *Sparklers* . Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party:
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In the instant review, the Department discovered that Zhanjiang Regal included part of its factory electricity usage under selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) electricity usage. Specifically, the company included the electricity used to run the chill compressors in the processing plant under the meter used for SG&A. *See Zhanjiang Regal Verification Report* at 2. Furthermore, the company could not determine how much of the SG&A electricity reading was from the chill compressors, thus preventing the Department from verifying this information. *Id* . at 31. However, the plant engineer estimated (based on his experience) the percentage of the SG&A meter reading that was attributable to the compressors. *Id* . Therefore, as facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department is assigning this estimate of the SG&A electricity meter readings to factory electricity. *See Memorandum from Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Financial Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to the File: Analysis of Zhanjiang Regal Trading Co., Ltd. for the Preliminary Results in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the PRC* , dated June 27, 2006. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (“NV”), in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values the Department used in this review are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below. The Department determined that India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. * See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9; New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries * , dated November, 2005. Because of India's and Indonesia's relative levels of shrimp production, which is consistent with worldwide characteristics of frozen shrimp production, these two countries were selected as significant producers of comparable merchandise. *See Surrogate Country Memo* at 4. The Department select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. *See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process* (“ *Policy Bulletin* ”), dated March 1, 2004. In this case, the Department found that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, and has publicly available and reliable data. *See Surrogate Country Memo* . U.S. Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated the export price (“EP”) for sales to the United States for Zhanjiang Regal because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use of constructed EP was not otherwise warranted. The Department calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Consistent with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted from the starting price to the unaffiliated purchaser: foreign inland freight; brokerage and handling; and international freight. For Zhanjiang Regal, foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling were provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, the Department based the deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values. *See Memorandum from Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Financial Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to the File; New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results* , dated June 27, 2006 (“ *Surrogate Values Memo* ”) for details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses. For international freight, provided by a non-market economy provider, but paid for in U.S. dollars, the Department based the deduction on a surrogate value. Normal Value In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on factors of production (“FOP”) reported by the respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, the Department valued the reported FOP by multiplying the per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values. In selecting surrogate values, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the available values. As appropriate, the Department adjusted the value of material inputs to account for delivery costs. Where appropriate, the Department increased Indian surrogate values by surrogate inland freight costs. The Department calculated these inland freight costs using the shorter of the reported distances from the PRC port to the PRC factory, or from the domestic supplier to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (“CAFC”) decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed.Cir. 1997). For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted for inflation or deflation using data published in the IMF's *International Financial Statistics* . The Department excluded from the surrogate country import data used in the Department's calculations imports from Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia due to generally available export subsidies. *See China Nat'l Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Furthermore, the Department disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with general export subsidies. Finally, the Department converted the surrogate values to U.S. dollars as appropriate, using the official exchange rate recorded on the date of sale of subject merchandise in this case, obtained from Import Administration's website at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. For further detail, *see* the *Surrogate Values Memo* . Changes from Verification For electricity, the Department is assigning the plant engineer's estimate of the SG&A electricity meter readings to factory electricity. *See* Facts Available section above. For direct labor, the Department discovered at verification that Zhanjiang Regal made a clerical/transposing error in summing certain fields in their worksheets. *See Zhanjiang Regal Verification Report* at 32. This error affected the direct labor usage rate for both growing and processing direct labor. Therefore, the Department will use its verification findings for direct labor. *See Zhanjiang Regal Analysis Memo* . For international freight, Zhanjiang Regal provided the actual cost it incurred in U.S. dollars in its sales database. However, at verification the Department found the freight carrier was based in an NME country. *See Zhanjiang Regal Verification Report* at 25. Therefore, the Department used a surrogate value for the international freight expense Zhanjiang Regal incurred on its sale of the subject merchandise. Preliminary Results of Review The Department preliminarily determines that the following weight average margin exist during the period July 16, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the PRC Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd. 0.00 Public Comment The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within ten days of the date of announcement of these preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, including the results of the Department's analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. The assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on the final results of this review. Assessment Rates Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. The Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . Cash Deposit Requirements Upon completion of this review, the Department will require cash deposits at the rate established in the final results as further described below. Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC produced and exported by Zhanjiang Regal that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this new shipper review. *See* 19 CFR § 351.214(e). The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Zhanjiang Regal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date:
(1)For subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Zhanjiang Regal, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except that no cash deposit will be required if the cash deposit rate calculated in the final results is zero or *de minimis* ; and
(2)for subject merchandise exported by Zhanjiang Regal but not manufactured by itself, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate ( *i.e.* , 112.81 percent); and
(3)for subject merchandise produced by Zhanjiang Regal but not exported by itself, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice 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. This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i). Dated: June 27, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-10565 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-825, A-533-810, A-588-833, A-469-805] Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce initiated the second sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and no responses received from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews. See section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed in the “Final Results of Reviews” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Kristin Case, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4114 or
(202)482-3174. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the second sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar
(SSB)from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See *Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 10476 (March 1, 2006). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy Corp., North American Stainless, Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively the domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i) pertaining to sunset reviews. The domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as manufacturers of a domestic like product in the United States. We received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from the respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these orders. Scope of the Orders Imports covered by these orders are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. The SSB subject to these orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews 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 June 29, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in 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. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSB from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Brazil Acos Villares, S.A. 19.43 percent *ad valorem* All Others 19.43 percent *ad valorem* India Grand Foundry, Ltd. 3.87 percent *ad valorem* Mukand, Ltd. 21.02 percent *ad valorem* All Others 12.45 percent *ad valorem* Japan Aichi Steel Works, Ltd. 61.47 percent *ad valorem* Daido Steel Co., Ltd. 61.47 percent *ad valorem* Sanyo Special Steel Co., Ltd. 61.47 percent *ad valorem* All Others 61.47 percent *ad valorem* Spain Acenor, S.A. (and all successor companies, including Digeco, S.A. and Clorimax, SRL) 62.85 percent *ad valorem* Roldan, S.A. 7.72 percent *ad valorem* All Others 25.77 percent *ad valorem* This notice also serves as the only 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 notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders 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 these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 27, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-10479 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Final Rescission of One New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (“Kunyu”), Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. (“Landmark”), Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. (“Meikangchi”), and WBE Industries (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd. (“WBE”), the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is June 24, 2004, through June 30, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value (“NV”) by Kunyu and Meikangchi. However, we have also preliminarily determined that sales have not been made below normal value by Landmark. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Additionally, we have rescinded the new shipper review for WBE. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. We will issue the final results no later than 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Holton or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1324 and
