Notices. Notice
22,124 words·~101 min read·
/register/2006/09/12/06-7605A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of Inspector General; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Applicant for Funding Assistance ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (DOC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing and proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 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 and copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to the attention of Joyce Baker, Herbert C.
Hoover Building, Room 7721,
(202)482-1023, or via e-mail to *jbaker@oig.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The Department of Commerce, through its bureaus, the Economic Development Administration (EDA), Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), International Trade Administration (ITA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Technical Information Service (NTIS), National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA), and other programs, assists reliable, capable individuals and firms in pursuit of various business development, business enterprise development and other forms of economic development. The form, CD-346, is used to assist programs and grants administration officials in determining the fiscal responsibility and financial integrity of principal officers and employees of organizations, firms, and other entities which are recipients or beneficiaries of grants, cooperative agreements, loans, loan guarantees or other forms of federal financial assistance. The requirement is derived from the duties and responsibilities set forth in Section 4(a)(3) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. App. 3. The CD-346 is also completed, when required, by grant recipients. Through the name check process, the Office of Inspector General collects background information on key individuals associated with proposed financial assistance (grants, cooperative agreements, loans and loan guarantees) recipient organizations. The name check identifies those principals affiliated with proposed recipient organizations who have been convicted of, or are presently facing, criminal charges or are under investigation for fraud, theft, perjury or other matters which have significant impact on questions of management honesty or financial integrity. II. Method of Collection Paper format. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0605-0001. *Form Numbers:* CD-346. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations; not-for-profit institutions; farms; Federal, State, Local or Tribal government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,500. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 625. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $0. 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 will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: September 6, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-15037 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-55-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Defense Priorities and Allocations System ACTION: Extension of a currently approved collection: request for comments. 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Larry Hall, BIS ICB Liaison, Department of Commerce, Room 6622, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract This record keeping requirement is necessary for administration and enforcement of delegated authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.) and the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 468). Any person who receives a priority rated order under the implementing DPAS regulation (15 CFR part 700) must retain records for at least 3 years. II. Method of Collection Records retention. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0694-0053. *Form Number:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals, businesses or other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 700,000. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 1 to 31.5 minutes per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 14,477 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* No start-up capital expenditures. 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. In addition, the public is encouraged to provide suggestions on how to reduce and/or consolidate the current frequency of reporting. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: September 5, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-15038 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-428-815) Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.216(b) of the U.S. Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) regulations, ThyssenKrupp Steel North America, Inc. (“ThyssenKrupp”), a U.S. importer, filed a request for the Department to initiate a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE”) from Germany. The purpose of such review would be to partially revoke the order with respect to a certain product because of lack of interest by the domestic industry. 1 Mittal Steel USA (“Mittal Steel”), a domestic CORE producer, submitted a letter to the Department expressing a lack of interest in continuing to have the product in question subject to the antidumping duty order. Mittal Steel also stated that it is a major domestic producer of CORE. In response to the request made by the “interested party” within the meaning of section 771(9) of the Act, ThyssenKrupp, and the lack of interest from Mittal Steel, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review on CORE from Germany with respect to a specific corrosion resistant steel product as described below. 1 DaimlerChrylser Corporation (“DaimlerChrysler”), a domestic consumer of CORE, submitted letters to the Department pre-dating ThyssenKrupp's request, indicating that it had contacted United States Steel Corporation, Mittal Steel, AK Steel, and Nucor Corporation and determined they are not interested in maintaining the antidumping duty order with respect to the product in question. *See* Letters to the Department from DaimlerChrysler dated June 22, 2006, and July 18, 2006. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Lao or Abdelali Elouaradia, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-7924 and
(202)482-1374, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 17, 2006, ThyssenKrupp, a U.S. importer of CORE, requested a changed circumstance review with respect to a specific CORE. Specifically, ThyssenKrupp requested to exclude from the AD order on CORE from Germany, imports meeting the following description: Electrolytically zinc coated flat steel products, with a coating mass between 35 and 72 grams per meter squared on each side; with a thickness range of 0.67 mm or more but not more than 2.95 mm and width 817 mm or more but not over 1830 mm; having the following chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.08, silicon not over 0.25, manganese not over 0.9, phosphorous not over 0.025, sulfur not over 0.012, chromium not over 0.1, titanium not over 0.005 and niobium not over 0.05; with a minimum yield strength of 310 Mpa and a minimum tensile strength of 390 Mpa; additionally coated on one or both sides with an organic coating containing not less than 30%% and not more than 60%% zinc and free of hexavalent chrome. *See* ThyssenKrupp letter to the Department dated August 17, 2006. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from Germany. This scope includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this 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 are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%%-60%%-20%% ratio. On September 22, 1999, the Department issued the final results of a changed circumstances review partially revoking the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant steel from Germany. 2 This partial revocation applies to certain corrosion-resistant deep-drawing carbon steel strip, roll-clad on both sides with aluminum
(AlSi)foils in accordance with St3 LG as to EN 10139/10140. The merchandise's chemical composition encompasses a core material of U St 23 (continuous casting) in which carbon is less than 0.08; manganese is less than 0.30; phosphorous is less than 0.20; sulfur is less than 0.015; aluminum is less than 0.01; and the cladding material is a minimum of 99%% aluminum with silicon/copper/iron of less than 1%%. The products are in strips with thicknesses of 0.07mm to 4.0mm (inclusive) and widths of 5mm to 800mm (inclusive). The thickness ratio of aluminum on either side of steel may range from 3%%/94%%/3%% to 10%%/80%%/10%%. 2 *See Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany* , 64 FR 51292 (September 22, 1999). The Department noted that the affirmative statement of no interest by petitioners, combined with the lack of comments from interested parties, was sufficient to warrant partial revocation. On March 22, 2006, the Department issued the final results of a changed circumstances review partially revoking the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant steel from Germany. 3 This partial revocation applies certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Germany meeting the following description: certain flat-rolled wear plate ranging from 30 inches to 50 inches in width, from 45 inches to 110 inches in length and from 0.187 inch to 0.875 inch in total thickness, having a layer on one side composed principally of a combination of boron carbides, chromium carbides, nickel carbides, silicon carbides, manganese carbides, niobium carbides, iron carbides, tungsten carbides, vanadium carbides, titanium carbides and/or molybdenum carbides fused to a non-alloy flat-rolled steel substrate. The carbides are in the form of M x C x where “M” stands for the metal and “x” for the atomic ratio. An example of a common carbide would be (Cr 7 C 3 ). The carbide layer is a visually distinct layer ranging in thickness from 0.062 inch to 0.312 inch with hardness at the surface of the carbide layer in excess of 55 HRC. 3 *See Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada and Germany* , 71 FR 14498 (March 22, 2006). The Department noticed that the affirmative statement of not interest in the continuation of the orders with respect to the product in question from the domestic interested parties, combined with the lack of comments from interested parties, was sufficient to warrant partial revocation. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from an interested party for a review of an AD duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As noted above, on August 18, 2006, ThyssenKrupp requested for a ruling from the Department in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(b) to exclude a specific corrosion resistant steel product as described above from this AD order. In addition, as noted above, Mittal Steel, a domestic interested party, has expressed a lack of interest in the order with respect to the product in question, and has stated that it is a major domestic producer of CORE. *See* Letter to the Department from Mittal Steel dated, August 18, 2006. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), we are initiating a changed circumstances review. Interested parties are invited to comment on whether partial revocation of the order is appropriate based on lack of interest by domestic interested parties representing substantially all of the production of the domestic like product. Public Comment Interested parties may submit comments, which the Department will take into account in the preliminary results of this review. The due date for filing any such comments is no later than 15 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted no later than seven days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e). This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 351.221(b) of the Department's regulations. Dated: September 5, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15088 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-888 Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review
(POR)is February 3, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that two of the three respondents made sales to the United States of the subject merchandise at prices below normal value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument(s). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Boughton or Bobby Wong, 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)482-8173 or
(202)482-0409, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order regarding floor standing, metal-top ironing tables and parts thereof (ironing tables) from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) ( *Amended Final FR* ). On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the ironing tables antidumping order. *See Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 12, 2005, Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), an administrative review of its exports of subject merchandise during the POR. On August 25, 2005, Home Products International Inc. (petitioner) requested an administrative review of the ironing tables produced or exported by Since Hardware during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). On August 26, 2005, Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd. (Shunde Yongjian) requested a review of its exports of subject merchandise during the POR, and on August 29, 2005, Forever Holdings Ltd. (Forever Holdings) requested a review of its exports of subject merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On August 31, 2005, Shunde Yongjian sent a letter to the Department stating that it wanted to clarify that its request for an administrative review should also include a variation of the name that may have been used to export subject merchandise during the POR. Shunde Yongjian stated that the name variation is as follows: Foshan Shunde Yongjian Houseware & Hardware Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde). On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated a review with respect to Since Hardware, Shunde Yongjian (aka Foshan Shunde), and Forever Holdings (collectively, respondents). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 19, 2005, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the three PRC producers/exporters of the subject merchandise covered by this administrative review. On January 11, 2006, we invited interested parties to comment on the Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production in the other potential surrogate countries and to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production. On March 1, 2006, we extended the time limit for submitting surrogate country and surrogate value comments. On April 3, 2006, we received comments from Since Hardware and Forever Holdings. Petitioner commented on surrogate values on April 13, 2006. On April 19, 2006, in accordance with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review until August 4, 2006. *See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review* , 71 FR 20076 (April 19, 2006). On July 27, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department further extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review until August 31, 2006. *See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review* , 71 FR 42627 (July 27, 2006). The Department received timely filed original and supplemental questionnaire responses from Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, or matte, and they are available with various features, including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered by this review. Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term “unassembled” ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an iron rest or linen rack. The term “complete” ironing table means product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, *e.g.* iron rest or linen rack. The term “incomplete” ironing table means product shipped or sold as a “bare board” - *i.e.* , a metal-top table only, without the pad and cover with or without additional features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing tables that are intended to be covered by this order under the term “certain parts thereof” consist of the metal top component (with or without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables. Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or retract) are specifically excluded. The subject ironing tables were previously classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are classified under new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)purposes, the Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive. Shunde Yongjian (aka Foshan Shunde) As indicated above, the Department initiated a review on Shunde Yongjian, a respondent in the original less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, and Foshan Shunde. Foshan Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian) filed a November 23, 2005, Section A response, where the company indicated that it would be answering the Department's questionnaires as Foshan Shunde because Foshan Shunde produced and sold subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. It also stated that Foshan Shunde's owners controlled Shunde Yongjian, which had in July 2004 ceased all production activities and retained only its sales department to dispose of the company's remaining inventory. Foshan Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian) further stated that Shunde Yongjian did not sell any subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Foshan Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian) reiterated the statement that Shunde Yongjian had no POR shipments of subject merchandise in its February 28, 2006, supplemental questionnaire in response to the Department's request for clarification of Foshan Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian)'s responses and the relationship between Foshan Shunde and Shunde Yongjian. In their July 13, 2006, supplemental response, Foshan Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian) confirmed that during the POR Shunde Yongjian did not produce the same model types or control numbers that Foshan Shunde produced and sold to the United States during the POR. The Department has issued an additional questionnaire related to the affiliation between Shunde Yongjian and Foshan Shunde to obtain more information on whether the two entities should be collapsed or whether Foshan Shunde is the successor in interest to Shunde Yongjian. If the Department determines not to collapse the two entities and that Foshan Shunde is not the successor in interest, we intend to rescind the review of Shunde Yongjian based on no shipments. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market economy
(NME)countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to its export activities. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( *Sparklers* ). In this review Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings submitted information in support of their claims for company-specific rates. Accordingly, we have considered whether each of the companies is independent from government control, and therefore 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine* , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (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 *Sparklers* , 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1, as amplified by *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) ( *Silicon Carbide* ). 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. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 and *Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR 22586-87. Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings provided complete separate-rate information in their responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether these exporters are independent from government control. 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 20588 at Comment 1. As discussed below, our analysis shows that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of *de jure* absence of government control for the three fully responsive companies based on each of these factors. Since Hardware: Since Hardware has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, including documentation substantiating its claims that it is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise registered in China, the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” (May 12, 1994) ( *Foreign Trade Law* ), and “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations” (June 3, 1988) ( *Legal Corporations Regulations* ). See Since Hardware's November 22, 2005, submission (Since Hardware Section A) at Exhibits 2, 4, and 6. Since Hardware also submitted a copy of its business license, which was issued by the Guangzhou Municipal Industrial and Commercial Administration. *See* Since Hardware Section A at Exhibit 5. Since Hardware explains that its business license ensures that Since Hardware maintains sufficient capital and operating capacity to engage in normal business operations and that only Since Hardware may use its business license. *See* Since Hardware Section A at pages 5-6. Since Hardware affirms that its business license does not impose limitations on the company or grant any entitlements to Since Hardware beyond the company's basic right to operate within the parameters outlined in the business license. *See id* . The license may be revoked, according to Since Hardware, if a situation arises consistent with those outlined in Articles 20 and 22 of the *Legal Corporations Regulations* . *See id* . Further, Since Hardware states that to obtain a renewal, it must submit relevant documents, such as financial statements, to the issuing authority. *See id* . Foshan Shunde: Foshan Shunde has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, including documentation substantiating its claims that it is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise registered in China, the *Foreign Trade Law* , and the *Legal Corporations Regulations* . *See* Foshan Shunde's November 25, 2005, submission (Foshan Shunde Section A) at Exhibit 2, 3, and 5. Foshan Shunde also submitted a copy of its business license, which was issued by Foshan City Shunde District Municipal Industrial and Commercial Administration. *See* Foshan Shunde Section A at Exhibit 4. Foshan Shunde explains that its business license ensures that Foshan Shunde maintains the necessary capital and functional capacity to engage in business operations and that only Foshan Shunde may use its business license. *See* Foshan Shunde Section A at pages 4-5. Foshan Shunde affirms that its business license does not impose limitations on the company or create any entitlements to Foshan Shunde beyond the right of the Administration to revoke a business license if the enterprise engages in activities prohibited by Article 30 of the *Legal Corporations Regulations* . *See id* . The license may be revoked, according to Foshan Shunde, if a situation arises as provided for in Articles 20 and 22 of the *Legal Corporations Regulations* . *See id* . Further, Foshan Shunde states that to obtain a renewal, it must submit relevant documents, such as financial statements, to the issuing authority. *See id* . Forever Holdings: Forever Holdings has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, including documentation substantiating its claims that it is a foreign-invested joint-venture, the “Company Law of the People's Republic of China” (December 29, 1993) ( *Company Law* ), the *Foreign Trade Law* , and the *Legal Corporations Regulations* . *See* Forever Holdings' November 9, 2005, submission (Forever Holdings Section A) at Exhibits 2 and 3. Forever Holdings also submitted a copy of its business license, which was issued by Foshan Shunde Industrial and Commercial Administration Bureau. *See* Forever Holdings Section A at Exhibit 3. Forever Holdings explains that its business license is for registration purposes, defines the scope of the company's business activities, and that only Forever Holdings may use its business license. *See* Forever Holdings Section A at pages 6-7. Forever Holdings affirms that its business license entitles it to conduct business and imposes no limitations on the operation of Forever Holdings, defines the types of business activities the licensee can engage in, and can be amended if the licensee wishes to expand its business scope. *See id* ., at page 8. Forever Holdings states that the license may be revoked if the company has insufficient capital, engages in illegal activities, or is bankrupt. *See id* ., at pages 8-9. Further, Forever Holdings states that to obtain a renewal, it must apply for a renewal and provide a copy of its most recent financial statements to the issuing authority. *See id* ., at page 9. We note that Forever Holdings states that it is governed by the *Company Law* , which it claims governs the establishment of limited liability companies and provides that such a company shall operate independently and be responsible for its own profits and losses. *See id* ., at page 5. Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings have all placed on the record the *Foreign Trade Law* and state that this law allows them full autonomy from the central authority in governing their business operations. See Since Hardware Section A at page 4; Foshan Shunde Section A at page 3; and Forever Holdings Section A at page 5. We have reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the *Foreign Trade Law* , which states, “foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full autonomy in their business operation and be responsible for their own profits and losses in accordance with the law.” As in prior cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of *de jure* control. *See* , *e.g.* , *Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001), unchanged in *Final Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure control over the export activities of Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings. Absence of *De Facto* Control Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)whether the export prices are set by, or subject to, the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has 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. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587. As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See id* . 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. *See id* . Since Hardware has asserted the following:
(1)it is a wholly foreign- and privately owned company;
(2)there is no government participation in its setting of export prices;
(3)its general manager has the authority to bind sales contracts;
(4)the company's general manager appoints the company's management and it does not have to notify government authorities of its management selection;
(5)there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and
(6)its board of directors decides how profits will be used. *See* Since Hardware Section A at pages 4, 6-9. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC ironing tables. Foshan Shunde has asserted the following:
(1)it is a wholly foreign- and privately owned company;
(2)there is no government participation in its setting of export prices;
(3)the general manager has the authority to bind sales contracts;
(4)the general manager selects management and the company does not have to notify government authorities of its management selection;
(5)there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and
(6)its board of directors decides how profits will be used. *See* Foshan Shunde Section A at pages 2, 6-8. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC ironing tables. Forever Holdings has asserted the following:
(1)it is a privately owned company;
(2)there is no government participation in its setting of export prices;
(3)its owners have the authority to bind sales contracts;
(4)the board of directors appoints the company's management and it does not have to notify government authorities of its management selection;
(5)there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and
(6)the owners and board of directors decide how profits will be used. See Forever Holdings Section A at pages 2, 10-13. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC ironing tables. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over each respondent's export activities, we preliminarily determine that Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings have each met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether the respondents' sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal value, we compared their United States prices to normal values, as described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. U.S. Price Export Price For Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings, we based U.S. price on export price
(EP)in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price
