Notices. Notice of vessel monitoring systems reimbursement program

6,755 words·~31 min read·/register/2006/07/21/06-6402

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-533-808 Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 7, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade

(CIT)affirmed the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) redetermination on remand of the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on stainless steel wire rods from India. See *Carpenter Technology, Corp. v. United States and Viraj Group* , Slip Op. 06-102 (CIT July 7, 2006). The Department is now issuing this notice of court decision not in harmony. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Holman or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3683 or

(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 29, 2002, the Department published the final results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rods from India for the period December 1, 1999, through November 30, 2000. See *Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administration Review* , 67 FR 37391 (May 29, 2002) ( *Final Results* ). In the underlying administrative review the Department collapsed Viraj Forgings Limited (VFL), Viraj Impoexpo Limited (VIL), and Viraj Alloys Limited (VAL). See *Final Results* and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and *Collapsing Memorandum of the Viraj Group, Limited* , dated December 31, 2001 ( *Collapsing Memo* ). Carpenter Technology Corporation (the Petitioner) contested the collapsing of these companies. On August 16, 2004, the CIT issued a decision remanding one aspect of the *Final Results* , the collapsing of three of the Viraj companies. The CIT ordered the Department, “in the absence of any agency showing herein that dispels this logic based upon substantial evidence on the record,” to calculate and impose individual antidumping-duty margins upon VFL and VIL in the manner of the approach taken by the agency, and affirmed by the CIT, in *Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States* , 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (CIT 2001). On February 22, 2005, the Department filed the final results of its remand redetermination with the CIT. Due to the fact that only VFL and VIL made sales to the United States during the period of review, we did not include VAL's sales or cost data in our revised margin analyses for VFL and VIL. On July 7, 2006, the CIT affirmed the Department's final results of redetermination pursuant to remand. The changes to our calculations with respect to VFL and VIL resulted in a weighted-average margin of 1.29 percent for VFL and a weighted-average margin of 3.77 percent for VIL for the period of review. Accordingly, absent an appeal, or, if appealed, upon a “conclusive” decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(CAFC)which is consistent with the CIT's decision, we will amend our final results of these reviews to reflect the recalculation of margins for VFL and VIL. Suspension of Liquidation The CAFC has held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the CAFC which is not in harmony with the Department's determination. See *Timken Company v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (CAFC 1990). Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The CAFC also held that, in such a case, the Department must suspend liquidation until there is a “conclusive” decision in the action. *Id* . Therefore, the Department must suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's July 7, 2006, decision affirming the Department's remand results or pending a final decision of the CAFC if that decision is appealed. The Department will not order the lifting of the suspension of liquidation on entries of stainless steel wire rods during the review period before a court decision in this lawsuit becomes final and conclusive. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 17, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11626 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-854] Certain Tin Mill Products from Japan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission

(ITC)that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain tin mill products from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department is publishing notice of the continuation of this antidumping duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey, Office 7, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-0193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 1, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on tin mill products from Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 38101 (July 1, 2005). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. *See Certain Tin Mill Products from Japan; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 70 FR 67448 (November 7, 2005). On June 13, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on tin mill products from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan* , 71 FR 37944 (July 3, 2006), and ITC Publication 3860 (June 2006), entitled Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan: Investigation No. 731-TA-860 (Review). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes tin mill flat-rolled products that are coated or plated with tin, chromium or chromium oxides. Flat-rolled steel products coated with tin are known as tin plate. Flat-rolled steel products coated with chromium or chromium oxides are known as tin-free steel or electrolytic chromium-coated steel. The scope includes all the noted tin mill products regardless of thickness, width, form (in coils or cut sheets), coating type (electrolytic or otherwise), edge (trimmed, untrimmed or further processed, such as scroll cut), coating thickness, surface finish, temper, coating metal (tin, chromium, chromium oxide), reduction (single-or double-reduced), and whether or not coated with a plastic material. All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of this order unless specifically excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:- Single reduced electrolytically chromium coated steel with a thickness 0.238 mm (85 pound base box) (10%) or 0.251 mm (90 pound base box) (10%) or 0.255 mm (10%) with 770 mm (minimum width) (1.588 mm) by 900 mm (maximum length if sheared) sheet size or 30.6875 inches (minimum width) (1/16 inch) and 35.4 inches (maximum length if sheared) sheet size; with type MR or higher (per ASTM) A623 steel chemistry; batch annealed at T2 1/2 anneal temper, with a yield strength of 31 to 42 kpsi (214 to 290 Mpa); with a tensile strength of 43 to 58 kpsi (296 to 400 Mpa); with a chrome coating restricted to 32 to 150 mg/square meter; with a chrome oxide coating restricted to 6 to 25 mg/m with a modified 7B ground roll finish or blasted roll finish; with roughness average