(202)482-0414, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC on January 4, 2005. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). On July 8, 2005, we received a timely request for a new shipper review from Kunyu. On July 28, 2005, we received timely requests for new shipper reviews from Landmark and Meikangchi. On August 1, 2005, we received a timely request for a new shipper review from WBE. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we initiated the above-mentioned four new shipper reviews for shipments of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. On September 8, 2005, the Department published a notice of the initiation of the new shipper reviews of Kunyu, Landmark, Meikangchi, and WBE. *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews* , 70 FR 53344 (September 8, 2005). On September 22, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Kunyu, Landmark, Meikangchi, and WBE. In October and November 2005, we received responses to the questionnaires from Kunyu, Landmark, Meikangchi, and WBE. From November 2005 to April 2006, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents and received timely responses. On December 19, 2005, Petitioners 1 requested that the Department conduct verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by Kunyu, Landmark, Meikangchi, and WBE. 1 The American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and its individual members and the Cabinet Makers, Millmen, and Industrial Carpenters Local 721; UBC Southern Council of Industrial Workers Local Union 2305; United Steel Workers of America Local 193U; Carpenters Industrial Union Local 2093; and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 991 (“Petitioners”). On February 28, 2006, we extended the deadline for the issuance of the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews until June 26, 2006. *See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 10010 (February 28, 2006). On June 5, 2006, the Department preliminarily determined to rescind the new shipper review of WBE based on evidence that WBE exported subject merchandise during the period of investigation and, therefore, does not meet the requirements for initiation of a new shipper review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(a) and (b). *See* Memorandum from Wendy J. Frankel, Director Office 8 to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Wooden Bedroom Furniture from The People's Republic of China: Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of WBE Industries (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd. WBE Rescission (“WBE Rescission Memo”)* . On June 6, 2006, we issued a letter to all interested parties requesting parties to provide comments on this issue by June 13, 2006, and rebuttal comments by June 16, 2006. Due to the unexpected emergency closure of the main Commerce building on Monday, June 26, 2006, the Department is issuing these preliminary results on June 27, 2006, the next business day. *See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended* , 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Period of Review The POR is June 24, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Scope of the Order The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished. The subject merchandise includes the following items:
(1)wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds;
(2)wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds;
(3)night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets;
(4)dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser;
(5)chests-on-chests 2 , highboys 3 , lowboys 4 , chests of drawers 5 , chests 6 , door chests 7 , chiffoniers 8 , hutches 9 , and armoires 10 ;
(6)desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and
(7)other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list. 2 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy. 3 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height). 4 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more than four feet high, normally set on short legs. 5 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers for storing clothing. 6 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be designed as a large box incorporating a lid. 7 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics. 8 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached. 9 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides storage for clothes. 10 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment systems. The scope of the order excludes the following items:
(1)seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture;
(2)mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames;
(3)office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases;
(4)dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches;
(5)other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems;
(6)bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan;
(7)side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard;
(8)bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate 11 ;
(9)jewelry armories 12 ;
(10)cheval mirrors 13
(11)certain metal parts 14
(12)mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set. 11 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976. 12 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24'' in width, 18'' in depth, and 49'' in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side door lined with felt or felt-like material, with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. See Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, * Issues and Decision Memorandum Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , dated August 31, 2004. 13 Cheval mirrors, *i.e.* , any framed, tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50'' that is mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base. 14 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise specifically named in this scope ( *i.e.* , wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified in subheading 9403.90.7000, HTSUS. Imports of subject merchandise are classified under statistical category 9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as “wooden...beds” and under statistical category 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other...wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under statistical category 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood” and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under statistical category 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors...framed.” This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Rescission of Review On June 5, 2006, the Department preliminarily determined to rescind the new shipper review of WBE based on evidence that WBE exported subject merchandise during the period of investigation and, therefore, does not meet the requirements for initiation of a new shipper review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(a) and (b). *See WBE Rescission Memo* . We requested comments on our preliminary rescission. The Department did not receive any comments. Therefore, we are rescinding the new shipper review of WBE based on evidence that WBE exported subject merchandise during the period of investigation and, therefore, does not meet the requirements for initiation of a new shipper review pursuant to our regulations. New Shipper Status Consistent with our practice, we investigated whether the sales made by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi for these new shipper reviews were *bona fide* . *See, e.g., Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Honey from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 59031 (October 11, 2005). For Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi, we found no evidence that the sale(s) in question are not bona fide sale(s). In our examination of Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi's sales, we found the sales prices to be within the range of POR sales prices, and that these entities received timely payment for their POR sales. Based on our investigation into the bona fide nature of the sales, the questionnaire responses submitted by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi, and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi have met the requirements to qualify as new shippers during the POR. See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, *Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (“Kunyu”), Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. (“Landmark”), and Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. (“Meikangchi”)* , dated June 26, 2006. In addition, we have preliminarily determined that based on the information submitted, Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi each made their first sale and/or shipment of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, none exported subject merchandise during the period of investigation, and none was affiliated with any exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results of review, we are treating the respective sales of wooden bedroom furniture to the United States as appropriate transactions to be examined in the context of these new shipper reviews. *See* Section 751 (a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(a); *See also “Separate Rates”* ; section below. Verification of Responses As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification reports identified, the public versions of which are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room B-099 of the main Department building. See *Verification of Sales and Factors of Production Reported by Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (“Kunyu”) in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , dated June 26, 2006 ( *“Kunyu Verification Report”); Verification of Sales and Factors of Production Reported by Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. (“Landmark”) in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , dated June 26, 2006; *Verification of Sales and Factors of Production Reported by Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. (“Meikangchi”) in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , dated June 26, 2006 ( *“Meikangchi Verification Report”* ); and *Verification of the Constructed Export Sales Reported by Up Country in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , dated June 26, 2006 ( *“Up Country Verification Report”* ). Surrogate Value Information On December 7, 2005, Landmark submitted comments on the appropriate surrogate values (“SV”) to be applied to the factors of production (“FOP”) in this review. On April 11, 2006, Petitioners submitted Indian financial statements for determining financial ratios for this review. No other party to the proceeding provided comments on surrogate values or financial ratios during the course of this review. Non-market Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (“NV”) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are:
(1)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the SVs are discussed under the “ *Normal Value* ” section below and in the Memorandum to the File, *Factors Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Reviews* , dated June 26, 2006 (“Factor Valuation Memorandum”), which is on file in the CRU. The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See Memorandum to the File, New Shipper Reviews of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated October 14, 2005, which is on file in the CRU. On November 1, 2005, Meikangchi submitted comments regarding the selection of a surrogate country. Meikangchi argued that India is not an important producer of subject merchandise or comparable merchandise. Meikangchi asserted that India produces primarily furniture in the style indigenous to India. Meikangchi asserts that it is also an importer of wooden bedroom furniture through its U.S. affiliate, Up Country Inc., and, as an importer, it would not consider India as a source for the subject merchandise in this review. Meikangchi argued that India is known for textiles and metal work, and has not demonstrated the ability to manufacture the type of furniture under review. Meikangchi asserts that of the countries chosen by the Department as being at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, Indonesia is the most appropriate choice as a surrogate country. Meikangchi argues that, although it has no evidence to support its choice, in its experience as an importer, only Indonesia is known, in the furniture industry, to produce large amounts of wooden furniture. Therefore, Meikangchi stated that Indonesia is the best choice for a surrogate country. On November 2, 2005, Petitioners provided comments and information 15 regarding the selection of a surrogate country. Petitioners argue that India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Additionally, Petitioners state that the Department has consistently used India as the surrogate for the PRC. Further, Petitioners argue that the size of the Indian furniture industry, the types of materials used by the Indian furniture industry, and the number of producers in the Indian furniture industry all make India a significant producer of both identical and comparable merchandise. No other party to the proceeding submitted comments or information concerning the selection of a surrogate country. 15 *See* Petitioners' submission dated November 2, 2005, “Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from The Peoples's Republic of China/Comments on Selection of Surrogate Country.” On February 16, 2006, the Department issued its surrogate country memorandum in which we addressed both interested parties comments. *See* Memorandum to the File, *Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country* , dated February 16, 2006 (“ *Surrogate Country Memorandum* ”), which is on file in the CRU. Thus, the Department has evaluated all parties' concerns and comments and has determined that India is the appropriate surrogate country to use in these new shipper reviews. The Department based its decision on the following facts: 1) India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; 2) India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and, 3) India provides the best opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs. *See Surrogate Country Memorandum* . Therefore, we have selected India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the respondents' FOPs, when available and appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. *See (“Factor Valuation Memorandum”* ). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping new shipper review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The three respondents ( *i.e.* , Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi) have provided company-specific information and each has stated that it meets the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. We have considered whether each of the three companies referenced above is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the exporters are independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. 1. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. 2. Absence of De Facto Control Through previous cases, the Department has learned that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)whether the exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. Kunyu Kunyu placed on the record statements and documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control. In its questionnaire responses, Kunyu reported that it does not have any relationship with the central, provincial, or local governments. *See* Kunyu's October 18, 2005, Section A questionnaire response (“Kunyu AQR”). Kunyu submitted a copy of its business license and stated it is renewed annually and The Bureau of Industry and Commerce examines the license yearly. Kunyu reported that the subject merchandise did not appear on any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing, and the subject merchandise is not subject to export quotas. *See* Kunyu AQR. Kunyu explained that the license imposes no other limitations on Kunyu, nor grants any entitlements to the company by its license. Through the questionnaire responses, we examined each of the related laws and Kunyu's business license and preliminarily determine that they demonstrate the absence of *de jure* control over the export activities and evidence in favor of the absence of government control associated with Kunyu's business license. In support of an absence of *de facto* control, Kunyu reported the following:
(1)During the POR, Kunyu explained that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers. The prices are not subject to review by, or guidance from, any other entity, including any government organization;
(2)Kunyu explained that its sales transactions are not subject to the review or approval of any organization outside the company;
(3)Kunyu is not required to notify any government authorities of its management selection; and
(4)Kunyu is free to spend its export revenues and its profit can be used for any lawful purpose. *See* Kunyu AQR. The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by Kunyu demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to Kunyu's exports of the merchandise under review. As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the Department is granting a separate, company-specific rate to Kunyu, the exporter which shipped the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Landmark Landmark placed on the record statements and documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control. In its questionnaire responses, Landmark reported that it does not have any relationship with the central, provincial, or local governments with respect to ownership, internal management, and daily business operations. *See* Landmark's October 13, 2005, Section A questionnaire response (“Landmark AQR”). Landmark submitted a copy of its business license. Landmark reported that the subject merchandise did not appear on any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing, and the subject merchandise is not subject to export quotas. *See* Landmark AQR. Landmark explained that the license imposes no other limitations on Landmark, nor grants any entitlements to the company by its license. Through the questionnaire responses, we examined the related laws and Landmark's business license and preliminarily determine that they demonstrate the absence of *de jure* control over the export activities and evidence in favor of the absence of government control associated with Landmark's business license. In support of an absence of *de facto* control, Landmark reported the following:
(1)During the POR, Landmark explained that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers;
(2)Landmark explained that its sales prices are not subject to the review or approval of any organization outside the company;
(3)Landmark is not required to notify any government authorities of its management selection; and
(4)Landmark is free to spend its export revenues and its profit can be used for any lawful purpose. *See* Landmark AQR. The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by Landmark demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to Landmark's exports of the merchandise under review. As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the Department is granting a separate, company-specific rate to Landmark, the exporter which shipped the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Meikangchi Meikangchi placed on the record statements and documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control. In its questionnaire responses, Meikangchi reported that it does not have any relationship with the central, provincial, or local governments. *See* Meikangchi's October 12, 2005, Section A questionnaire response (“Meikangchi AQR”). Meikangchi submitted a copy of its business license and stated it is renewed annually and the Industrial and Commerical Administration Bureau of Nantong, Jiangsu Province examines the license yearly. Meikangchi reported that the subject merchandise did not appear on any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing, and the subject merchandise is not subject to export quotas. *See* Meikancghi AQR. Meikancghi explained that the license imposes no other limitations on Meikancghi, nor grants any entitlements to the company by its license. Through the questionnaire responses, we examined each of the related laws and Meikancghi's business license and preliminarily determine that they demonstrate the absence of *de jure* control over the export activities and evidence in favor of the absence of government control associated with Meikangchi's business license. In support of an absence of *de facto* control, Meikangchi reported the following:
(1)During the POR, Meikangchi explained that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States through its U.S. affiliated company, Up Country, Inc. The prices are not subject to review by, or guidance from, any other entity, including any government organization;
(2)Meikangchi explained that it set its sales prices and they are not subject to the review or approval of any organization outside the company;
(3)Meikangchi is not required to notify any government authorities of its management selection; and