(CEP)was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. import duties and brokerage and handling from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Specifically, for Since Hardware we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and other discounts, where applicable, from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Also, we added to the gross unit price billing adjustments for origin receiving charges and freight revenue, where applicable. We have preliminarily determined to accept these billing adjustments on the basis of the statements and documentation provided by Since Hardware indicating that these charges were separately listed on the sales invoice and paid for by the customer. For Foshan Shunde, we deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Forever Holdings, we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses and U.S. import duties and brokerage and handling from the starting price (gross unit price), where applicable, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Where foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values ( *see* “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid for in market-economy currency, we used the reported expense, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). Normal Value Non-Market-Economy Status Pursuant to 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. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME country. *See* , *e.g.* , *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), unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). None of the parties to these reviews 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 Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that:
(1)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and
(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development, as identified in the “Memorandum from the Office of Policy to James C. Doyle,” issued on January 9, 2006. 1 In addition, based on information from the investigation of ironing tables, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigation: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 44040, 44042 (July 25, 2003), unchanged in *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 5127 (February 3, 2004) and Amended Final FR. 1 This memorandum (which was mistakenly dated January 9, 2005, instead of January 9, 2006) is attached to the letters, dated January 11, 2006, sent to interested parties to this proceeding requesting comments on surrogate country and surrogate value information. Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See “Memorandum to the File: Selection of a Surrogate Country,” dated August 31, 2006 (Surrogate Country Memo). Factors of Production In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to:
(A)hours of labor required;
(B)quantities of raw materials employed;
(C)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(D)representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the factors of production reported by the producer for materials, energy, labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian values. Certain of Since Hardware's and Foshan Shunde's inputs into the production of the merchandise under review were purchased from market economy suppliers and paid for in market economy currencies. We used the weight-averaged market economy prices paid by Since Hardware and Foshan Shunde when the inputs were obtained from a market economy, paid for in a market economy currency, and were a significant portion of the total purchases of that input. For purposes of the preliminary results we have determined that all of Since Hardware's and Foshan Shunde's market economy purchases were a significant portion of total purchases of that input and have used the reported prices in our calculations. Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings all reported by-product sales. With respect to the application of the by-product offset to normal value, consistent with the Department's determination in diamond sawblades from the PRC, because our surrogate financial statements contain no references to the treatment of by-products and because all three companies reported that they sold their by-products, we will deduct the surrogate value of the by-product from normal value. This is consistent with accounting principles based on a reasonable assumption that if a company sells a by-product, the by-product necessarily incurs expenses for overhead, SG&A, and profit. *See 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), unchanged in *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 35864 (June 22, 2006). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our practice. *See* , *e.g.* , *Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and *Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. When we used publicly available import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India (Indian Import Statistics) for February 2004 through July 2005 to value inputs 2 sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the closest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the CAFC's decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we based freight for inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier to the site at which the input was used. In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets ( *i.e.* , Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. *See* , *e.g.* , *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* “Memorandum to the File: Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Floor-standing, Metal-top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof (Ironing Tables) from the People's Republic of China (PRC),” dated August 31, 2006 (Factor Valuation Memo), for a complete discussion of the import data that we excluded from our calculation of surrogate values. This memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU). 2 For PE Foam and Titanium Hypochlorite Anhydride 4, data from Indian Import Statistics was not available for the POR, therefore we used import data for January 2003 through December 2003 to value these inputs. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index
(WPI)as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily exchanges rates posted on the Import Administration website ( *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* ). See Factor Valuation Memo. We valued the factors of production as follows: The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings used to produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where listed below. For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, *see* Factor Valuation Memo. To value water, we calculated the average rate of inside and outside industrial water rates from various regions as reported by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, *http://midcindia.org* , dated June 1, 2003. We inflated the value for water using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo. We valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price in India reported by the International Energy Agency statistics for *Energy Prices & Taxes, Second Quarter 2003* . We inflated the value for electricity using the POR average WPI rate. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD's International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics from 2004 and 2005. The prices are based on 2004 and 2005 first quarter prices of automotive diesel fuel retail prices. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. Consistent with the determination in the LTFV investigation, to value the surrogate financial ratios of factory overhead, selling, general & administrative expenses, and profit, the Department relied on the publicly available information in the annual report and accounts for Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (Godrej), submitted by Since Hardware on April 3, 2006, at Exhibit 3. The annual report covers the period April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005, covering 12 months of the POR. We determine that Godrej is an appropriate surrogate producer because it is a producer of comparable merchandise and the financial data is contemporaneous with the POR. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar levels of per capita gross domestic product, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based wage rate published by Import Administration on its website, http://www.trade.gov/ia/. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight cost based on publicly available data from *www.infreight.com* , an Indian inland freight logistics resource website. *See* Factor Valuation Memo. To value brokerage and handling, we used a simple average of the publicly summarized version of the average value for brokerage and handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in Essar Steel Ltd.'s (Essar) February 28, 2005, Section C submission in the antidumping duty review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, and information from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd.'s (Agro Dutch) May 25, 2005, Section C submission, taken from the administrative review of preserved mushrooms from India, for which the POR was February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. Both sets of data are contemporaneous to the POR and the Department's preference is to average these two values because they represent values for numerous transactions that are available for a range of products and minimize the potential distortions that might arise from a single price source. One value, taken in isolation, could differ significantly when compared across a range of products, values, and special circumstances of a single transaction. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 26329 (May 4, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision memo at Comment 6; and *Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006). *See* Factor Valuation Memo. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production until 20 days following the date of publication of these preliminary results. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist: Exporter Margin (percent) Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. 0.21%% Foshan Shunde Yongjian Houseware & Hardware Co., Ltd. 0.59%% Forever Holdings Ltd. 9.00%% For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for each company, see the respective company's analysis memorandum for the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC, dated August 31, 2006. Public versions of these memoranda are on file in the CRU. Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), 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 this review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for ironing tables from the PRC via *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. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);
(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 157.68 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. Schedule for Final Results of Review The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1). 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 these review periods. 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 administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15089 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-875 Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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)482-0414. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 25, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the second administrative review on non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 30116 (May 25, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The final results of this administrative review are currently due no later than September 22, 2006. Extension of Time Limit of Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue final results within 120 days of the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the extend the 120-day period to a maximum of 180 days. Completion of the final results of this review within the 120-day period is not practicable because the Department needs additional time to evaluate substantially intricate issues raised by the petitioners and respondents in their respective case briefs and rebuttals. Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by 30 days until October 22, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Further, because October 22, 2006, falls on a Sunday, the final results will be due on October 23, 2006, the next business day. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: September 5, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15099 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-832 Notice of Extension of Final Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Hua Lu, 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)482-3434 and
(202)482-6478, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 10, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 18067 (April 10, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). In the *Preliminary Results* , we stated that we would issue our final results of review no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results ( *i.e.* , August 8, 2006). On July 31, 2006, the Department publishes in the **Federal Register** a notice extending the time limit for the final results or the administrative review from August 8, 2006, to September 7, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Final Result of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 43110 (July 31, 2006). The final results of review are currently due no later than September 7, 2006. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the final results in an administrative review within 120 days of publication date of the preliminary results. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, the Department may extend the time limit for the final results to 180 days. Completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable because this review involves certain complex issues, such as valuation of various factors of production that both the Petitioner and the respondent addressed in their case briefs. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing these final results of review by an additional 22 days to 172 days, *i.e.* , until September 29, 2006. Dated: September 5, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15087 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-894 Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from the Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc. (petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether certain imports of tissue paper from Vietnam are circumventing the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products (tissue paper) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 16223 (March 30, 2005) (Tissue Paper Order). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Boughton or Bobby Wong, 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)482-8173 or