(Ra)0.10 to 0.35 micrometers, measured with a stylus instrument with a stylus radius of 2 to 5 microns, a trace length of 5.6 mm, and a cut-off of 0.8 mm, and the measurement traces shall be made perpendicular to the rolling direction; with an oil level of 0.17 to 0.37 grams/base box as type BSO, or 2.5 to 5.5 mg/square meter as type DOS, or 3.5 to 6.5 mg/square meter as type ATBC; with electrical conductivity of static probe voltage drop of 0.46 volts drop maximum, and with electrical conductivity degradation to 0.70 volts drop maximum after stoving (heating to 400 degrees F for 100 minutes followed by a cool to room temperature). - Single reduced electrolytically chromium- or tin-coated steel in the gauges of 0.0040 inch nominal, 0.0045 inch nominal, 0.0050 inch nominal, 0.0061 inch nominal (55 pound base box weight), 0.0066 inch nominal (60 pound base box weight), and 0.0072 inch nominal (65 pound base box weight), regardless of width, temper, finish, coating or other properties. - Single reduced electrolytically chromium coated steel in the gauge of 0.024 inch, with widths of 27.0 inches or 31.5 inches, and with T-1 temper properties. - Single reduced electrolytically chromium coated steel, with a chemical composition of 0.005% max carbon, 0.030% max silicon, 0.25% max manganese, 0.025% max phosphorous, 0.025% max sulfur, 0.070% max aluminum, and the balance iron, with a metallic chromium layer of 70-130 mg/square meter, with a chromium oxide layer of 5-30 mg/square meter, with a tensile strength of 260-440 N/square millimeter, with an elongation of 28-48%, with a hardness (HR-30T) of 40-58, with a surface roughness of 0.5-1.5 microns Ra, with magnetic properties of Bm