(4)Meikangchi is free to spend its export revenues and its profit can be used for any lawful purpose. *See* Meikangchi AQR. The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by Meikangchi demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to Meikangchi's exports of the merchandise under review. As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the Department is granting a separate, company-specific rate to Meikangchi, the exporter which shipped the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Facts Available Section 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” where necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested,
(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or
(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall so inform the party submitting the response and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. We have determined that the use of facts available is warranted for Kunyu's consumption rates for certain FOPs in the determination of NV. During Kunyu's FOP verification, we determined that Kunyu was unable to wholly reproduce its total consumption of certain inputs that it had provided in its questionnaire responses. *See Kunyu Verification Report* . However, most consumption rates obtained at verification were close to the consumption rates Kunyu reported in its responses, with certain differences appearing to be due to rounding errors. Also, due to Kunyu's small size and rudimentary factory operations, the company explained that it does not maintain product-specific records reflecting gross consumption, nor does it maintain inventory withdrawal documentation or production records that allow for per-unit or product-specific allocation of gross consumption. Additionally, based on Kunyu's responsiveness and cooperation at verification, and relying on the Department's experience in examining other furniture companies, it is evident that Kunyu has not benefitted from its reported consumption rates. Further, in its responses and at verification, the Department observes that Kunyu has made every effort to act to the best of its ability and to provide the Department with the requested information. Kunyu is a *pro se* respondent previously unfamiliar with our proceedings. We note, however, that in future reviews of this proceeding, all respondents, including Kunyu, must comply with all requests for information by the Department, and therefore, should maintain the appropriate books and records to comply with these requests and should provide the requisite supporting documentation. If respondents are unable to comply with such requests in the future, the Department may resort to the use of adverse facts available if appropriate. For the above reasons and pursuant to section 776(a)(1)(D) of the Act, we have resorted to the facts otherwise available to determine the consumption rates for certain inputs. The Department finds that Kunyu acted to the best of its ability in complying with the Department's numerous requests for information. Thus, we find an adverse inference is not warranted for the consumption rates for the above inputs pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. The Department is applying facts available for birchwood, plywood, woodscrews, dowels, glue, finishes, drawerslides, sandpaper, boxes, package paper, and tape. As facts available, we are using the reported information obtained at verification for each of the above inputs. *See* Memorandum to the file from Michael Holton, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, *Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Review: Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (“Kunyu”)* , dated June 26, 2006, ( *“Kunyu Prelim Analysis Memorandum”* ). Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business, as the date of sale of the subject merchandise. However, the Department may use a date other than the date of invoice if it is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. 19 CFR 351.401(i); *see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001). After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi. We made this determination based on record evidence which demonstrates that Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi's invoices establish the material terms of sale to the extent required by our regulations. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of wooden bedroom furniture to the United States by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi were made at less than NV, we compared export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) to NV, as described in the “ *Export Price* ,” “ *Constructed Export Price* ” and “ *Normal Value* ” sections of this notice. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Kunyu and Landmark's U.S. sales because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and because CEP was not otherwise indicated. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is 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 accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for Meikangchi's sales because it sold subject merchandise to its affiliated company in the United States, which in turn sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We compared NV to individual EP and CEP transactions, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Kunyu For Kunyu's EP sales, we based the EP on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses. Movement expenses include expenses for foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight and marine insurance. *See* the proprietary discussion of this issue in the *Kunyu Prelim Analysis Memorandum* . Landmark For Landmark's EP sales, we based the EP on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses. Movement expenses include expenses for foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, and domestic brokerage and handling. *See* the proprietary discussion of this issue in the Memorandum from Eugene Degnan, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, to the File, *Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Review: Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. (“Landmark”)* , dated June 26, 2006. Meikangchi For Meikangchi's CEP sales, we based the CEP on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses. Movement expenses include expenses for foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. duty, and inland freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department additionally deducted credit expenses, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial activity in the United States. Finally, we determined and deducted CEP profit in accordance with sections 772(f) and 772(d)(3) of the Act. *See* the proprietary discussion of these issues in the Memorandum from Michael Holton, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, to the File, *Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Review: Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd.* (“Meikangchi”), dated June 26, 2006 (“ *Meikangchi Prelim Analysis Memorandum* ”). At verification, we found that Up Country (Meikangchi's U.S. affiliate) incorrectly calculated its indirect selling expenses by limiting its numerator of selling expenses to only a few expenses and by applying an incorrect denominator. *See Up Country Verification Report* . Thus, for the preliminary results, we have recalculated indirect selling expenses based on information from Up Country's verification. *See Meikangchi Prelim Analysis Memorandum* . As all foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses (where applicable) were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using Indian SVs ( *see “Factor Valuations”* section below for further discussion). *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* . Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a FOP methodology if:
(1)the merchandise is exported from an NME country; and
(2)the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOP, because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 772(c)(3) of the Act, FOP include but are not limited to:
(1)hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs. We used FOP reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor and packing. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); *see also Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United States* , 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, when the Department has reason to believe or suspect that such prices may be distorted by subsidies, the Department will disregard the NME purchase prices and use SVs to determine the NV. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part* , 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (“ *TRBs 1998-1999* ”), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1. It is the Department's consistent practice that, where the facts developed in the United States or third-country countervailing duty findings include the existence of subsidies that appear to be used generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies), it is reasonable for the Department to consider that it has particular and objective evidence to support a reason to believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from the country granting the subsidies may be subsidized. *See TRBs 1998-1999* and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part* , 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1; *see also China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (CIT 2003). With regard to the Indian import-based SVs, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See TRBs 1998-1999* and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 1. In avoiding the use of prices that may be subsidized the Department does not conducte a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See* also H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 590 (1988), *reprinted in* 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24. Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that is available to it at the time of its determination. *Id* . Accordingly, we have not used prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating the Indian import-based SVs. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate ( *i.e.* , where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). *See Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all SVs used to value the respondent's reported FOPs, see *Factor Valuation Memorandum* . The respondent's reported that all of their inputs to production were sourced from suppliers in NME countries and paid for in NME currency. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* for a listing of these inputs. Therefore, we did not use respondents' actual prices for any raw materials purchases. In accordance with past practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics as published by the *World Trade Atlas* , or from the *2003/2004 Tata Energy Research Institute's Energy Data Directory & Yearbook* in order to calculate surrogate values for Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 67412, 67420 (November 7, 2005); *see also Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 67434, 67439 (November 7, 2005). In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum; see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 71 FR 2517, 2522 (January 17, 2006) (“ *TRBs 2003-2004* ”). The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the following raw material inputs and packing materials that the respondents used to produce the subject merchandise during the POR, such as: birchwood, plywood, woodscrews, dowels, glue, finishes, drawerslide, sandpaper, and packaging materials. For a complete list of all the raw material inputs the Department valued using the Indian Import Statistics, see the *Factor Valuation Memorandum* . For direct labor, indirect labor and and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's website, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from 1996 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* . The Department valued water using data from the Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) as it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 rates for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 rates for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. *See TRBs 2003-2004* , 71 FR at 2522. To value electricity and diesel, we used data from the International Energy Agency *Key World Energy Statistics* (2003 edition). Because the values for water, electricity and diesel were not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the values for inflation. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* . The Department used two sources to calculate a SV for domestic brokerage expenses. The Department averaged December 2003-November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the antidumping administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India with February 2004-January 2005 data contained in Agro Dutch's May 24, 2005, public version response submitted in the antidumping investigation of certain preserved mushrooms from India. The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions is ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from the source. Then, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* at page 7. We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck and rail freight to be from www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. *See Factor Valuation Memorandum* . To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit, we used the 2004-2005 financial statements of Indian Furniture Products, Ltd. (“IFP”), and the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, from the following producers: IFP, Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Nizamuddin Furnitures Pvt. Ltd., Fusion Design Private Ltd., Jayaraja Furniture Group, Akriti Perfections India Pvt. Ltd., Swaran Furnitures Ltd., Evergreen International Limited, and D'nD's Fine Furniture Pvt. Ltd., all of which are Indian producers of comparable merchandise. From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (“ML&E”) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( *i.e.* , cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. For further discussion, see *Factor Valuation Memorandum* . Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 24, 2004, through June 30, 2005: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the PRC Producer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Kunyu 222.04 Landmark 0.00 Meikangchi 1.25 Disclosure The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department will issue the final results of these new shipper reviews, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), unless the time limit is extended. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of these new shipper reviews. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer-or customer specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to these reviews. For these preliminary results we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered quantity of those reviewed sales for each applicable importer. In these reviews, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on each importer's/customer's entries during the POR. Cash Deposit Requirements Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC exported by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of these new shipper reviews. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these new shipper reviews for shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of these reviews;
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 198.08 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These new shipper reviews and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(h). Dated: June 27, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-10488 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-815] Revocation of the Countervailing Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated its sunset reviews of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the International Trade Commission (“the ITC”), in its sunset reviews, determined that revocation of the CVD orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* , 71 FR 36359 (June 26, 2006). Therefore, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(iii), the Department is revoking the CVD orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Brandon Farlander, 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)482-1174 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Orders The products covered by these orders are shipments of pure and alloy magnesium from Canada. Pure magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight with magnesium being the largest metallic element in the alloy by weight, and are sold in various ingot and billet forms and sizes. The pure and alloy magnesium subject to the orders is currently classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the merchandise subject to the orders are dispositive. Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are summarized in *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada* , 57 FR 6094 (February 20, 1992). Background On August 31, 1992, the Department issued the CVD orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada. *See Countervailing Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* , 57 FR 39392 (August 31, 1992). On July 1, 2005, the Department initiated, and the ITC instituted, the second sunset reviews of the CVD orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium Canada. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005). As a result of its CVD sunset reviews, the Department found that revocation of the CVD orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, and notified the ITC of the level of subsidy likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Countervailing Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* , 70 FR 67140 (November 4, 2005). On June 26, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the CVD orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* , 71 FR 36359 (June 26, 2006) and USITC Publication 3859 (June 2006), entitled *Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-309-A- B). Determination As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of these CVD orders is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, is revoking the CVD orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada. Pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is August 16, 2005 ( *i.e.* , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the notice of continuation of these CVD orders). The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after August 16, 2005, the effective date of revocation of the CVD orders. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. These five-year sunset reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 29, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-10567 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of closed meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will meet Thursday, July 27, 2006. The Judges Panel is composed of ten members prominent in the field of quality management and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting is to review the stage 1 process, Judges' individual review of the stage 1 scoring data, consideration for moving applicants forward, discussion of stage 1 data and selection of applicants for consensus, questions and answers on stage 2 and stage 3 process documentation, and summary of Improvements Day . The applications under review contain trade secrets and proprietary commercial information submitted to the Government in confidence. DATES: The meeting will convene July 27, 2006 at 8:15 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m. on July 27, 2006. The entire meeting will be closed. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Lecture Room B, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number
(301)975-2361. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on December 27, 2005, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409. The meeting, which involves examination of Award applicant data from U.S. companies and a discussion of this data as compared to the Award criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, may be closed to the public in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, because the meetings are likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential. Dated: June 28, 2006. Hratch G. Semerjian, Deputy Director. 3 [FR Doc. E6-10495 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Subsistence Fishery for Pacific Halibut in Waters Off Alaska: Registration and Marking of Gear AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7008 or *patsy.bearden@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This submission seeks renewal of collection-of-information requirements that are part of the program for the Pacific halibut subsistence fishery. The program includes requirements for registration to participate in the fishery, and the marking of certain types of gear used in this fishery. The registration requirement is intended to allow qualified persons to practice the long-term, customary, and traditional harvest of Pacific halibut for food in a non-commercial manner. The gear-marking requirement aids in enforcement and in actions related to gear damage or loss. The registration information may be submitted by an individual or as a list of multiple individuals from an Alaska Native tribe. II. Method of Collection Applications may be submitted on-line or as email attachments; paper forms may be sent by mail or FAX. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0460. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions; state, local, and tribal government; and individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 13,350. *Estimated Time per Response:* 10 minutes, Subsistence halibut registration; 15 minutes Subsistence halibut gear marking. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,739. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $25,000. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 28, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-10498 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Northeast Region Observer Providers Requirements AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Peter Christopher, 978-281-9288 or *peter.christopher@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)Northeast Region manages the Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) fishery of the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)off the East Coast under the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (Scallop FMP). The regulations implementing the Scallop FMPs are at 50 CFR part 648. On June 16, 2006, NMFS implemented an emergency action that re-activated the industry-funded observer program in the Scallop FMP, wherein scallop vessels are required to procure observer coverage from an approved observer service provider. The observer service providers are required to submit an application to NMFS for approval, and once approved, are required to submit various information to support the observer program. Scallop vessel owners or operators are required to contact approved observer service providers in order to procure an observer for trips on which an observer is required. NMFS requests information from candidate scallop fishery observer service providers to evaluate applications for approval. NMFS also requests information from approved scallop fishery observer service providers to monitor activity for compliance with observer service provider requirements and to evaluate observer data; and information from participating scallop fishery participants to assign observers to selected vessels. II. Method of Collection Paper applications and telephone calls are required from participants. Facsimile transmission of paper forms, mail, and express mail are the methods of information submittal. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0546. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions, and business or other for-profits organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 805. *Estimated Time per Response:* Application for approval of observer service provider, 10 hours; applicant response to denial of application for approval of observer service provider, 10 hours; observer service provider request for observer training, 30 minutes; observer deployment report, 10 minutes; observer availability report, 10 minutes; safety refusal report, 30 minutes; submission of raw observer data, 5 minutes; observer debriefing, 2 hours; biological samples, 5 minutes; rebuttal of pending removal from list of approved observer service providers, 8 hours; vessel request to observer service provider for procurement of a certified observer, 25 minutes; vessel request for waiver of observer coverage requirement, 5 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 611. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $6,000. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 29, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-10501 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southwest Region Permit Family of Forms AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patricia A. Culver, 562-980-4239 or *Trisher.Culver@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Permits are required for persons to participate in Federally-managed fisheries off the West Coast. There are two types of permits, for coastal pelagic and highly migratory fisheries. Appeals and certain waiver requests can also be submitted. Transfer applications may also be required. Permits for the Western Pacific fisheries have been included in this information collection, but will now be covered under 0648-0490, Pacific Islands Permit Family of Forms. The permit application forms provide basic information about permit holders and the vessels and gear being used. This information is important for understanding the nature of the fisheries and provides a link to participants. It also aids in enforcement of regulations. II. Method of Collection Forms are available on the Internet; paper applications are also available and may be submitted by mail or FAX. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0204. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,407. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Permit applications and transfers, 30 minutes; additional information (when requested) for the coastal pelagic fishery, 1 hour; appeals, 2 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 333. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $575. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 29, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-10502 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 061606A] Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announces the availability for public review of the draft updated Recovery Plan
(Plan)for the fin whale ( *Balaenoptera physalus* ). NMFS is soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested parties on the Plan, and will consider all substantive comments received during the review period before submitting the Plan for final approval. DATES: Comments on the draft Plan must be received by close of business on September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Protected Resources Division, NMFS. Comments may be submitted by:
(1)E-mail: *finwhale.recoveryplan@noaa.gov* , include in the subject line the following document identifier: Fin Whale Recovery Plan. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes;
(2)Chief, Endangered Species Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910;
(3)Fax:
(301)427 2523. Interested persons may obtain the Plan for review from the above address or on-line from *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica DeAngelis, (562-980-3232), e-mail *Monica.DeAngelis@noaa.gov* ; or Shannon Bettridge, (301-713-2322 ext. 141), e-mail *Shannon.Bettridge@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (15 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires that NMFS develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species under its jurisdiction, unless it is determined that such plans would not promote the conservation of the species. Accordingly, NMFS provided a contract for preparation of a draft Recovery Plan for fin and sei ( *Balaenoptera borealis* ) whales that was released for public comment and review in 1998 (63 FR 41802). The draft Recovery Plan for the fin and sei whale was never finalized. NMFS has since determined that the recovery plans for the fin and sei whales should be separated. This Plan updates the 1998 Recovery Plan's information for the fin whale and discusses the natural history, current status, and the known and potential human impacts to fin whales. Actions needed to promote the recovery of this species are identified and discussed. The Plan will be used to direct U.S. activities, and to encourage international cooperation to promote the recovery of this endangered species. NMFS' goal is to restore endangered fin whale populations to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems, and no longer need the protections of the ESA. NMFS will consider all substantive comments and information presented during the public comment period in the course of finalizing this Plan. Dated: June 29, 2006. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-10558 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 061606B] Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announces the availability for public review of the draft Recovery Plan
(Plan)for the sperm whale ( *Physeter macrocephalus* ). NMFS is soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested parties on the Plan, and will consider all substantive comments received during the review period before submitting the Plan for final approval. DATES: Comments on the draft Plan must be received by close of business on September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. Comments may be submitted by:
(1)E-mail: *spermwhale.recoveryplan@noaa.gov* , include in the subject line the following document identifier: Sperm Whale Recovery Plan. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes;
(2)Mail to: Chief, Endangered Species Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910;
(3)Fax:
(301)427 2523. Interested persons may obtain the Plan for review from the above address or on-line from *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica DeAngelis, (562-980-3232), e-mail *Monica.DeAngelis@noaa.gov* ; or Shannon Bettridge, (301-713-2322 ext. 141), e-mail *Shannon.Bettridge@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (15 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires that NMFS develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species under its jurisdiction, unless it is determined that such plans would not promote the conservation of the species. This Plan discusses the natural history, current status, and the known and potential human impacts to sperm whales. Actions needed to promote the recovery of this species are identified and discussed. The Plan will be used to direct U.S. activities, and to encourage international cooperation to promote the recovery of this endangered species. NMFS' goal is to restore endangered sperm whale populations to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems, and no longer need the protections of the ESA. NMFS will consider all substantive comments and information presented during the public comment period in the course of finalizing this Plan. Dated: June 29, 2006. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-10559 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D.062706C] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Receipt of an application to renew and to modify a scientific research permit; request for comments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received an application to renew and modify a permit for scientific research from the National Park Service
(NPS)in Point Reyes Station, CA (1046). The permit would affect federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon, threatened California Coastal Chinook salmon, and threatened Central California Coast steelhead. This document serves to notify the public of the availability of the permit application for review and comment. DATES: Written comments on the permit application must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments submitted by e-mail must be sent to the following address: *FRNpermits.SR@noaa.gov* . The application and related documents are available for review by appointment, for Permit 1046 Modification 2: Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 315, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (ph: 707-575-6097, fax: 707-578-3435). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Jahn at phone number 707-575-6097, or e-mail: *Jeffrey.Jahn@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications:
(1)are applied for in good faith;
(2)would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226). Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS. Species Covered in This Notice This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ), threatened California Coastal Chinook salmon ( *O. tshawytscha* ), and threatened Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ). Renewal and Modification Request Received NPS requests to renew and modify a 5-year permit