(202)482-0409, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 19, 2006, petitioner submitted a letter requesting that the Department initiate and conduct an anti-circumvention inquiry, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(h), to determine whether imports of tissue paper from Vietnam made from jumbo rolls of tissue paper which are a product of the PRC are circumventing the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC. Specifically, petitioner alleges that sending PRC jumbo rolls of tissue paper to Vietnam for completion or assembly into merchandise of the same class or kind as that covered by the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC constitutes circumvention of the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC. On July 21, 2006, petitioner re-filed the anti-circumvention request to include business proprietary information, which had been redacted in the first initiation request. On August 11, 2006, Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co., Ltd (Quijiang) submitted comments on petitioner's July 21, 2006, request for an anti-circumvention inquiry. On August 14, 2006, the Department requested that petitioner submit documentation referenced, but not included, in its July 21, 2006, request. On August 18, 2006, petitioner submitted a response to the Department's August 14, 2006, request. On August 21, 2006, petitioner submitted comments on Quijiang's August 11, 2006, submission. Scope of the Order The tissue paper products subject to order are cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter. Tissue paper products subject to this order may or may not be bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, glazed, surface decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The tissue paper subject to this order is in the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper with a width equal to or greater than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat or folded, and may be packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this order may consist solely of tissue paper of one color and/or style, or may contain multiple colors and/or styles. Tissue paper products subject to this order do not have specific classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and appear to be imported under one or more of the several different “basket” categories, including but not necessarily limited to the following subheadings: HTSUS 4802.30, HTSUS 4802.54, HTSUS 4802.61, HTSUS 4802.62, HTSUS 4802.69, HTSUS 4804.39, HTSUS 4806.40, HTSUS 4808.30, HTSUS 4808.90, HTSUS 4811.90, HTSUS 4823.90, HTSUS 9505.90.40. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of the order are the following tissue paper products:
(1)tissue paper products that are coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service applications;
(2)tissue paper products that have been perforated, embossed, or die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, *i.e.* , disposable sanitary covers for toilet seats;
(3)toilet or facial tissue stock, towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind used for household or sanitary purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). Initiation of Anti-circumvention Proceeding Applicable Statute Section 781(b) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in a foreign country other than the country to which the order applies. In conducting anti-circumvention inquiries under section 781(b) of the Act, the Department relies upon the following criteria:
(A)merchandise imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is subject to an antidumping duty order;
(B)before importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign country from merchandise which is subject to the order or produced in the foreign country that is subject to the order;
(C)the process of assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in
(B)is minor or insignificant;
(D)the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping duty order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States; and
(E)the administering authority determines that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of such order or finding. As discussed below, petitioner presented evidence with respect to these criteria. A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind Petitioner states that the Tissue Paper Order covers cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper equal to or greater than 0.5 inches in width, with a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter and other specified characteristics of the scope. Petitioner argues that the tissue paper from Vietnam, which Quijiang has stated on the record of the first administrative review of tissue paper from the PRC that it produces from Chinese jumbo rolls and which is being imported into the United States from Vietnam, is physically identical to the subject merchandise cut-to-length tissue paper from the PRC. Because of this, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, petitioner claims this tissue paper is of the same class or kind as the tissue paper produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty order. B. Completion of Merchandise in a Foreign Country Petitioner states that the tissue paper that is the subject of the anti-circumvention inquiry request is made from jumbo rolls of tissue paper produced in the PRC and processed in Vietnam for export to the United States. Petitioner argues that this tissue paper is the final result of a production process that involves a highly capital intensive, skilled operation to produce the tissue paper in the PRC with end stage processing, including converting the tissue paper (cutting-to-length, possibly folding, and packaging) and possibly printing or dying, to produce cut-to-length tissue paper in Vietnam. Petitioner also notes that Quijiang and Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd. (Guilin Qifeng) have both stated on the record of the first administrative review of tissue paper from the PRC that Guilin Qifeng supplied its affiliate Quijiang with jumbo rolls of tissue paper produced in the PRC, which were then further processed in Vietnam. Petitioner therefore concludes that, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, Quijiang's cut-to-length tissue paper is merchandise completed in another foreign country (Vietnam) from merchandise that is produced in a country (the PRC) already subject to a dumping order which includes cut-to-length tissue paper in its scope. C. Minor or Insignificant Process Petitioner argues that for the purposes of section 781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, conversion of jumbo rolls of tissue paper produced in the PRC into cut-to-length tissue paper in Vietnam is a “minor or insignificant process” as defined by the Act. According to petitioner, printing and dying are decorative operations that complete the decorative aspects of merchandise. Petitioner argues that most fundamental aspects of the merchandise-tissue paper possessing a particular basis weight, texture, quality, and other specific characteristics that may be required if the paper is intended for printing-are previously and irrevocably established when the tissue paper is produced. Citing the February 17, 2004, petition in tissue paper from the PRC, petitioner states that the production process for making lightweight tissue paper is complex and requires high-quality material inputs, complex and capital-intensive physical equipment, and high levels of technical expertise by the operators. *See* “Antidumping Duty Petition on Certain Tissue Paper Products and Crepe Paper Products from the People's Republic of China,” filed by Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc.; American Crepe Corporation; Eagle Tissue LLC; Flower City Tissue Mills Co.; Garlock Printing & Converting, Inc.; Paper Service Ltd.; Putney Paper Co., Ltd.; and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC, dated February 17, 2004. Furthermore, petitioner claims that this type of tissue paper production is consistent with the production that Guilin Qifeng employs in the PRC. According to its Internet site, petitioner states, Guilin Qifeng possesses a large, modern papermaking operation, with 18 different paper machines. *See* July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request at Exhibit 4. Petitioner states that the papermaking process is different in significance and complexity compared to the dying, decorating, printing or converting of jumbo rolls. While petitioner states that it does not have access to the detailed information concerning Quijiang's facilities, it contends that the best information available on Vietnam processing is the record of the underlying investigation concerning production in the PRC. Regarding printing in the PRC, petitioner states that, despite the nature of the design, *i.e.* , whether complicated or simple, the nature of the printing process is not complex. Petitioner further states that converting the tissue involves two to three minor processes typically performed by hand in the PRC: cutting the tissue to a specific size, folding it (by hand) and packaging for export (also by hand). Petitioner cites to an affidavit from the Petition (at Exhibit 5), where members of the domestic industry reported first-hand knowledge of the production facilities in China based on site visits where they observed papermaking and converting operations; the public version of Section D and Exhibit D-5 of the Section D response of China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Xiamen Corp. (China National) during the investigation, which reflects the production process petitioner described in its July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request; and the January 6, 2005, verification report for China National at page 39 from the investigation, where Department verifiers confirm that China National used manual labor for folding paper and packaging. *See* August 18, 2006, petitioner submission at pages 2-4 and Exhibits 3-4. All of these sources, petitioner argues, support its statements that Chinese converting operations involve hand folding and packaging, rather than automated activities, and are therefore “minor or insignificant” processes. Petitioner argues that an analysis of the relevant statutory factors of section 781(b)(2) of the Act further supports its conclusion that the Vietnam processing is “minor or insignificant.” These factors include:
(1)level of investment in the foreign country;
(2)level of research and development in the foreign country;
(3)nature of the production process in the foreign country;
(4)extent of production facilities in the foreign country; and
(5)whether the value of the processing in the foreign country represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into the United States. Petitioner argues that the Vietnam process is “minor and insignificant” as the term is defined in section 781(b)(2) of the Act when compared to the complex, highly capital intensive, skilled operations required to produce lightweight tissue paper from pulp, chemicals, and dyes in the PRC. Petitioner's analysis of the statutory factors follows:
(1)Level of Investment Petitioner claims that available information from Quijiang and Guilin Qifeng indicates that little investment has been or is being made in Vietnam. Petitioner argues that the business model described by the two companies indicates that Quijiang only serves as a converting operation and an export platform for Guilin Qifeng and is not an integrated production operation. Petitioner further argues that Guilin Qifeng would have no desire to set up an operation in Vietnam that would compete with its own production capacity. Petitioner cites to Quijiang's business license, which provides a description of Quijiang's business activities, as proof of its statements. Because the business license is business proprietary information, its specific content cannot be discussed here. *See* July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request at Exhibit 5. Petitioner concludes that the level of investment in the Vietnam processing facility is low.
(2)Level of Research and Development Petitioner states that because Quijiang is affiliated with Guilin Qifeng, it is reasonable to presume that any research and development efforts would originate at Guilin Qifeng in the PRC. Furthermore, the tissue paper production industry is a mature industry and any innovations are refinements rather than new technologies, petitioner states, as determined by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in its injury findings. *See Certain Tissue Paper Products From China* , Inv. No. 731-TA-1070B (Final), Pub. 3758 at III-3 (March 2005) ( *USITC Final Report* ). Converting operations are also mature, according to petitioner, and likely involve hand-folding and packaging, rather than automated and research and development intensive activities, as would be found in the United States.
(3)Nature of the Production Process Petitioner argues that both Quijiang and Guilin Qifeng describe the nature of the Vietnamese production process as follows: jumbo rolls further processed by cutting, slitting, dying, printing, decorating, folding, and packaging prior to transport. *See* July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request at Exhibits 2-3. Although petitioner states that it does not have specific information regarding these production processes, it contends that taking the description at face value indicates that the operations are decorative in nature or involve completing the merchandise. Petitioner argues that none of the processes listed above, particularly dying and decorating, alter the fundamental nature or critical characteristics such as basis weight, quality, and texture- of the papermaking stage of production. Petitioner states that dip-dying, printing, and converting use few inputs, and, while cutting jumbo rolls to length involves some skill and may involve machinery, the essence of the activity is not complex although it can be performed in a variety of more or less complex ways. Folding and packing, petitioner adds, are done by hand in the PRC. Petitioner presumes, based on its knowledge of the PRC industry, that folding and packing are done by hand in Vietnam as well.
(4)Extent of Production in Vietnam Petitioner states that it does not have access to detailed information concerning the extent of production facilities in Vietnam. However, petitioner claims that Quijiang's operations are housed in rented facilities, which suggests a lower level of investment than that which would be required by the capital-intensive nature of papermaking operations. Specifically, papermaking operations require that the necessary machinery be permanently placed and operated, while printing and converting operations are more easily temporarily housed and movable, petitioner states. Petitioner claims that the rented nature of the business operations supports a determination that Quijiang was established as a means for Guilin Qifeng to continue to use its production capacity while evading the dumping order.