(kg)10.0 minimum, Br

(kg)8.0 minimum, Hc

(Oe)2.5-3.8, and Mu 1400 minimum, as measured with a Riken Denshi DC magnetic characteristic measuring machine, Model BHU-60. - Bright finish tin-coated sheet with a thickness equal to or exceeding 0.0299 inch, coated to thickness of 3/4 pound (0.000045 inch) and 1 pound (0.00006 inch). - Electrolytically chromium coated steel having ultra flat shape defined as oil can maximum depth of 5/64 inch (2.0 mm) and edge wave maximum of 5/64 inch (2.0 mm) and no wave to penetrate more than 2.0 inches (51.0 mm) from the strip edge and coilset or curling requirements of average maximum of 5/64 inch (2.0 mm) (based on six readings, three across each cut edge of a 24 inches (61 cm) long sample with no single reading exceeding 4/32 inch (3.2 mm) and no more than two readings at 4/32 inch (3.2 mm)) and (for 85 pound base box item only: crossbuckle maximums of 0.001 inch (0.0025 mm) average having no reading above 0.005 inch (0.127 mm)), with a camber maximum of 1/4 inch (6.3 mm) per 20 feet (6.1 meters), capable of being bent 120 degrees on a 0.002 inch radius without cracking, with a chromium coating weight of metallic chromium at 100 mg/square meter and chromium oxide of 10 mg/square meter, with a chemistry of 0.13% maximum carbon, 0.60% maximum manganese, 0.15% maximum silicon, 0.20% maximum copper, 0.04% maximum phosphorous, 0.05% maximum sulfur, and 0.20% maximum aluminum, with a surface finish of Stone Finish 7C, with a DOS-A oil at an aim level of 2 mg/square meter, with not more than 15 inclusions/foreign matter in 15 feet (4.6 meters) (with inclusions not to exceed 1/32 inch (0.8 mm) in width and 3/64 inch (1.2 mm) in length), with thickness/temper combinations of either 60 pound base box (0.0066 inch) double reduced CADR8 temper in widths of 25.00 inches, 27.00 inches, 27.50 inches, 28.00 inches, 28.25 inches, 28.50 inches, 29.50 inches, 29.75 inches, 30.25 inches, 31.00 inches, 32.75 inches, 33.75 inches, 35.75 inches, 36.25 inches, 39.00 inches, or 43.00 inches, or 85 pound base box (0.0094 inch) single reduced CAT4 temper in widths of 25.00 inches, 27.00 inches, 28.00 inches, 30.00 inches, 33.00 inches, 33.75 inches, 35.75 inches, 36.25 inches, or 43.00 inches, with width tolerance of 1/8 inch, with a thickness tolerance of 0.0005 inch, with a maximum coil weight of 20,000 pounds (9071.0 kg), with a minimum coil weight of 18,000 pounds (8164.8 kg) with a coil inside diameter of 16 inches (40.64 cm) with a steel core, with a coil maximum outside diameter of 59.5 inches (151.13 cm), with a maximum of one weld (identified with a paper flag) per coil, with a surface free of scratches, holes, and rust. - Electrolytically tin coated steel having differential coating with 1.00 pound/base box equivalent on the heavy side, with varied coating equivalents in the lighter side (detailed below), with a continuous cast steel chemistry of type MR, with a surface finish of type 7B or 7C, with a surface passivation of 0.7 mg/square foot of chromium applied as a cathodic dichromate treatment, with coil form having restricted oil film weights of 0.3-0.4 grams/base box of type DOS-A oil, coil inside diameter ranging from 15.5 to 17 inches, coil outside diameter of a maximum 64 inches, with a maximum coil weight of 25,000 pounds, and with temper/coating/dimension combinations of: 1) CAT 4 temper, 1.00/.050 pound/base box coating, 70 pound/base box (0.0077 inch) thickness, and 33.1875 inch ordered width; or 2) CAT5 temper, 1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 75 pound/base box (0.0082 inch) thickness, and 34.9375 inch or 34.1875 inch ordered width; or 3) CAT5 temper, 1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 107 pound/base box (0.0118 inch) thickness, and 30.5625 inch or 35.5625 inch ordered width; or 4) CADR8 temper, 1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 85 pound/base box (0.0093 inch) thickness, and 35.5625 inch ordered width; or 5) CADR8 temper, 1.00/0.25 pound/base box coating, 60 pound/base box (0.0066 inch) thickness, and 35.9375 inch ordered width; or 6) CADR8 temper, 1.00/0.25 pound/base box coating, 70 pound/base box (0.0077 inch) thickness, and 32.9375 inch, 33.125 inch, or 35.1875 inch ordered width. - Electrolytically tin coated steel having differential coating with 1.00 pound/base box equivalent on the heavy side, with varied coating equivalents on the lighter side (detailed below), with a continuous cast steel chemistry of type MR, with a surface finish of type 7B or 7C, with a surface passivation of 0.5 mg/square foot of chromium applied as a cathodic dichromate treatment, with ultra flat scroll cut sheet form, with CAT 5 temper with 1.00/0.10 pound/base box coating, with a lithograph logo printed in a uniform pattern on the 0.10 pound coating side with a clear protective coat, with both sides waxed to a level of 15-20 mg/216 sq. in., with ordered dimension combinations of 1) 75 pound/base box (0.0082 inch) thickness and 34.9375 inch x 31.748 inch scroll cut dimensions; or 2) 75 pound/base box (0.0082 inch) thickness and 34.1875 inch x 29.076 inch scroll cut dimensions; or 3) 107 pound/base box (0.0118 inch) thickness and 30.5625 inch x 34.125 inch scroll cut dimension. - Tin-free steel coated with a metallic chromium layer between 100-200 mg/square meter and a chromium oxide layer between 5-30 mg/square meter; chemical composition of 0.05% maximum carbon, 0.03% maximum silicon, 0.60% maximum manganese, 0.02% maximum phosphorous, and 0.02% maximum sulfur; magnetic flux density (“Br”) of 10 kg minimum and a coercive force (“Hc”) of 3.8 oe minimum. - Tin-free steel laminated on one or both sides of the surface with a polyester film, consisting of two layers (an amorphous layer and an outer crystal layer), that contains no more than the indicated amounts of the following environmental hormones: 1 mg/kg BADGE (BisPhenol A Di-glycidyl Ether), 1 mg/kg BFDGE (BisPhenol F Di-glycidyl Ether), and 3 mg/kg BPA (BisPhenol -- A). The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), under HTSUS subheadings 7210.11.0000, 7210.12.0000, 7210.50.0000, 7212.10.0000, and 7212.50.0000 if of non-alloy steel and under HTSUS subheadings 7225.99.0090, and 7226.99.0000 if of alloy steel. Although the subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on certain tin mill products from Japan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than July 2011. These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. Dated: July 17, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11623 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C-423-806 Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty

(CVD)order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and adequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). As a result of our analysis, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit or Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5050 or

(202)482-3964, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the CVD order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from Belgium, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). The Department received notices of intent to participate from the following domestic interested parties: Oregon Steel Mills, IPSCO Steel Inc., Mittal Steel USA Inc., Nucor Corporation, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC

(USW)(hereinafter, collectively domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771 (9)(C) and

(D)of the Act, as domestic producers of CTL plate in the United States or as a certified union which is representative of an industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale of CTL plate in the United States. The Department received substantive responses from the domestic interested parties and the following respondent interested parties: the Government of Belgium (GOB), the European Union Delegation of the European Commission (the EC), Duferco Clabecq S.A. (Duferco), which purchased Forges de Clabecq S.A.(Clabecq), and Arcelor S.A., claiming to be the successor-in-interest to both Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi (Fafer) 1 and Cockerill Sambre (Cockerill). 2 1 In other proceedings under this order, Fafer has at times been referred to as “Fabfer.” 2 Although Duferco reported that it purchased Forges de Clabecq S.A., and Arcelor claims to be successor-in-interest to the other two original respondent companies, the Department has not made a determination in the past that Duferco and Arcelor are the successors-in-interest to the respective respondent companies and is not making such a determination in this sunset review. However, we have considered in this sunset review the historical information provided with respect to Duferco and Arcelor for purposes of our privatization and change-in-ownership analyses. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Re: *Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium; Analysis of Changes in Ownership* , dated concurrently with this notice and on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce building (CRU). On December 21, 2005, the Department determined that the participation of the respondent interested parties was adequate, and that it was appropriate to conduct a full sunset review. *See* Memorandum to Steven J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Re: *Adequacy Determination; Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium* dated December 21, 2005, and on file in CRU. On February 10, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary and final results of the sunset review of the CVD order on CTL plate from Belgium. *See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary and Final Results of Full Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Countervailing Duty Orders* , 71 FR 7017. The Department extended the preliminary results to no later than July 14, 2006, and the final results to no later than September 27, 2006. Scope Of The Order The product subject to this CVD order includes hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) under item numbers: 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.5000. Included in this CVD order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order is grade X-70 plate. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found, in Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (July 12, 2002), that imported floor plate is excluded from this CVD order on steel plate. Analysis Of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Preliminary Issues and Decision Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration ( *Preliminary Decision Memorandum* ), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the *Preliminary Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Preliminary Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Preliminary Results Of Review The Department preliminarily determines that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked is: Producers/exporters Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent) Cockerill 2.82 Fafer 0.56 All others (including Clabecq) 0.50 Interested parties may submit case briefs and hearing requests no later than two weeks after the date of publication of these preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days from the filing of the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). If a hearing is requested, parties will be notified of the date, time and location. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review no later than September 27, 2006, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments. We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 14, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11622 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 070306C] Vessel Monitoring Systems; Mobile Transmitter Unit and Enhanced Mobile Transmitter Unit Reimbursement Program AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of vessel monitoring systems reimbursement program. SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service announces the availability of approximately $4.5 million in grant funds for fiscal year

(FY)2006 for vessel owners and/or operators who have purchased an Mobile Transmitter Unit

(MTU)or Enhanced-Mobile Transmitter Unit (E-MTU) for the purpose of complying with fishery regulations requiring the use of Vessel Monitoring System