(1046)for take of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, and Central California Coast steelhead to monitor out-migrating salmonid smolts in Olema Creek, Pine Gulch, and Redwood Creek watersheds in Marin County, California. NPS requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 9,875 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, 750 juvenile California Coastal Chinook salmon, and 9,875 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 3 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by fyke-net trap or pipe trap), handling, and release of fish. NPS also requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 2,625 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, 250 juvenile California Coastal Chinook salmon, and 2,625 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 5 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by fyke-net trap or pipe trap), handling, passive integrated transponder
(PIT)tagging, fin-clipping, and release of fish. NPS requests take of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon and Central California Coast steelhead to conduct a juvenile salmonid diet composition study in Olema Creek, Pine Gulch, and Redwood Creek watersheds in Marin County, California. NPS requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 250 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon and 150 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 5 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by fyke-net trap, pipe trap, or electrofishing), handling, stomach sampling (a process during which a blunt hypodermic syringe is used to flush stomach contents out of the esophagus), and release of fish. NPS requests take of previously dead adult carcasses of Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, and Central California Coast steelhead to collect genetic information on spawning salmonids in the following watersheds: Olema Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Pine Gulch, Redwood Creek, and Easkoot Creek in Marin County, California; West Union Creek, Martini Creek, San Vicente Creek, and Denniston Creek in San Mateo County, California; and Alhambra Creek and Frankin Creek in Contra Costa County, California. NPS requests authorization to handle, tissue sample, and release an estimated 550 Central California Coast coho salmon adult carcasses, 150 California Coastal Chinook salmon adult carcasses, and 750 Central California Coast steelhead adult carcasses annually. NPS does not request any take of live adult salmonids for this study. NPS requests take of adult Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, and Central California Coast steelhead to conduct adult spawner population monitoring, population abundance, fish migration, and population genetics studies in Olema Creek, Pine Gulch, and Redwood Creek in Marin County, California. NPS requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 500 adult Central California Coast coho salmon, 200 adult California Coastal Chinook salmon, and 500 adult Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 3 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by weir-trap), handling, tagging (with an external anchor tag), and release of fish. NPS requests take of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, and Central California Coast steelhead to conduct summer fish population monitoring in the following watersheds: Olema Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Pine Gulch, Redwood Creek, and Easkoot Creek in Marin County, California; West Union Creek, Martini Creek, San Vicente Creek, and Denniston Creek in San Mateo County, California; and Alhambra Creek and Frankin Creek in Contra Costa County, California. NPS requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 9,500 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, 50 juvenile California Coastal Chinook salmon, and 11,500 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 3 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by seine or electrofishing), handling, fin-clipping, scale-sampling, and release of fish. NPS requests take of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, California Coastal Chinook salmon, and Central California Coast steelhead to conduct fish rescue and relocation efforts of stranded salmonids in dry streams in the following watersheds: Olema Creek, Lagunitas Creek, Pine Gulch, Redwood Creek, and Easkoot Creek in Marin County, California; West Union Creek, Martini Creek, San Vicente Creek, and Denniston Creek in San Mateo County, California; and Alhambra Creek and Frankin Creek in Contra Costa County, California. NPS requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 5,000 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, 50 juvenile California Coastal Chinook salmon, and 5,200 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead with no more than 5 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by seine or electrofishing), handling, transport, and release of fish. NPS requests take of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon and Central California Coast steelhead to conduct juvenile salmonid winter movement and habitat utilization studies in Olema Creek, Pine Gulch, and Redwood Creek watersheds in Marin County, California. NPS requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 3,000 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon and 3,000 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 3 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by seine or electrofishing), handling, and release of fish. NPS also requests authorization for an estimated annual non-lethal take of 2,000 juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon and 2,000 juvenile Central California Coast steelhead, with no more than 5 percent unintentional mortality to result from capture (by seine or electrofishing), handling, PIT tagging, fin-clipping, and release of fish. Dated: June 29, 2006. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-10557 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of amendment of Privacy Act system of records. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is amending the system of records currently listed under “COMMERCE/PAT-TM-10 Patent Deposit Accounts System.” This action is being taken to update the Privacy Act notice and to include user profiles for electronic funds transfers (EFT). The system of records will also be renamed “COMMERCE/PAT-TM-10 Deposit Accounts and Electronic Funds Transfer Profiles.” We invite the public to comment on the amendments noted in this publication. DATES: Written comments must be received no later than August 7, 2006. The amendments will become effective as proposed on August 7, 2006, unless the USPTO receives comments that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Tamara.McClure@uspto.gov.* • Fax:
(571)273-6500, marked to the attention of Tamara McClure. • Mail: Tamara McClure, Office of Finance, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. All comments received will be available for public inspection at the USPTO Public Search Facility, Madison East Building—1st Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Finance, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450,
(571)272-6400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is giving notice of an amendment to a system of records that is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. This system of records maintains information on deposit accounts that may be used by customers to pay fees for processing and services related to patents, trademarks, and information products. The USPTO is revising this system of records to include user profiles for electronic funds transfers (EFT), which provide customers with another method for paying patent and trademark fees. The Privacy Act notice is also being updated with current address information for the system location and system manager. The categories of individuals covered by the system, categories of records in the system, routine uses of records maintained in the system, and other system descriptions are being updated to include information regarding EFT user profiles and to reflect current practice. The authority for maintenance of the system and rule references for the notification procedure and contesting record procedures are being updated to correspond to the current statutes and rules for those items as related to the USPTO. Due to the addition of information concerning EFT user profiles, the name of the system of records in this Privacy Act notice is being changed to “COMMERCE/PAT-TM-10 Deposit Accounts and Electronic Funds Transfer Profiles.” The amended system of records notice is published in its entirety below. COMMERCE/PAT-TM-10 System name: Deposit Accounts and Electronic Funds Transfer Profiles. Security classification: Unclassified. System location: Office of Finance, Receipts Accounting Division, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314; Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Madison West Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Registered patent attorneys and agents and other members of the public who maintain deposit accounts or make electronic funds transfer
(EFT)payments to pay the cost of products and services rendered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Categories of records in the system: For deposit accounts: Name, address, telephone number, fax number, contact e-mail address, taxpayer ID number, Agency Location Code (ALC), deposit account number, type of account, authorized users list, access code, and financial transactions with the USPTO. For EFT: Bank account holder's name, address, bank name, bank routing number, bank account number and type of account, contact phone number, and contact e-mail address. Authority for maintenance of the system: 35 U.S.C. 2 and 41 and 15 U.S.C. 1113. Purpose(s): The USPTO collects customer financial information for fee processing. Under 35 U.S.C. 41 and 15 U.S.C. 1113, as implemented in 37 CFR 1.16-1.28, 2.6-2.7, and 2.206-2.209, the USPTO charges fees for processing and other services related to patents, trademarks, and information products. This system of records contains the information necessary to allow customers to establish deposit accounts at the USPTO, maintain existing accounts, or charge the appropriate fee amount to the appropriate deposit account. This system of records also allows customers to establish and maintain a user profile in order to make fee payments from their bank accounts by EFT. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: See Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses Nos. 1-5, 9-10 and 13, as found at 46 FR 63501-63502 (December 31, 1981). The financial information is used to establish and maintain deposit accounts and EFT user profiles for USPTO customers and to validate and process fee sales. Account information may also be disclosed to financial institutions for verification and processing of transactions. For EFT payments, the contact phone number and e-mail address are used in order to communicate with the customer in case there are any problems with the EFT information or the EFT fee sale. After a sale is completed, the information is stored as a historical transaction along with the identifying mark of the sale item. This historical information is used to verify that a customer has paid the appropriate fees for their goods or services. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: Not applicable. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Microfilm and magnetic storage media. Retrievability: Deposit account records may be retrieved by: Deposit account number, holder name, and access code. EFT records may be retrieved by: Bank routing number and bank account number. The files are searchable in a database available only to authorized staff. Safeguards: Buildings employ security guards. Records are maintained in areas accessible only to authorized personnel who are properly screened, cleared, and trained. Where information is retrievable by terminal, all appropriate system safeguards (hardware and software) are utilized. Financial information is collected using appropriate encryption technology and records are stored on a secure server. Access to electronic records is limited to key personnel and is restricted to the specific functions required by their duties. System operators and administrators are trained to keep financial information secure. Retention and disposal: Records retention and disposal is in accordance with the series record schedules. System manager(s) and address: Director, Office of Finance, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22314. Notification procedure: Information may be obtained from the Privacy Officer, Office of General Law, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Requesters should provide name, account information, and record sought, pursuant to the inquiry provisions appearing in 37 CFR Part 102 Subpart B. Record access procedures: Requests from individuals should be addressed to the same address as stated in the notification section above. Contesting record procedures: The rules for access, contesting contents, and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 37 CFR Part 102 Subpart B. Requests from individuals should be addressed to the same address as stated in the notification section above. Record source categories: Subject individuals and those authorized by the individual to furnish information. Exemptions claimed for the system: None. Dated: June 29, 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. E6-10526 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2006-0034] Size Standard for Purposes of United States Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Patent-Related Regulations AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses the Small Business Administration
(SBA)size standard for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees as its size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. The Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (SBA-Advocacy) has questioned whether this is the appropriate size standard for conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the USPTO is providing this opportunity for public comment on the establishment of the SBA's definition of “small business concern” for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees as the definition of “small business concern” for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes for patent-related regulations. *Comment Deadline Date:* To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before August 7, 2006. No public hearing will be held. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to *rfa-patents.comments@uspto.gov* . Comments may also be submitted by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450, or by facsimile to
(571)273-7735, marked to the attention of Christina T. Donnell. Although comments may be submitted by mail or facsimile, the Office prefers to receive comments via the Internet. Comments may also be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site ( *http://www.regulations.gov* ) for additional instructions on providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The comments will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and will be available via the Office Internet Web site (address: *http://www.uspto.gov* ). Because comments will be made available for public inspection, information that is not desired to be made public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in the comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina T. Donnell, Senior Petition Attorney, Office of Petitions, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at
(571)272-3211, by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450, or by facsimile to
(571)273-7735, marked to the attention of Christina T. Donnell. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The patent statute provides that “fees charged under [35 U.S.C. 41](a),
(b)and (d)(1) shall be reduced by 50 percent with respect to their application to any small business concern as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act, and to any independent inventor or nonprofit organization as defined in regulations issued by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. 41(h)(1). The SBA defines a small business concern for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees as one: “(a) Whose number of employees, including affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons; and
(b)Which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a non-profit organization or a small business concern under this section.” 13 CFR 121.802. The USPTO uses the SBA size standard for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees in 13 CFR 121.802 as the size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. *See e.g., Changes To Support Implementation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 21st Century Strategic Plan* , 69 FR 56481, 56530 (Sept 21, 2004) (discussion indicating that small entities for purposes of Regulatory Flexibility Act are considered a subset of the small entities for purposes of paying reduced patent fees). The SBA-Advocacy, however, has questioned whether the USPTO's size standard is under-inclusive because it excludes “any business concern that has assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a non-profit organization or a small business concern under [13 CFR 121.802].” 13 CFR 121.802(b). The size standard set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 is the size standard “for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees” and thus appears to be limited to payment of patent fees. *See* 13 CFR 121.801. The SBA small business size standards are set forth in 13 CFR 121.201. The USPTO uses the SBA size standard for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees as its size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the USPTO has no business need (other than to conduct an analysis or make a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act) to collect information from patentees and patent applicants concerning whether they are a small business concern using the size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.201, and thus, the USPTO does not collect this information. The USPTO is proposing to use the size standard set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 as its size standard when conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act to avoid the need to collect information from patentees and patent applicants concerning whether they are a small business concern using the size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.201. The Regulatory Flexibility Act permits an agency head to establish, for purposes of Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis and certification, one or more definitions of “small business concern” that are appropriate to the activities of the agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment. *See* 5 U.S.C. 601(3) and 13 CFR 121.903(c). Therefore, the USPTO is publishing for comment a definition of small business concern for purposes of the USPTO conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations. Specifically, the USPTO's definition of small business concern for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes is a business or other concern that:
(1)Meets the SBA's definition of a “business concern or concern” set forth in 13 CFR 121.105; and
(2)meets the size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees, namely an entity:
(a)Whose number of employees, including affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons; and
(b)which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a non-profit organization or a small business concern under this definition. Dated: June 28, 2006. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E6-10564 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board; Meetings AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Technology Vectors will meet in closed session on *July 11 and 12, 2006:* at Strategic Analysis, Inc. (SAI), 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA. This meeting will continue to map the study's direction and begin discussion on what will be the Technology Vectors DoD will need for the 21st century. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: review previous attempts by DoD to identify critical technologies in order to derive lessons that would help illuminate the current challenge; identify the National Security objectives for the 21st century and the operational missions that U.S. military will be called upoon to support these objectives; identify new operational capabilities needed for the proposed missions; identify the critical science technology, and other related enablers of the desired capabilities; assess current S&T investment plans' relevance to the needed operational capabilities and enablers and recommend needed changes to the plans; identify mechanisms to accelerate and assure the transition of technology into U.S. military capabilities; and review and recommend changes as needed, the current processes by which national security objectives and needed operational capabilities are used to develop and prioritize science, technology, and other related enablers, and how those enablers are then developed. In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at *clifton.phillips@osd.mil,* or via phone at
(703)571-0083. Due to scheduling and work burden difficulties, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and § 102-3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting. C.R. Choate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-6009 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45am]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
CFR
11 references not yet in our index
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
  • 43 F.3d 1442
  • Pub. L. 94-409
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 16 USC 1531-1543
  • 37 CFR 1.16-1
  • 37 CFR 102
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 41 CFR 102
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of closed meeting
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.218
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.401
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
F. Supp.293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
Cites 34 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.