(5)Value of Vietnam Processing Compared to Tissue Paper Imported Into the United States Petitioner states that it does not have access to information concerning the cost of tissue paper rolls sent to Quijiang or the costs associated with operations in Vietnam; however, it contends that data from the period of investigation supports a determination that the value of processing performed in Vietnam represents a small proportion of value of the merchandise imported into the United States. In late 2003 and early 2004, petitioner states, it gathered prices on jumbo rolls and converted tissue paper products. Based on a comparison of two data points, petitioner argues that the value added by converting jumbo rolls is insignificant. Because the price points are business proprietary information, they cannot be discussed here. *See* July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request at pages 21-22 and Exhibit 7. D. Value of Merchandise Produced in PRC Petitioner argues that the evidence as noted *supra* in their anti-circumvention request clearly supports its position that the value of the Guilin Qifeng jumbo rolls produced in the PRC and sent to Quijiang represents a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States, as measured by the prices at which jumbo rolls and converted tissue paper were offered for sale. E. Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary Petitioner argues that additional factors must be considered in the Department's decision whether to issue a finding of circumvention regarding importation of Vietnamese tissue paper. These factors are discussed below. Pattern of Trade Petitioner states that section 781(b)(3) of the Act directs the Department to take into account patterns of trade when making a decision on anti-circumvention rulings. Petitioner argues that in February 2004, when petitioner and other members of the domestic industry filed a Petition in this proceeding, Vietnam was not a source of any exports of tissue paper to the United States. Petitioner bases these claims on an analysis of publicly available information from the Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS). *See* July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request at Exhibit 1 and August 18, 2006, petitioner submission at Exhibits 1-2. Petitioner claims that four months after the petition was filed, in June 2004, Guilin Qifeng established Quijiang with the sole purpose of importing Chinese jumbo rolls for converting and completion into tissue paper for export into the United States. Two months later, petitioner contends, in August 2004 large and increasing volumes of tissue paper shipments from Vietnam emerged and have continued. *See* July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request at Exhibit 1 and August 18, 2006, petitioner submission at Exhibits 1-2. Affiliation Petitioner states that section 781(b)(3) of the Act directs the Department to take into account whether the manufacturer or export of the merchandise is affiliated with the person who uses the merchandise to assemble or complete in the foreign country the merchandise that is subsequently imported into the United States when making a decision on anti-circumvention rulings. Petitioner contends that both Quijiang and Guilin Qifeng have admitted that they are affiliated companies. *See* July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request at Exhibits 2 and 3. The timing of the establishment of Quijiang and the terms of the company's operation, *i.e.* , importing rolls to be converted and then exported, petitioner argues, suggests a clear intention to shift completion of merchandise under order from the PRC to Vietnam. Subsequent Import Volume Petitioner states that section 781(b)(3) of the Act directs the Department to take into account whether imports into the foreign country of the merchandise have increased after the initiation of the investigation which resulted in the issuance of such an order or finding when making a decision on anti-circumvention rulings. Petitioner claims it does not have access to data concerning trade flows of jumbo rolls between the PRC and Vietnam; however, it noted that it is impossible that Quijiang would have received jumbo rolls before June 2004 because the company did not exist before then. Petitioner also claims that the evidence concerning Vietnam's lack of exports to the United States, along with the emergence of large exports of tissue paper starting in August 2004, is a reasonable basis for inferring that jumbo roll imports into Vietnam from the PRC increased after the initiation of the original investigation in this proceeding. *See* July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request at Exhibit 1 and August 18, 2006, petitioner submission at Exhibits 1-2. Comments from Quijiang On August 11, 2006, Quijiang submitted comments on petitioner's July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request. Quijiang states that the Department should not initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry. It claims that its production of tissue paper from Vietnamese-sourced paper, in addition to PRC-sourced paper, shows that Guilin Qifeng's investment in Vietnam is substantial and that research and development does take place at Quijiang. Quijiang argues that the effect of paper converting is significant and cites the record from the USITC injury determination where the USITC examined the converting process in detail and determined that the domestic industry consists of vertically integrated firms and firms that convert tissue paper from jumbo rolls. *See USITC Final Report* at I-10-11 and III-4; *see also Id* . at 3-4. Quijiang also claims that information from the March 12, 2004, USITC post-conference brief indicates the percentage of value added to a jumbo roll by the conversion process is significant and that this information is readily available to petitioner. Quijiang states that the original scope request on jumbo rolls, in which the Department determined that jumbo rolls were excluded from the scope of this order, indicated that the value-added by converting operations was estimated to be about one third of the total value. *See* “Memorandum for Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary: Final Scope Ruling: Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China (A-570-894); CSS Industries, Inc.,” dated December 1, 2004. If the Department believes that Quijang's cutting of jumbo rolls may constitute circumvention, Quijiang argues, then it should investigate petitioner's operations as well because Quijiang is aware that its affiliate Guilin Qifeng sells petitioner jumbo rolls from the PRC which petitioner then converts using essentially the same production processes as Quijiang. 1 In addition, Quijiang states that it objects to petitioner having placed proprietary documents submitted by Quijiang and Guilin Qifeng in the first administrative review of tissue paper from the PRC on the record of this proceeding. Petitioner's decision, Quijiang claims, to submit the July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request as business proprietary, including bracketing some of petitioner's own information, makes it impossible for Quijiang to meaningfully comment of the information contained within the submission as no administrative protective order
(APO)has been established for the anti-circumvention inquiry yet. 2 1 At this time, the Department is not considering Quijiang's request here in the absence of a formal anti-circumvention request that provides information regarding all of the factors enumerated in section 781(b) of the Act. 2 In accordance with our practice, the Department notes that an APO will be established upon the initiation of this inquiry and at that time Quijiang's counsel may apply for an APO and receive copies of the business proprietary anti-circumvention request and other relevant submissions, upon which it may then make more comments. We note that that lack of an APO at this time has no bearing on whether an anti-circumvention inquiry should be initiated. For all the reasons stated above, Quijiang argues, the Department should reject petitioner's request to initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry. Analysis Based on our analysis of the application and the August 18, 2006, petitioner submission, the Department determines that a formal anti-circumvention inquiry is warranted. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(e), if the Department finds that the issue of whether a product is included within the scope of an order cannot be determined based solely upon the application and the descriptions of the merchandise, the Department will notify by mail all parties on the Department's scope service list of the initiation of a scope inquiry, including an anti-circumvention inquiry. In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1)(ii), a notice of the initiation of an anti-circumvention inquiry issued under paragraph
(e)of this section will include a description of the product that is the subject of the anti-circumvention inquiry in this case, cut-to-length tissue paper that contains the characteristics as provided in the scope of the order, and an explanation of the reasons for the Department's decision to initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry, as provided below. With regard to whether the merchandise from Vietnam is of the same class or kind as the merchandise produced in the PRC, petitioner has presented information indicating that the merchandise being imported from Vietnam is of the same class or kind as the tissue paper produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty order. The merchandise from Vietnam shares physical characteristics with the merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order. With regard to completion of merchandise in a foreign country, petitioner has also presented information that the tissue paper from Vietnam is being processed in Vietnam using PRC jumbo rolls of tissue paper as the input. Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang have admitted the same on the record of the first administrative review of tissue paper from the PRC. *See* “Letter to the Secretary from Guilin Qifeng: Q&V response of Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., Ltd.,” dated June 21, 2006; *see also* “Letter to the Secretary from Quijiang: Q&V response of Vietnam Quijiang Paper Company, Limited,” dated May 25, 2006. With regard to whether the conversion of PRC jumbo rolls of tissue paper into cut-to-length tissue paper from Vietnam is a “minor or insignificant process,” petitioner addressed the relevant statutory factors used to determine whether the processing jumbo rolls of tissue paper is minor or insignificant with the best information available to petitioner at the time of the request. Petitioner relied on information from the underlying investigation and information placed on the record of the first administrative review by Quijiang and Guilin Qifeng. Although Quijiang has challenged petitioner's claim that the conversion process in Vietnam is “minor or insignificant,” we find that the information presented by petitioner supports petitioner's request to initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry. In particular, petitioner provides evidence for each of the criteria provided in the statute, including arguing 1) that Quijiang's business license suggests little investment has been made in Quijiang; 2) that because Guilin Qifeng has a fully integrated production facility and is affiliated with Quijiang it is reasonable to presume that research and development takes place in the PRC; 3) that printing, folding, and cutting, *i.e.* , the converting process, do not alter the fundamental characteristics of the tissue paper; 4) that Quijiang's rented facilities suggest a lower investment level than that required by the capital-intensive nature of the paper-making process; and 5) that business proprietary price points obtained by petitioner suggest that converting tissue paper adds little value to the merchandise imported to the United States. Furthermore, we note that the converting operations described in the scope request and in the USITC report, to which Quijiang refers, discuss converting operations in the United States. Our analysis will focus on converting operations in Vietnam and, in the context of this proceeding, we will closely examine the value-added and extent of processing in Vietnam. With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in the PRC, petitioner relied on the information and arguments in the “minor or insignificant process” portion of its anti-circumvention request to indicate that the value of jumbo rolls of tissue paper is significant relative to the total value of finished merchandise exported to the United States. We find that the information adequately meets the requirements of this factor, as discussed above. Finally, petitioner argued that the Department should also consider the pattern of trade, affiliation, and subsequent import volumes as factors in determining whether to initiate the anti-circumvention inquiry. The import information submitted by petitioner indicates that imports of tissue paper from Vietnam are rising significantly. Moreover, Guilin Qifeng's and Quijiang's own statements establish that Quijiang is an affiliate of Guilin Qifeng. Accordingly, we are initiating a formal anti-circumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products from the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on the merchandise. The Department is focusing its analysis of the significance of the production process in Vietnam on the single processor identified by the petitioner, namely Quijiang, in its July 21, 2006, anti-circumvention request and about which sufficient information to initiate an inquiry has been provided. If the Department receives a formal request from an interested party regarding potential circumvention by other Vietnamese companies involved in processing PRC jumbo rolls for export to the United States within sufficient time, we will consider conducting the inquiries concurrently. The Department will, following consultation with interested parties, establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues. The Department intends to issue its final determination within 300 days of the date of publication of this initiation. This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 5, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15094 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Announcement of Performance Review Board Members AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: 5 CFR 430.310 requires agencies to publish notice of Performance Review Board appointees in the **Federal Register** before their service begins. This notice announces the names of new and existing members of the International Trade Administrations Performance Review Board. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Montague, International Trade Administration, Office of Human Resources Management, at