(VMS)that became effective during FY 2006. The funds will be used to reimburse vessel owners and/or operators for the purchase price of the MTU or E-MTU. The maximum award per reimbursement is dependent upon the requirements of the applicable fishery management rule. ADDRESSES: For a reimbursement application contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), 45 SE 82 nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522, phone 503-650-5300, fax 503-650-5426. To obtain copies of the list of NOAA-approved VMS mobile transmitting units and NOAA-approved VMS communications service providers write to: VMS Support Center, NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement (OLE), 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For current listing information contact Mark Oswell, Outreach Specialist, phone 301-427-2300, fax 301-427-2055. For questions regarding MTU or E-MTU type approval or information regarding the status of VMS systems being evaluated by NOAA for approval, contact Jonathan Pinkerton, National VMS Program Manager, phone 301-427-2300; fax 301-427-2055. For questions regarding VMS installation or activation checklists, contact the VMS Support Center, NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement (OLE), 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415, Silver Spring, MD 20910, phone 888-219-9228, fax 301-427-0049. For questions regarding reimbursement applications contact Randy Fisher, Executive Director, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), 45 SE 82 nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522, phone 503-650-5300, fax 503-650-5426. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Funding Opportunity Description This reimbursement opportunity is available to fishing vessel owners and/or operators that have purchased MTU or E-MTU devices in order to comply with fishery regulations developed in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act(Manguson-Stevens Act), Public Law 94-265. Only those vessel owners and/or operators purchasing a MTU or E-MTU for compliance to fishery management rules becoming effective on or after October 1, 2005, are eligible for this funding opportunity. The primary purpose of this reimbursement program is to offset the costs associated with compliance with fishery regulations developed pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Reimbursable expenses include the purchase price of a MTU or E-MTU type-approved for a fishery requiring the use of VMS for which the owner and/or operator holds a valid commercial fishery permit in compliance with fishery regulations. II. Eligibility To be eligible to receive reimbursement vessel owners and/or operators must first purchase a MTU or E-MTU type-approved for the fishery requiring VMS for which the vessel owner and/or operator holds a valid commercial fishing permit. The vessel owner and/or operator must have the MTU or E-MTU properly installed on the vessel and activated utilizing a type-approved communications provider. Upon completion of the installation and activation process, the vessel owner and/or operator must contact the VMS Support Center by calling 888-219-9228 to ensure the vessel is properly registered in the VMS system. OLE does not consider a vessel in compliance until the MTU or E-MTU signal has been received and processed by OLE. III. Process Vessel owners and/or operators that have purchased a MTU or E-MTU, and have validated their compliance with the applicable regulations through OLE, may contact the PSMFC, 45 SE 82 nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522, phone 503-650-5300, fax 503-650-5426, for a reimbursement application. Once the application is received and completed by the vessel owner and/or operator, it must be returned to PSMFC along with proof of eligibility in order to qualify for an award. The required proof of eligibility includes proof of a valid commercial fishing permit for fishery requiring VMS; proof of purchase and the purchase price of a type-approved MTU or E-MTU; and a valid compliance confirmation code issued by OLE. Vessel owners and/or operators are not restricted as to which type-approved MTU or E-MTU device they can purchase. However, the amount of the reimbursement will be limited to the cost of the least expensive MTU or E-MTU type-approved for their permitted fishery. Vessel owners and/or operators are encouraged to compare the features of all MTU and E-MTU devices type-approved for their permitted fishery prior to making their purchase decision. Vessel owners/operators are limited to reimbursement of the cost of purchasing one MTU or E-MTU per permitted vessel. Dated: July 11, 2006. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-11550 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 06-C0005] Tiffany and Company, a Corporation, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with Tiffany and Company, a corporation, containing a civil penalty of $262,500. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 06-C0005, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William J. Moore, Jr., Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone

(301)504-7583. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: July 18, 2006. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. In the Matter of Tiffany and Company, a Corporation Settlement Agreement and Order 1. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between the staff (the “staff”) of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “Commission”) and Tiffany and Company (“Tiffany”), a corporation, in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the Commission's procedures for Investigations, Inspections, and Inquiries under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”). This Settlement Agreement and the incorporated attached Order resolve the staff's allegations set forth below. The Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency responsible for the enforcement of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. 3. Tiffany is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal corporate office located at 727 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. At all times relevant herein Tiffany marketed, distributed and sold fine jewelry, timepieces, china, crystal, silverware and silver baby rattles and teethers, among other consumer products. Staff Allegations 4. From November 2002 through February 2004, Tiffany sold in United States commerce approximately 4,255 sterling silver rattle/teethers with small farm animal figures (“Teethers”). 5. The Teethers are “consumer products” and, at the times relevant herein, Tiffany was a “retailer” of “consumer products”, which were “distributed in commerce” as those terms are defined in sections 3(a)(1), (6), (11), and

(12)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (6), (11), and (12). 6. The Teethers are defective because a metal bar at the center of the Teether can break off at its soldered joints during use releasing small round beads and small animal figures. The small beads and figures can pose an aspiration and choking hazard to babies. 7. Between November and December 2003, Tiffany learned about at last two incidents of Teethers cracking at the soldered joint. In February 2004, Tiffany learned about one incident in which a Teether broke at the soldered joint, and a baby was reported to be mouthing a small animal figure that fell off of the Teether. Tiffany determined that hand polishing during Teether manufacture could weaken the cross bar solder joints and lead to separation of that metal bar from the Teether ring. 8. Tiffany suspended Teether sales following the February 2004 incident. Tiffany did not report the problem to the Commission. Tiffany received two more reports of Teethers cracking in March 2004. The firm did not report to the Commission until June 2004, after the Commission opened its own investigation and requested Tiffany to do so. 9. Although Tiffany had obtained sufficient information to reasonably support the conclusion that the Teethers contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, it failed to inform the Commission of such defect and risk and required by Section 15(b)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2). In failing to do so, Tiffany “knowingly” violated Section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in Section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). 10. Pursuant to Section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Tiffany is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty for its failure to make a report pursuant to Section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). Response of Tiffany 11. Tiffany denies the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 4-10 above. Tiffany specifically denies that the Teethers contain a defect that could create a substantial product hazard, that the company had obtained information to reasonably support the conclusion that the Tethers were so defective or posed such a risk, that the company was obligated to report to the Commission under Section 15(b) of the CPSA, or that the company violated Section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA or any other section of the CPSA, “knowingly” or otherwise. 12. Tiffany stopped sale of the Teethers immediately upon receiving notice of the one incident in which a Teether broke, and in May contacted customers who had purchased Teethers, urging them to return the item. Tiffany also filed a report with the Commission, at the request of the staff. 13. Tiffany is not aware of any consumer injury related in any way to the Teethers, nor has the staff alleged that any injuries have occurred. 14. Tiffany enters into this Settlement Agreement for the purposes of compromise and settlement only, to avoid incurring additional legal costs and expenses. Agreement of the Parties 15. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Tiffany under the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. 16. The parties enter into this Settlement Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Agreement does not constitute a determination by the Commission that Tiffany violated the CPSA or any other law or regulation, nor an admission by Tiffany of any liability or wrongdoing by Tiffany, or that Tiffany violated the CPSA or any other law or regulation. 17. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Tiffany agrees to pay a civil penalty of two hundred sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($262,500.00) within ten

(10)calendar days of receiving service of the Final Order of the Commission accepting this Settlement Agreement. This payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 18. Upon provisional acceptance of this Settlement Agreement and Order by the Commission, the Commission shall place this Agreement and Order on the public record and shall publish it in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedure set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Settlement Agreement and Order within 15 calendar days, the Agreement and Order shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 19. Upon final acceptance of this Settlement Agreement by the Commission and issuance of the Final Order, Tiffany knowingly, voluntarily and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(i)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(ii)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of this Agreement and Order as issued and entered;

(iii)a determination by the Commission as to whether Tiffany failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(iv)a statement by the Commission of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(v)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 20. The Commission and Tiffany may publicize the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order. 21. This Settlement Agreement and Order shall apply to, be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, Tiffany and each of its successors and assigns. 22. The Commission's Order in this matter is issued under the provisions of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084, and a violation of the Order may subject Tiffany to appropriate legal action. 23. This Settlement Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations made outside of this Settlement Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or to contradict its terms. 24. This Settlement Agreement and Order shall not be waived, changed, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such amendment, modification, alteration, change, or waiver is sought to be enforced and approval by the Commission. 25. This Settlement Agreement becomes effective only upon its final acceptance by the Commission and service on Tiffany of the incorporated Final Order. 26. If, after the effective date hereof, any provision of this Settlement Agreement and Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The rest of the Settlement Agreement and Order shall remain in full effect, unless the Commission and Tiffany determine that severing the provision materially changes the purpose of the Settlement Agreement and Order. Tiffany and Company Dated: May 11, 2006. By: Patrick B. Dorsey, *Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel, Tiffany and Company.* Dated: May 24, 2006. By: Philip Katz, *Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., 555 Thirteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004.* U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission John Gibson Mullan, *Director, Office of Compliance & Field Operations.* Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Director, Legal Division, Office of Compliance.* Dated: July 18, 2006. By: William J. Moore, Jr., *Senior Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance.* In the Matter of Tiffany and Company, a Corporation Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Tiffany and Company (“Tiffany”) and the staff of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “Commission”), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Tiffany, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest, it is I. *Ordered* that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is II. *Further ordered* that Tiffany shall pay a civil penalty of two hundred sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($262,500.00) within ten

(10)calendar days of service of the Final Order of the Commission accepting the Settlement Agreement. This payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of Tiffany to make full and timely payment or upon the making of a late payment,

(i)The entire amount of the civil penalty shall become due and payable, and

(ii)interest on the outstanding balance shall accrue and be paid at the Federal legal rate of interest under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and Provision Order issued on the 18th day of July, 2006. By Order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. 06-6402 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

5 references not yet in our index