(202)482-2850, Room 7414, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Performance Review Board is to review and make recommendations to the appointing authority on performance management issues such as appraisals, bonuses, pay level increases, and Presidential Rank Awards for members of the Senior Executive Service. The Under Secretary for International Trade, Franklin L. Lavin, has named the following members of the International Trade Administration Performance Review Board: 1. Thomas A. McGinty, National Director (new). 2. Barbara E. Tillman, Senior Director (new).* 3. Seward L. Jones Jr., Director, Office of Multilateral Affairs (new). 4. Patricia A. Sefcik, Senior Director for Manufacturing (new). 5. Ronald A. Glaser, Human Resources Officer, Executive Secretary (new). 6. Sean M. Reilly, Chief of Staff, At-Large (new). 7. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security, Outside Reviewer (new). * Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Director for Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Policy and Negotiations, Alternate (new). Dated: September 8, 2006. Deborah Martin, Acting, Human Resources Officer. [FR Doc. E6-15200 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-25-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Coral Reefs—Economic Valuation Study AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 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 November 13, 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 Dr. Vernon R. Leeworthy, NOS/Special Projects, 1305 East West Highway, SSMC 4, 9th Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (or *Bob.Leeworthy@noaa.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The purpose of this data collection is to provide information on the value of Hawaii's coral reef habitats to specific segments of the U.S. population. This is a national survey using a panel based on a nationally representative, list-assisted, random digit-dial
(RDD)sample drawn from all 10-digit telephone numbers in the U.S. The survey is designed to yield information that can be used to estimate non-use or passive economic use values for Hawaii's coral reef ecosystems. The survey addresses the public's preferences and economic values regarding the use of no-take areas as a management tool and their preferences regarding several alternative methods of restoring damaged coral reefs. A large scale pre-test of the survey has been conducted (200 survey responses) under OMB Approval Number 0648-0531, expiration date 8/31/2006. II. Method of Collection Members of the panel will complete the survey on-line using either WebTV technology supplied by Knowledge Networks, Inc. or their own Internet service. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,000. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,000. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. 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: September 5, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-15032 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Southeast Region Bottlenose Dolphin Conservation Outreach Survey AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 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 November 13, 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 Michelle McGregor,
(301)713-1406 ext. 169 or *michelle.mcgregor@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The objective of this survey is to assess the level of awareness on issues related to regulations preventing feeding/harassment of wild bottlenose dolphins, which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In particular, the survey is designed to determine what commercial operators and the general public know about specific regulations prohibiting feeding and harassment of bottlenose dolphins, and how they gained their knowledge and/or perceptions on the topic. The initial geographic region for this survey is Panama City, Florida, where numerous incidences of dolphin harassment and feeding have been documented. The intent, in the future, is to use this survey in other areas of the southeast region to gain a similar understanding and ensure outreach messages are appropriate for intended audiences. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR part 679 form the basis for this collection of information. The National Marine Fisheries Service will request information from local residents, tourists and commercial businesses through a one-time survey. This information, upon receipt, will be used to develop effective and better-targeted outreach efforts in order to enhance bottlenose dolphin conservation in Florida. II. Method of Collection Participants voluntarily complete paper questionnaires, and methods of submittal include on-site, mail, and facsimile transmission of paper forms. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,200. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 600. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. 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: September 5, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-15033 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Regional Economic Data Collection Program for Southwest Alaska AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 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 November 13, 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 Chang Seung,
(206)526-4250 or *Chang.Seung@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The regional or community economic analysis of proposed fishery management policies is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Executive Order 12866, among others. To satisfy these mandates and inform policymakers and the public of the likely regional economic impacts associated with fishery management policies, appropriate economic models and the data to implement these models are needed. Much of the data required for regional economic analysis associated with Southwest Alaska fisheries are either unavailable or unreliable. Accurate fishery-level data on employment, labor income, and expenditures in the Southwest Alaska fishery and related industries are not currently available but are needed to estimate the effects of fisheries on the economy of Southwest Alaska. In this survey effort, data on these important regional economic variables will be collected and used to develop models that will provide more reliable estimates and significantly improve policymakers' ability to assess policy effects on fishery-dependent communities in Southwest Alaska. The survey will be for one-time only. The survey (mailed) will be used to request data on employment and labor income from 2,200 vessel owners whose boats delivered fish to Southwest Alaska processors. In-person interviews and telephone calls
(120)with businesses involved in the fishery and related industries will be used to obtain
(a)Vessel expenditure/cost data;
(b)regional economic data for non-fishery industries; and
(c)regional economic data for fish processing sector. II. Method of Collection Mail surveys will be used. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,320. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Mail survey: 10 minutes; phone call or local interview with fish processors: 30 minutes; phone calls with local small businesses: 10 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 393. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. 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: September 5, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-15034 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Professional Development Workshops and Formal Evaluation of NOAA Educational Materials AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 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 November 13, 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 Bruce Moravchik, 301-713-3061 ext. 219 or *Bruce.Moravchik@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The project, *Professional Development Workshops and Formal Evaluation of NOAA Educational Materials* , has three primary goals:
(1)To provide a series of three one-day professional development opportunities whereby educators will learn more about coastal and ocean science, and about the wide variety of online tools and resources available to them via the NOAA Discovery Center and Ocean Explorer Web sites;
(2)To develop and implement an outcomes-based evaluation of the three educator professional development workshops; and
(3)To implement an outcomes-based evaluation of the online tools and resources available through the NOAA Discovery Center and Ocean Explorer Web sites. II. Method of Collection Paper pre- and post-workshop questionnaires will be collected on-site. Paper follow-up questionnaires will be collected via mail. Student questionnaires will be completed online. Focus groups will be completed on-site. III. Data *OMB Number:* None. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,620. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Workshop pre-questionnaire, 15 minutes; post-questionnaire, 30 minutes; follow-up questionnaire, 2 hours; student questionnaire, 30 minutes; focus group, 2 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,035. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $0. 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: September 6, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-15036 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Initial Patent Applications ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the revision of a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Susan.Brown@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-0032 comment” in the subject line of the message. • Fax: 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. • Mail: Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by telephone at 571-272-7700; or by e-mail at *bob.spar@uspto.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Abstract Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power * * *” [t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Congress has exercised this grant of power under the Constitution to enact the patent statute, Title 35, U.S.C., and to establish the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO is required by 35 U.S.C. 131 to examine applications for patents. The patent statute and regulations require applicants to provide sufficient information (specification containing a description of the invention and at least one claim defining the property right sought by the applicant; a drawing or photograph, where necessary, for an understanding of the invention; a signed oath or declaration, and the necessary fees) to allow the USPTO to properly examine the application to determine whether it meets the criteria set forth in the patent statute and regulations to be issued as a patent. The USPTO administers the statute through various rules in 37 CFR 1.16 through 1.84. The new utility, design, and provisional applications can be submitted to the USPTO in paper or they can be submitted electronically. Previously, applications were submitted electronically through the Electronic Filing System (EFS). In March 2006, the USPTO deployed EFS Web, a new Web based patent application and document submission solution. EFS-Web does not require special software and applicants can use their own systems, software, and processes to create the patent application documents. The EFS Web uses standard Web-based screens and prompts to assist the applicant in submitting their patent application documents. The USPTO has expanded the types of applications that can be filed electronically. In addition to the new original utility and provisional applications that are already filed electronically, new original design applications can now be filed electronically. In addition to the filing, search, and examination fees that are already in the collection, two new patent fees from the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 are being added into the collection at this time. This includes a new filing fee of $75 for small entities filing original utility applications electronically on or after 12/8/04 and an application size fee that is paid for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 on or after 12/8/04, in which the specification and the drawings exceed 100 sheets of paper. Five other existing fees or surcharges that were previously overlooked are being added into the collection at this time. This includes surcharges for the late filing of the fees, oaths, or declarations and for the late filing of the coversheet for provisional applications. The other fees are for filing more than 3 independent claims, filing more than 20 claims, and for filing multiple dependent claims in a patent application. Unlike the last renewal, the utility, design, and plant applications are no longer grouped together, but are broken out separately. This permits the USPTO to show exactly how many of the different applications have been filed. It also makes it easier to account for the electronic filings since the utility, design, and provisional applications can be filed electronically, but the plant applications are not filed electronically. The response and fee tables can also be more closely aligned to each other than they were previously. There are 28 forms in this collection. The electronic Application Data Sheet has a form number, but the paper version does not since it is a suggested format and not an official paper form. II. Method of Collection By mail, facsimile (limited to petitions to accept delayed priority claims and requests for continued prosecution applications), or hand delivery to the USPTO. New utility, design, and provisional applications can also be submitted electronically through the EFS. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0651-0032. *Form Number(s):* PTO/SB/01/01A/02/02LR/03/03A/04/05/06/07/13/PCT/14/16/17/18/19/29/29A/101-110. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; and the Federal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 543,590 responses per year. *Estimated Time per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it takes the public approximately 24 minutes to 10 hours and 45 minutes (0.40 to 10.75 hours) to complete this information, depending on the request. This includes the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the application, petition, or CD submission, and submit the completed request to the USPTO. Given the newness of electronic filing, the USPTO believes that, for now, it will take the same amount of time to gather the necessary information, prepare the new utility, design, or provisional application, and submit it to the USPTO, whether the applicant submits it in paper form or electronically. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours:* 4,748,122 hours per year. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden:* $1,443,429,088 per year. The USPTO expects that all of the information in this collection will be prepared by an attorney. Using the professional hourly rate of $304 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the total respondent cost burden for this collection is $1,443,429,088 per year. Item Estimated time for response Estimated annual responses Estimated annual burden hours Original New Utility Applications—No Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 45 minutes 162,400 1,745,800 Electronic Original New Utility Applications—No Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 45 minutes 69,600 748,200 Original New Plant Applications—No Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 45 minutes 1,115 11,986 Original New Design Applications—No Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 45 minutes 14,945 160,659 Electronic Original Design Applications—No Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 45 minutes 6,410 68,908 Original New Utility Applications—Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 36 minutes 40,600 430,360 Electronic Original New Utility Applications—Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 36 minutes 17,400 184,440 Original New Plant Applications—Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 36 minutes 285 3,021 Original New Design Applications—Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 36 minutes 3,740 39,644 Electronic New Design Applications—Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 36 minutes 1,605 17,013 Continuation/Divisional of an International Application—No Application Data Sheet 10 hours and 45 minutes 7,560 81,270 Utility Continuation/Divisional Applications 54 minutes 56,930 51,237 Plant Continuation/Divisional Applications 54 minutes 230 207 Design Continuation/Divisional Applications 54 minutes 750 675 Continued Prosecution Applications—Design (Request Transmittal and Receipt) 24 minutes 260 104 Utility Continuation-in-Part Applications 5 hours and 15 minutes 17,720 93,030 Plant Continuation-in-Part Applications 5 hours and 15 minutes 70 368 Design Continuation-in-Part Applications 5 hours and 15 minutes 480 2,520 Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheet 8 hours 96,680 773,440 Electronic Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheet 8 hours 41,490 331,920 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claim 1 hour 920 920 Petition to Accept Non-Signing Inventors or Legal Representatives/Filing by Other Than all the Inventors or a Person not the Inventor 1 hour 2,400 2,400 Total 543,590 4,748,122 *Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden:* $695,587,260 per year. There are capital start-up, postage, recordkeeping, and drawing costs, as well as filing fees, associated with this information collection. Applicants can use Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) or Compact Disk-Recordables (CD-R) to submit patent applications containing large computer program listings to the USPTO. Therefore, the costs for purchasing blank CD-R media (CDs), cases and labels for the CDs, and a padded mailing envelope for shipping, are being added to the annual (non-hour) costs for this collection. Blank CD-R media with plastic jewel cases can be purchased for approximately $10 for 10 blank CDs, or about $1 per disc. The average cost of software for labeling CDs, including blank labels and case inserts, is approximately $20. Padded 8.5 x 11-inch mailing envelopes for shipping the CDs cost approximately $12 for a package of 12, or about $1 per envelope. In sum, the USPTO estimates that the total costs for the blank CD-R media, the software for labeling the CDs, and the mailing envelope are approximately $42 per year. The USPTO estimates that 3 patent applications will need to be submitted on CD per year, which when multiplied by the total cost of the media, the labeling software, and the mailing envelopes, equals $126 in total costs. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total capital start-up costs for this collection will be $126 per year. The applications, the petition to accept a delayed priority claim, the petition to accept non-signing inventors or legal representatives, and the oversized program listing CD submissions may be submitted by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO recommends that applicants file initial patent applications (which also include the continued prosecution, continuation and divisional, continuation-in-part, and provisional applications) by Express Mail to establish the filing date (otherwise the filing date of the application will be the date that it is received at the USPTO). The USPTO estimates that the average cost for sending an initial application by Express Mail will be $18.80, and that customers filing documents associated with these initial applications may choose this option to mail their submissions to the USPTO. The USPTO estimates that up to 403,765 submissions per year may be mailed to the USPTO at an average Express Mail rate of $18.80, for a total postage cost of $7,590,782. The petitions for delayed priority claim or for acceptance of non-signing inventors or legal representatives can be sent by first-class mail. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 63 cents, and that customers filing these petitions may choose to mail their submissions to the USPTO. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that up to 3,320 submissions per year may be mailed to the USPTO at an average first-class postage cost of 63 cents, for a total postage cost of $2,092 per year. In the case of the oversized program listing CD submissions, the USPTO estimates that the average postage cost for these submissions will be 95 cents, to cover the costs of mailing the CD, the application transmittal form, and the cover letter. The USPTO estimates that 3 oversized program listing CD submissions will be received per year, for a total postage cost of $3 per year. The total postage cost for this collection is $7,592,877 per year. There are recordkeeping costs associated with the oversized program listing CD submissions and the electronic filing of new utility, design, and provisional applications. The USPTO advises applicants who submit applications with oversized computer listings on CD to retain a back-up copy of the CD and a printed copy of the application transmittal form for their records. The USPTO estimates that it will take an additional 5 minutes for the applicant to produce this back-up CD copy and 2 minutes to print the copy of the application transmittal form, for a total of 7 minutes (0.12 hours) for each oversized submission. The USPTO estimates that approximately 3 applications per year will be submitted with oversized computer program listings, for a total of 0.36 hours per year for retaining the back-up CD and printed application transmittal form. The USPTO believes that these back-up copies will be prepared by paraprofessionals with an estimated hourly rate of $90 per hour, for a recordkeeping cost for these back-up copies of $32 per year. In addition, the USPTO also strongly advises applicants who file their new utility, design, and provisional applications electronically to retain a copy of the file submitted to the USPTO as evidence of authenticity, in addition to keeping the acknowledgment receipt as clear evidence that the file was received by the USPTO on the date noted. The USPTO estimates that it will take 5 seconds (0.001 hours) to print and retain a copy of the new utility, design, and provisional submissions and that approximately 136,505 new submissions per year (87,000 utility, 8,015 design, and 41,490 provisional applications) will use this option, for a total of 137 hours per year. Using the paraprofessional rate of $90 per hour, the USPTO estimates that the recordkeeping cost for retaining this copy will be $12,330 per year. The total recordkeeping cost for this collection is $12,362 per year. Patent applicants can submit drawings with the utility, design, plant, and provisional applications. Applicants can prepare these drawings on their own or they can hire patent illustration services firms to create them. As a basis for calculating the drawing costs, the USPTO believes that all applicants will have their drawings prepared by the patent illustration firms. Estimates for the drawings can vary greatly, depending on the number of figures that need to be produced, the total number of pages for the drawings, and the complexity of the drawings. The utility, plant, and design continuation and divisional applications use the same drawings as the initial filings, so they are not included in these totals. The continuation-in-part applications may use some of the same drawings as the initial applications and some new drawings may be submitted, so those numbers are included in these estimates. The drawings for the continued prosecution applications are also included in the drawing cost totals. There are no continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part provisional applications. The USPTO estimates that it can cost $58 per sheet to produce the utility drawings and that on average, 11 sheets of drawings are submitted, for an average cost of $638 to produce the utility drawings. Out of 307,720 utility applications submitted per year, the USPTO estimates that 91% or 280,025 applications will be submitted with drawings, for a total of $178,655,950. The USPTO estimates that it can cost $68 per sheet to produce design drawings and that on average 4.8 sheets of drawings are submitted, for an average cost of $326 to produce design drawings. Out of 27,440 design applications submitted per year, the USPTO estimates that 100% will be submitted with drawings, for a total of $8,945,440. The USPTO estimates that it can cost $35 per sheet to produce plant drawings and that on average 2 sheets of drawings are submitted, for an average cost of $70 to produce plant drawings. Out of 1,470 plant applications submitted per year, the USPTO estimates that 100% will be submitted with drawings, for a total of $102,900. The USPTO estimates that it can cost $58 per sheet to produce provisional drawings and that on average 7.5 sheets of drawings are submitted, for an average cost of $435 to produce provisional drawings. Out of 138,170 provisional applications submitted per year, the USPTO estimates that 78% or 107,773 applications will be submitted with drawings, for a total of $46,881,255. The USPTO estimates that at least $234,585,545 could be added to the total non-hour cost burden as a result of patent applicants using patent illustration firms to produce the drawings for their utility, design, plant, and provisional applications. There is also annual nonhour cost burden in the way of filing fees associated with this collection. The filing, search, and examination fees for the utility, plant, design, and provisional applications (including the continuation and divisional, continued prosecution, and continuation-in-part applications) are determined by which filing status (other entity or small entity) the applicant has selected. The filing fees for the electronically-filed new utility applications for small entities are $75, but for the rest of the applications the fees are the same as those for the paper applications. The small entity status does not apply to the petition to accept a delayed priority claim or to the petition to accept non-signing inventors or legal representatives/filing by other than all the inventors or a person not the inventor. The total estimated filing costs of $453,396,350 for this collection are calculated in the following charts. The first chart shows the filing, search, and examination fees for the various applications. Item Responses
(yr)Filing fee Search fee Examination fee Total fees Total non-hour cost burden
(a)×
(b)Original New Utility Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 113,680 $300.00 $500.00 $200.00 $1,000.00 $113,680,000.00 Original New Utility Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 48,720 150.00 250.00 100.00 500.00 24,360,000.00 Electronic Original New Utility Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 48,720 300.00 500.00 200.00 1,000.00 48,720,000.00 Electronic Original New Utility Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 20,880 75.00 250.00 100.00 425.00 8,874,000.00 Original New Plant Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 780 200.00 300.00 160.00 660.00 514,800.00 Original New Plant Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 335 100.00 150.00 80.00 330.00 110,550.00 Original New Design Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 7,320 200.00 100.00 130.00 430.00 3,147,600.00 Original New Design Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 7,625 100.00 50.00 65.00 215.00 1,639,375.00 Electronic Original New Design Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 3,145 200.00 100.00 130.00 430.00 1,352,350.00 Electronic Original New Design Applications—No Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 3,265 100.00 50.00 65.00 215.00 701,975.00 Original New Utility Applications—Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 28,420 300.00 500.00 200.00 1,000.00 28,420,000.00 Original New Utility Applications—Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 12,180 150.00 250.00 100.00 500.00 6,090,000.00 Electronic Original New Utility Applications—Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 12,180 300.00 500.00 200.00 1,000.00 12,180,000.00 Electronic Original New Utility Applications—Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 5,220 75.00 250.00 100.00 425.00 2,218,500.00 Original New Plant Applications—Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 200 200.00 300.00 160.00 660.00 132,000.00 Original New Plant Applications—Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 85 100.00 150.00 80.00 330.00 28,050.00 Original New Design Applications—Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 1,830 200.00 100.00 130.00 430.00 786,900.00 Original New Design Applications—Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 1,910 100.00 50.00 65.00 215.00 410,650.00 Electronic New Design Applications—Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 785 200.00 100.00 130.00 430.00 337,550.00 Electronic New Design Applications—Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 820 100.00 50.00 65.00 215.00 176,300.00 Continuation/Divisional of an International Application—No Application Data Sheet—Other Entity 5,990 300.00 500.00 200.00 1,000.00 5,990,000.00 Continuation/Divisional of an International Application—No Application Data Sheet—Small Entity 1,570 150.00 250.00 100.00 500.00 785,000.00 Utility Continuation/Divisional Applications—Other Entity 40,420 300.00 500.00 200.00 1,000.00 40,420,000.00 Utility Continuation/Divisional Applications—Small Entity 16,510 150.00 250.00 100.00 500.00 8,255,000.00 Plant Continuation/Divisional Applications—Other Entity 160 200.00 300.00 160.00 660.00 105,600.00 Plant Continuation/Divisional Applications—Small Entity 70 100.00 150.00 80.00 330.00 23,100.00 Design Continuation/Divisional Applications—Other Entity 365 200.00 100.00 130.00 430.00 156,950.00 Design Continuation/Divisional Applications—Small Entity 385 100.00 50.00 65.00 215.00 82,775.00 Continued Prosecution Applications—Design (Request Transmittal and Receipt)—Other Entity 125 200.00 100.00 130.00 430.00 53,750.00 Continued Prosecution Applications—Design (Request Transmittal and Receipt)—Small Entity 135 100.00 50.00 65.00 215.00 29,025.00 Utility Continuation-in-Part Applications—Other Entity 12,580 300.00 500.00 200.00 1,000.00 12,580,000.00 Utility Continuation-in-Part Applications—Small Entity 5,140 150.00 250.00 100.00 500.00 2,570,000.00 Plant Continuation-in-Part Applications—Other Entity 50 200.00 300.00 160.00 660.00 33,000.00 Plant Continuation-in-Part Applications—Small Entity 20 100.00 150.00 80.00 330.00 6,600.00 Design Continuation-in-Part Applications—Other Entity 235 200.00 100.00 130.00 430.00 101,050.00 Design Continuation-in-Part Applications—Small Entity 245 100.00 50.00 65.00 215.00 52,675.00 Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheets—Other Entity 36,500 200.00 N/A N/A 200.00 7,300,000.00 Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheets—Small Entity 60,180 100.00 N/A N/A 100.00 6,018,000.00 Electronic Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheets—Other Entity 15,690 200.00 N/A N/A 200.00 3,138,000.00 Electronic Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheets—Small Entity 25,800 100.00 N/A N/A 100.00 2,580,000.00 Petition to Accept Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claim 920 1,300.00 N/A N/A 1,300.00 1,196,000.00 Petition to Accept Non-Signing Inventors or Legal Representatives/Filing by Other Than all the Inventors or a Person not the Inventor 2,400 200.00 N/A N/A 200.00 480,000.00 Totals 543,590 $345,837,125.00 The second chart calculates the additional fees incurred when an application is filed with additional sheets or excess claims. The USPTO estimates that these fees apply to 311,905 of the 543,590 total applications filed per year. This chart is a subset of the first chart and adds an additional $89,020,075 to the annualized (non-hour) costs; however, it does not change the number of responses. These fees are also determined by the filing status. Item Responses
(yr)Filing fee for additional sheets and claims Average fee Total non-hour cost burden
(a)×
(b)Provisional Application Size Fee for Each Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheet, filed for Each Additional 50 Sheets Exceeding 100 Sheets—Other Entity 2,400 $200.00 per each 50 Sheets over 100 $500.00 $1,200,000.00 Provisional Application Size Fee for Each Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheet, filed for Each Additional 50 Sheets Exceeding 100 Sheets—Small Entity 2,300 $100.00 per each 50 Sheets over 100 260.00 598,000.00 Utility and Plant Applications, with independent claims in excess of 3—Other Entity 95,000 $200.00 for each claim over 3 400.00 38,000,000.00 Utility and Plant Applications, with independent claims in excess of 3—Small Entity 36,000 $100.00 for each claim over 3 200.00 7,200,000.00 Utility and Plant Applications, filed with Claims in Excess of 20—Other Entity 115,000 $50.00 for each claim over 20 200.00 23,000,000.00 Utility and Plant Applications, filed with Claims in Excess of 20—Small Entity 50,000 $25.00 for each claim over 20 300.00 15,000,000.00 Utility Application Size Fee for Each Original New Utility Application, filed with each additional 50 sheets exceeding 100 Sheets—Other Entity 7,500 $250.00 for each additional 50 sheets over 100 425.00 3,187,500.00 Utility Application Size Fee for Each Original New Utility Application, filed with each additional 50 sheets exceeding 100 Sheets—Small Entity 3,500 $125.00 for each additional 50 sheets over 100 225.00 787,500.00 Plant Application Size Fee for Each Original New Plant Application, filed with Each Additional 50 Sheets Exceeding 100 Sheets—Other Entity 25 $250.00 for each additional 50 sheets over 100 275.00 6,875.00 Plant Application Size Fee for Each Original New Plant Application, filed with Each Additional 50 Sheets Exceeding 100 Sheets—Small Entity 10 $125.00 for each additional 50 sheets over 100 265.00 2,650.00 Design Application Size Fee for Each Original New Design Application, filed for each Additional 50 Sheets that Exceeds 100 Sheets—Other Entity 110 $250.00 for each additional 50 sheets over 100 265.00 29,150.00 Design Application Size Fee for Each Original New Design Application, filed for each Additional 50 Sheets that Exceeds 100 Sheets—Small Entity 60 $125.00 for each additional 50 sheets over 100 140.00 8,400.00 Totals 311,905 $89,020,075.00 The third chart calculates the surcharges and fees incurred when an application, the search or examination fee, or the oath or declaration is filed late, when the application is filed with multiple dependent claims, or when the application is filed with a non-English specification. The USPTO estimates that these fees apply to 153,040 of the 543,590 total applications filed per year. This chart is a subset of the first chart and adds an additional $18,539,150 to the annualized (non-hour) costs; however, it does not change the number of responses. Except for the fee for the non-English specification, these fees are also determined by the filing status. Item Responses
(yr)Surcharge fee for late filing, multiple dependent claims, or non-English specification fees Total non-hour cost burden
(a)×
(b)Surcharge for Late Filing of Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheets—Other Entity 3,910 $50.00 $195,500.00 Surcharge for Late Filing of Provisional Application for Patent Cover Sheets—Small Entity 5,650 25.00 141,250.00 Utility and Plant Applications, filed with Multiple Dependent Claims—Other Entity 8,000 360.00 2,880,000.00 Utility and Plant Applications, filed with Multiple Dependent Claims—Small Entity 3,600 180.00 648,000.00 Utility, Plant, and Design Applications, Filed with a Surcharge for Late Filing, Search or Examination Fee, or Oath/Declaration—Other Entity 90,000 130.00 11,700,000.00 Utility, Plant, and Design Applications, Filed with a Surcharge for Late Filing, Search, or Examination Fee, or Oath/Declaration—Small Entity 38,000 65.00 2,470,000.00 Non-English Specification 3,880 130.00 504,400.00 Totals 153,040 18,539,150.00 The USPTO estimates that the total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection, in the form of capital start-up, postage, recordkeeping, and drawing costs, in addition to the filing fees, is $695,587,260 per year. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: August 31, 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. E6-15048 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Sunshine Act Meeting The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service gives notice of the following meeting: Date and Time: Wednesday, September 20, 2006, 9:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Place: Corporation for National and Community Service; 8th Floor; 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525. Status: Open. Matters to be Considered: I. Chair's Opening Remarks. II. Consideration of Prior Meeting's Minutes. III. Committee Reports. IV. CEO Report. V. Public Comment. Accommodations: Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify the Corporation's contact person by 5 p.m. Monday, September 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Premo, Public Affairs Associate, Public Affairs, Corporation for National and Community Service, 10th Floor, Room 10302E, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone
(202)606-6717. Fax
(202)606-3460. TDD:
(202)606-3472. E-mail: *dpremo@cns.gov.* Dated: September 7, 2006. Frank R. Trinity, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 06-7605 Filed 9-8-06; 11:01 am]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
CFR
- Changed circumstances review under section 751(b) of the Act.§ 351.216
- Filing, document identification, format, translation, service, and certification of documents.§ 351.303
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Conversion of currency.§ 351.415
- Time limits for submission of factual information.§ 351.301
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Scope rulings.§ 351.225
- National application filing, search, and examination fees.§ 1.16
register
5 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 15 CFR 700
- 117 F.3d 1401
- 5 CFR 430.310
- 50 CFR 679
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite15 CFR 700
Cites 23 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources