Notices. Notice of Termination of Panel Review of the final Antidumping Duty Determination made by the International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, Secretariat File No
22,349 words·~102 min read·
/register/2006/10/19/06-8767A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (“Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”).
The Department is publishing this notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, Esq. or Juanita H. Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4340 or
(202)482-1904, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 1, 2006, the Department initiated and the Commission instituted a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 5243 (February 1, 2006). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. *See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 33279 (June 8, 2006). The Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Fresh Garlic from China* , 71 FR 58630 (October 4, 2006) and USITC Publication 3886 (September 2006) (Inv. No. 731-TA-683 (Second Review)). Scope of the Order The products subject to the antidumping duty order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following:
(a)garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or
(b)garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is
(1)mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or
(2)specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to Customs and Border Protection to that effect. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the Commission that revocation of this antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to sections 751(d)(2)(A) and
(B)of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of this order is the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this continuation notice. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this antidumping order not later than October 2011. This sunset review has been conducted in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, and this continuation notice is published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 11, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17358 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6312 and
(202)482-0649, respectively. Background On February 19, 1991, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** four antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (heavy forged hand tools) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 6622 (February 19, 1991). Imports covered by these orders comprise the following classes or kinds of merchandise:
(1)Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges);
(2)bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges (bars/wedges);
(3)picks/mattocks; and
(4)axes/adzes. On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 5239) a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools from the PRC for the period of review
(POR)covering February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. On February 24, 2006, respondents Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation and Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation requested administrative reviews of their companies for this POR. On February 27, 2006, respondents Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp., Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., and Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. requested administrative reviews of their companies for this POR. On February 28, 2006, petitioner Council Tool Company requested administrative reviews of Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation, Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation, Shanghai Xinke Trading Company, Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd., and Jafsam Metal Products for this POR. Also on February 28, 2006, petitioner Ames True Temper requested administrative reviews of Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation, Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation, Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd., and Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. for this POR. On April 5, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty orders listed below on heavy forged hand tools from the PRC covering the POR February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, with respect to the listed companies: *Axes/Adzes A-570-803* Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinke Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. *Bars/Wedges A-570-803* Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products. Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinke Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. *Hammers/Sledges A-570-803* Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinke Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation *Picks/Mattocks A-570-803* Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinke Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006). On September 11, 2006, in accordance with Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations and upon the requests of the pertinent parties, the Department rescinded the administrative reviews as follows: •With regard to Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd., in all classes or kinds. •With regard to Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp., in all classes or kinds. •With regard to Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V., in all classes or kinds. •With regard to Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation, in the classes or kinds axes/adzes, hammers/sledges, and bars/wedges. •With regard to Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., in the classes or kinds axes/adzes and bars/wedges. •With regard to Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd., in the class or kind bars/wedges. See *Administrative Review (02/01/2005 01/31/2006) of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* 71 FR 53403 (September 11, 2006). Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the deadlines for preliminary and final results of this administrative review are October 31, 2005, and February 28, 2006, respectively. The Department, however, may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a review if it determines it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within the statutory time limit. *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.213(h)(2). In this case, the Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit because of significant issues that require additional time to evaluate. These include outstanding questions concerning the questionnaire responses that require additional supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results for heavy forged hand tools from the People's Republic of China until February 28, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act. The deadline for the final results of this review will be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results in the **Federal Register** . *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 C.F.R. 351.213(h)(2). This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: October 10, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17380 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-818/Argentina; A-201-835/Mexico] Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Lemon Juice from Argentina and Mexico AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley (Argentina) or Hermes Pinilla (Mexico), AD/CVD Operations, Office 6 and Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3148 or
(202)482-3477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On September 21, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a petition on imports of lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico filed in proper form by Sunkist Growers, Inc. (the petitioner). *See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties Against Lemon Juice from Argentina and Mexico* (September 21, 2006) (petition). On September 28, 2006, the Department issued a request for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petition. Based on the Department's request, the petitioner filed amendments to the petition on October 3, 2006. *See Supplemental Questionnaire: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties Against Lemon Juice from Argentina and Mexico* (October 3, 2006). On October 6, October 10, and October 11, 2006, the Department discussed further concerns with the petitioner by phone. *See Memorandum to the File: Lemon Juice from Argentina and Mexico - Telephone Conversation with counsel to the Petitioner* , dated October 6, 2006, *Memorandum to the File: Lemon Juice from Argentina and Mexico - Telephone Conversations with counsel to the Petitioner* , dated October 10, 2006, and *Memorandum to the File: Lemon Juice from Argentina and Mexico - Telephone Conversation with counsel to the Petitioner* , dated October 11, 2006. In response to these concerns, the petitioner filed additional petition amendments on October 10, 2006 and October 11, 2006. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that the petitioner filed this petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the investigations that the petitioner is requesting the Department to initiate (see “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” below). Scope of Investigations The merchandise covered by each of these investigations includes certain lemon juice for further manufacture, with or without addition of preservatives, sugar, or other sweeteners, regardless of the GPL (grams per liter of citric acid) level of concentration, brix level, brix/acid ratio, pulp content, clarity, grade, horticulture method ( *e.g.* , organic or not), processed form ( *e.g.* , frozen or not-from-concentrate), FDA standard of identity, the size of the container in which packed, or the method of packing. Excluded from the scope are:
(1)lemon juice at any level of concentration packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers, typically at a level of concentration of 48 GPL; and
(2)beverage products such as lemonade that typically contain 20%% or less lemon juice as an ingredient. Lemon juice is classifiable under subheadings 2009.39.6020, 2009.31.6020, 2009.31.4000, 2009.31.6040, and 2009.39.6040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs and Border Patrol purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for
(1)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and
(2)the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission
(ITC)is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured and must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. *See* section 771(10) of the Act. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 1 1 *See USEC, Inc. v. United States* , 25 CIT 49, 55-56, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7-8 (Jan. 24, 2001) (citing *Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States* , 12 CIT 518, 523, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (June 8, 1988)). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. With regard to domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information presented by the petitioner, we have determined that there is a single domestic like product, lemon juice, which is defined in the “Scope of Investigations” section above, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of the domestic like product. We received no opposition to this petition. The petitioner accounts for a sufficient percentage of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A) are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See* “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on Lemon Juice from Argentina,” at Attachment II (October 11, 2006) ( *Argentina Initiation Checklist* ) and “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on Lemon Juice from Mexico,” at Attachment II (October 11, 2006) ( *Mexico Initiation Checklist* ), on file in the CRU. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured and is threatened with material injury by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than fair value. The petitioner contends that the industry's injury is evidenced by reduced market share, increased inventories, lost sales, reduced production, lower capacity and capacity utilization rates, decline in prices, lost revenue, reduced employment, decreased capital expenditures, and a decline in financial performance. These allegations are supported by relevant evidence including import data, evidence of lost sales, and pricing information. We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and have determined that these allegations are supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See Argentina Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III and *Mexico Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III. Period of Investigation In accordance with section 351.204(b) of the Department's regulations, because the petition was filed on September 21, 2006, the anticipated period of investigation
(POI)is July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to initiate investigations with respect to Argentina and Mexico. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value are discussed in greater detail in the *Argentina Initiation Checklist* and *Mexico Initiation Checklist* . Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculation, if appropriate. Use of a Third Country Market and Sales Below Cost Allegation With respect to normal value (NV), the petitioner stated that home market prices are not reasonably available. According to the petitioner, the Argentine and Mexican lemon juice industry is geared almost exclusively to exports. *See* , *e.g.* , pages 12 and 22 of the October 3, 2006 petition amendment. The petitioner stated that its personnel most knowledgeable about international markets inquired about the Argentine and Mexican home markets for lemon juice from their sources but that they were unable to obtain home market prices in Argentina or Mexico. In addition, the petitioner stated that there were no indications of domestic prices for lemon juice in these markets in the several Department of Agriculture and ITC reports which were included in the petition, and which the Department has reviewed. The petitioner therefore proposed the Netherlands as a third country comparison market for both Argentina and Mexico, and demonstrated the viability of the Netherlands as a third country market. In the case of Argentina, the petitioner provided Argentine figures for exports of lemon juice to the Netherlands and the United States. In the case of Mexico, the petitioner provided European Union lemon juice import data for exports from Mexico into the Netherlands and compared them with U.S. lemon juice import data for imports from Mexico. According to these figures, sales to the Netherlands were greater than 5 percent of sales by volume to the United States for both Argentina and Mexico, and thus the petitioner claims that the Netherlands is an appropriate comparison market in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. The petitioner then claimed that sales prices to the Netherlands are below cost, for both Argentine and Mexican exports. The petitioner provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of lemon juice in the comparison market ( *i.e.* , the Netherlands) were made at prices below the fully absorbed cost of production (COP), within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct country-wide sales-below-cost investigations for both Argentina and Mexico. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses (where appropriate). Details regarding the calculation of the COP cost elements ( *i.e.* , COM, SG&A, and financial expenses) are included in our discussion of constructed value (CV), in the “ *Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value* ” sections below. 2 The petitioner calculated export prices for the Netherlands using average unit customs values for imports from Argentina and Mexico. In order to calculate a conservative estimate, the petitioner did not make any deductions to these average unit customs values. 2 In this case, the elements of COP and CV are calculated identically. The only difference between the COP figure used to demonstrate sales below cost and the CV figure used as normal value is that CV includes an amount for profit. Based upon a comparison of the gross price of the foreign like product in the comparison market to the COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating country-wide cost investigations with regard to both Argentina and Mexico. If we determine during the course of these investigations that the home markets ( *i.e.* , Argentina and Mexico) are viable or that the Netherlands is not the appropriate third-country market upon which to base normal value, our initiation of country-wide cost investigations with respect to sales to the Netherlands will be rendered moot. Because it alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner then based NV for sales in the Netherlands on constructed value (CV). Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: Argentina The petitioner calculated a single export price
(EP)using the average unit customs values for import data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. It used a weighted average of all five HTSUS numbers under which subject merchandise could be imported: 2009.31.4000, 2009.31.6020, 2009.31.6040, 2009.39.6020, and 2009.39.6040. The petitioner deducted amounts for domestic inland freight, storage and other harbor charges, and an export tax to arrive at an EP figure for a product at the same concentration level as the product for which CV was calculated. The deductions are based on an affidavit of one of the petitioner's company officials, and represent the cost of transporting subject merchandise to Buenos Aires and preparing it for export as well as an estimate for the export tax. We analyzed the five HTSUS numbers used by the petitioner in calculating EP. Four of the five HTSUS categories were comprised solely of subject merchandise; however, one HTSUS number was a basket category, and, therefore, could include significant amounts of merchandise other than subject merchandise. Accordingly, we recalculated EP by removing HTSUS number 2009.31.4000, the basket category. In addition, we did not make the deductions to price made by the petitioner, as the petitioner could not demonstrate that these amounts were not in the SG&A expense figure it calculated. Specifically, it is not clear based on S.A. San Miguel's (an Argentine lemon juice producer) unconsolidated financial statements whether the items which the petitioner subtracted from the average unit value ( *i.e.* , export tax, storage, and movement expenses) were included in the reported SG&A expense. Therefore, to avoid possible double counting, we did not make these deductions. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the petitioner calculated a single CV as the basis for NV. *See* “ *Use of a Third Country Market and Sales Below Cost Allegation* “ above. The petitioner calculated CV based on the price of lemons in Buenos Aires, its own processing and packing costs and by-product offsets, and SG&A, interest, and profit taken from the public financial statements of an Argentine producer of lemon juice. It adjusted its own processing costs for known differences between U.S. and Argentine production costs. It also deducted an amount from CV for export tax, in order to offset the export tax deduction to EP. Specifically, to value raw materials, the petitioner used the prices quoted on the Mercado Central in Buenos Aires for lemons sold during the POI. The added processing costs were based on the petitioner's fiscal year 2005 experience adjusted for known differences between U.S. and Argentine production costs (electricity rates and manufacturing labor wages). *See* U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Statistics - Electricity Prices, and International Labor Organization: Labor Statistics - Wages and Manufacturing for Argentina, found in the *Argentina Initiation Checklist* at Attachment VII and Attachment VIII, respectively. Additional information, including by-product offsets and packing expenses, were provided in affidavits from company officials of the petitioner, and reasonably reflect its POI experience. To calculate SG&A, financial expenses, and profit, the petitioner relied upon amounts reported in the 2005 fiscal year financial statements of S.A. San Miguel. *See Argentina Initiation Checklist* . In making fair value calculations for Argentina, we used the CV calculated by the petitioner, except that we did not make a deduction for export tax from CV, which the petitioner had suggested as a means of offsetting its export tax deduction from EP, as we did not make such a deduction from EP. Alleged U.S. Price and Normal Value: Mexico The petitioner calculated a single Mexican EP using the average unit customs values for import data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. It used a weighted average of all five HTSUS numbers under which subject merchandise could be imported: 2009.31.4000, 2009.31.6020, 2009.31.6040, 2009.39.6020, and 2009.39.6040. The petitioner did not make any adjustments to U.S. price. We recalculated EP by removing the same basket category as we did for Argentina. Pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the petitioner calculated a single CV as the basis for normal value (NV). *See* “ *Use of a Third Country Market and Sales Below Cost Allegation* “ above. The petitioner calculated CV using its own data for some values, published data for other cost values, and costs values from a Mexican lemon juice manufacturer's publicly available financial statement for other factors. It adjusted its own processing costs for known differences between U.S. and Mexican production costs. Specifically, to value raw materials, the petitioner used the 2005 average Mexican cost of production for lemons (excluding packing costs) from an ITC publication. *See* ITC publication on *Conditions for Certain Oranges and Lemons in the U.S. Fresh Market* , Table 9-16, p. 9-17. The added processing costs were based on the petitioner's fiscal year 2005 experience adjusted for known differences between U.S. and Mexican production costs (electricity rates and manufacturing labor wages). *See Mexico Initiation Checklist* at Attachments VII and VIII. The petitioner did not adjust for storage, packing and transportation costs in its calculation of processing cost. The petitioner based the SG&A and financial expenses on the most recently available fiscal year 2003 financial statements (the most current statements available) of UniMark Group, a Mexican lemon juice producer. The petitioner assumed a packing cost of zero because there were no packing cost data available to the petitioner. To calculate an amount for profit consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioner relied upon amounts reported in UniMark Group's income statement for the most recently available fiscal year 2003. Because UniMark Group's income statement for fiscal year 2003 showed a loss, the petitioner assumed a zero profit in the calculation of the constructed value. *See Mexican Initiation Checklist* . The petitioner did not claim any other adjustments to either EP or CV and we found that no other adjustments were warranted. Fair Value Comparisons Based on a comparison of the revised EP to CV, the dumping margin is 102.46 percent with respect to Argentina and 134.22 percent with respect to Mexico. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act, there is reason to believe that imports of lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon the examination of the petition on lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico and other information reasonably available to the Department, the Department finds that the petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives of the Governments of Argentina and Mexico. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to the foreign producers/exporters named in the petition. International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than November 6, 2006, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: October 11, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17381 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-838] Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 2006 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0371. SUMMARY: On September 12, 2006, U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab and Canada's Minister for International Trade, David Emerson, signed the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA 2006). On October 12, 2006 the SLA 2006 entered into effect. Pursuant to the the settlement of litigation which is a precondition for the entry into force of the SLA 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is revoking the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada and rescinding all ongoing proceedings related to that order. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 22, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber from Canada. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 67 FR 36068 (May 22, 2002). The Department subsequently completed the first and second administrative reviews. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 69 FR 75921 (December 20, 2004); *see also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 73437 (December 12, 2005). On June 30, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, covering the period May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2005 (POR 3). *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 37749 (June 30, 2005) ( *Initiation Notice* ). The preliminary results for POR 3 were issued on June 12, 2006. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission and Postponement of the Final Results: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 71 FR 33964 (June 12, 2006). On July 3, 2006 the Department published a notice of initiation of the fourth administrative review of the order covering the period May 1, 2005, to April 30, 2006 (POR 4). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 37892 (July 3, 2006). In addition, on June 30, 2006, the Department initiated a new shipper review of this order and on July, 13, 2006, the Department initiated a changed circumstances review of this order. *See Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 37538 (June 30, 2006); *see also Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 71 FR 39661 (July 13, 2006). On September 12, 2006, U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab and Canada's Minister for International Trade, David Emerson, signed the SLA 2006. One of the conditions for the entry into force of the SLA 2006 was the settlement of litigation. On October 12, 2006, the government of the United States and the government of Canada exchanged letters indicating that the conditions for the entry into force of the SLA 2006 had been fulfilled. Rescission Of The Reviews And Revocation Of The Order Pursuant to the settlement of litigation, the Department hereby revokes the antidumping duty order on softwood lumber from Canada, effective May 22, 2002, without the possibility of reinstatement. Furthermore, as the result of the revocation of the order, which is effective for the periods being reviewed, the Department hereby rescinds all ongoing proceedings related to the antidumping duty order, including the administrative reviews for POR 3 and POR 4, the new shipper review, and the changed circumstances review. In accordance with the terms of the SLA 2006, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to cease collecting cash deposits, as of October 12, 2006, on imports of softwood lumber products from Canada. Moreover, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries made on or after May 22, 2002, without regard to antidumping duties, except that, where liquidation of certain entries is enjoined for antidumping purposes, the antidumping liquidation instructions for such entries will be issued upon removal of the injunction. In addition, we will instruct CBP to refund all deposits collected on such entries with accrued interest. This notice is in accordance with 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: October 12, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17377 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-839] Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric B. Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6071. SUMMARY: On September 12, 2006, U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab and Canada's Minister for International Trade, David Emerson, signed the Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA 2006). On October 12, 2006, the SLA 2006 entered into effect. Pursuant to the settlement of litigation which is a precondition for the entry into force of the SLA 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is revoking the countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada and rescinding all ongoing proceedings related to that order. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 22, 2002, the Department published the countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber from Canada. *See Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , as corrected, 67 FR 36070 (May 22, 2002). The Department subsequently completed the first and second administrative reviews. *See Notice of Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 9046 (February 24, 2005); *see also Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 73448 (December 12, 2005). 1 On June 30, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, covering the period of review
(POR)April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005 (POR 3). *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 37749 (June 30, 2005) ( *Initiation Notice* ). The preliminary results for POR 3 were issued on June 12, 2006. *See Notice of Preliminary Results and Extension of Final Result of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada* , 71 FR 33933 (June 12, 2006). On July 3, 2006 the Department published a notice of initiation of the fourth administrative review of the order covering the period April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006 (POR 4). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 37892 (July 3, 2006). 1 In addition, the Department has initiated a number of “expedited reviews” to establish company-specific deposit rates and to consider whether company-specific revocation is appropriate. The Department has completed many of those reviews. On September 12, 2006, U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab and Canada's Minister for International Trade, David Emerson, signed the SLA 2006. One of the conditions for entry into force of the SLA 2006 was the settlement of litigation. On October 12, 2006, the government of the United States and the government of Canada exchanged letters indicating that the conditions for entry into force of the SLA 2006 had been fulfilled. Rescission Of The Reviews And Revocation Of The Order Pursuant to the settlement of litigation, the Department hereby revokes the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada, effective May 22, 2002, without the possibility of reinstatement. As the result of the revocation of the order, which is effective for the periods being reviewed, the Department hereby rescinds all ongoing proceedings related to the countervailing duty order, including the administrative reviews for POR 3 and POR 4, and all outstanding expedited reviews. In accordance with the terms of the SLA 2006, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to cease collecting cash deposits, as of October 12, 2006, on imports of softwood lumber products from Canada. Moreover, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries made on or after May 22, 2002, without regard to countervailing duties. In addition, we will instruct CBP to refund all deposits collected on such entries with accrued interest. This notice is in accordance with 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and 19 CFR 341.213(d)(4). Dated: October 12, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17382 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Termination of Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Termination of Panel Review of the final Antidumping Duty Determination made by the International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-02. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the negotiated settlement between the United States and Canadian Governments, the panel review of the above noted case is terminated as of October 12, 2006. A panel has been appointed to this panel review and has been dismissed in accordance with the *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Review* , effective October 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,
(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). The panel review in this matter was requested pursuant to these Rules and terminated in accordance with the settlement agreement. Dated: October 13, 2006. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-17375 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; Completion of Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Completion of Panel Review of the final determination made by the U.S. International Trade Administration, in the matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, CVD determination, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-03. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the negotiated settlement agreement between the United States and Canadian Governments, which terminated the Request for an Extraordinary Challenge Committee, this Binational Panel review is completed effective October 12, 2006. The panel appointed to this review has been dismissed in accordance with the *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Review,* effective October 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,
(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the negotiated settlement agreement between the United States and Canadian Governments, the United States withdrew the request for an Extraordinary Challenge Committee Review, which was filed on April 27, 2006. The negotiated settlement became effective on October 12, 2006. The Extraordinary Challenge Committee was to review the decisions of the Binational Panel that reviewed the final determination and remand determinations by the United States Department of Commerce in “The Matter of Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-03”. Therefore, on the basis of the negotiated settlement between the United States and Canada, the panel review was completed and the panelists discharged from their duties effective October 12, 2006. Dated: October 13, 2006. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-17405 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Announcement of Change in Methodology, Request for Comment SUMMARY: This notice addresses three methodologies of the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) in antidumping proceedings. First, the Department is revising its approach concerning the use of market economy inputs in the calculation of normal value in antidumping proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries. Specifically, the Department is revising its approach concerning cases where an NME producer sources an input from both market economy suppliers and from within the NME. Second, the Department is revising its methodology for calculating expected NME wages in antidumping proceedings involving NME countries. Third, the Department is requesting comments on its approach concerning the calculation of duty drawback adjustments to export price in antidumping proceedings when a respondent producer obtains an input both from domestic and foreign sources. On this latter issue, the Department is seeking comments on the methodology that should be used when the producer receives duty drawback on certain exports containing the input but not on other exports containing the input. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Norton with regard to market economy inputs, Shauna Lee-Alaia with regard to expected NME wages, and John Kalitka with regard to duty drawback, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20230, 202-482-1579, 202-482-2793, or 202-482-2730, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issue One: Market Economy Inputs Background In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, the Department calculates normal value by valuing the NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, using prices from a market economy that is at a comparable level of economic development and that is also a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The goal of this surrogate factor valuation is to use the “best available information” to determine normal value. *See* section 773(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”); *see also Shangdong Huraong General Corp. v. United States* , 159 F. Supp. 2d 714, 719 (CIT 2001). When an NME producer purchases inputs from market economy suppliers and pays in a market economy currency, the Department normally uses the average actual price paid by the NME producer for these inputs to value the input in question, where possible. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oscillating Fans and Ceiling Fans from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 55271, 55274-75 (October 25, 1991). When a portion of the input is purchased from a market economy supplier and the remainder from a non-market economy supplier, the Department will normally use the price paid for the input sourced from market economy suppliers to value all of the input, 1 provided that the volume of the market economy input as a share of total purchases from all sources is “meaningful,” a term used in the Preamble to the Regulations but which is interpreted by the Department on a case-by-case basis. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997) (“ *Final Rule* ”); *see also Shakeproof v. United States* , 268 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“ *Shakeproof* ”). Such market economy input purchases must also constitute arms-length, *bona fide* sales. *See Shakeproof* , 268 F.3d at 1382-83. 1 *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). Additionally, the Department disregards market economy input purchases when there is evidence that the prices for such inputs may be distorted or when the facts of a particular case otherwise demonstrate that market economy input purchase prices are not the best available information. For example, the Department disregards all input values it has reason to believe or suspect might be dumped or subsidized. *See* , *e.g.* , *China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), as *aff'd per curiam* 04 Fed. Appx. 183 (Federal Circuit, July 9, 2004). The Department has also disregarded the prices of inputs that could not possibly have been used in the production of subject merchandise during the period of investigation or review. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 8 (December 8, 2004) (“ *Shrimp* ”). The Department has further rejected purchase prices from market economies when the input in question was produced within an NME. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 34125 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 4 (June 18, 2004). The Department published on May 26, 2005, August 11, 2005, and March 21, 2006, three notices in the **Federal Register** requesting comment on its market economy inputs methodology in NME cases *(70 FR 30418* , *70 FR 46816* , and *71 FR 14176* , respectively). In these notices, the Department requested comment on various proposals concerning the Department's approach in cases in which NME firms purchase a portion of a given input from a market economy and source the remainder domestically. In such instances, the Department must make a case-specific determination as to what the best available information is for valuing the input: the market-economy purchase price or another surrogate value. The guidance given in the Department's regulations, as described above, is “normally” to use the prices paid for the market economy portion of the input to value the entire input. While the regulations do not elaborate as to what circumstances are “normal,” the Preamble states that the Department will disregard market economy purchases if the volume involved is not “meaningful.” In response to the Department's March 21, 2006 request for comment, the Department received comments in April 2006 from the following six interested parties:
(1)the Committee to Support U.S. Trade Laws (“CSUSTL”);
(2)the United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”);
(3)the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee (“Furniture Committee”);
(4)Stewart and Stewart;
(5)the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“PRC MOFCOM”); and
(6)Trade Pacific. The Department requested comment on its market economy inputs practice for two reasons. First, the undefined nature of what constitutes a “meaningful” quantity of market economy purchases implies that the Department must currently make case-specific decisions as to whether to accept market economy purchase prices to value inputs. This creates unpredictability as to what values would ultimately be used in the dumping calculation. Parties can advocate accepting or disregarding the use of market economy purchase prices in individual cases, but do not have a concrete framework for doing so. Indeed, parties representing NME exporters have argued that market economy purchase prices nearly always constitute the “best available information” to use in the Department's dumping calculations, whereas parties representing domestic industry have argued that market economy purchases should almost never be used to value the portion of an input that was sourced domestically within the NME. This conflicting understanding as to when market economy purchases should be used to value an entire input is also evident in the submissions the Department received in response to its requests for comment on its market economy inputs approach. Absent an announced threshold as to what quantities are generally considered to be “meaningful,” parties would continue to argue this issue without the benefit of any clear guidance from the Department. The Department's second reason for requesting comment on its market economy inputs approach was its concern that it may, in some cases, have used market economy input purchase prices to value an entire input even when these prices may not have been the “best available information.” While the Department has not had a specific threshold for what constitutes a “meaningful” quantity, the Department is concerned that accepting a market economy input value when the portion sourced from a market economy is too low may not constitute the best available information, particularly when no additional scrutiny is applied to ensure that the market economy price is representative of what the total price would have been had the firm purchased solely from market economy suppliers. This is a potential problem because the Department has greater confidence that the market economy purchase price is reflective of total purchase values of the input (and, thus, that it represents the “best available information”) when the proportion of the total volume of the input that is sourced from market economies is higher. To take an extreme example, where an NME exporter purchases all of a given input from a market economy supplier, the Department can be confident that this price reflects total purchase value of the input. Conversely, if an NME firm purchases a tiny quantity of the input from market economy suppliers and sources the rest domestically, the Department may have little or no confidence that this purchase price reflects the NME firm's overall purchases of the input. There might be numerous factors that could easily distort a single, small volume market economy purchase price, for example: sample sales, “bundling” of the purchase at a low price with other purchases at higher prices, limited quantities available on the market at an unusually low price, or brief plunges in the market price for the input. Of course, even a single purchase of an input might also, depending on the facts, be representative of what an NME exporter's purchases would have been had it sourced all of the input in question from the market economy source throughout the period of investigation or review. As a general rule, however, the Department typically rejects purchases of small quantities because “insignificant” quantities are less likely to be representative of a company's cost of sourcing the entire input. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20594 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 12 (April 16, 2004). This was the intended reasoning in the Preamble to the Regulations, which states that the Department “would not rely on the price paid by an NME producer to a market economy supplier if the quantity of the input purchased was insignificant. Because the amounts purchased from the market economy supplier must be meaningful, this requirement goes some way in addressing the commenter's concern that the NME producer may not be able to fulfill all of its needs at that price.” *See Final Rule* , 62 at 27366. By announcing a basic threshold of what constitutes such a “meaningful” quantity, and by making it high enough to reduce the chance of using a distorted price, without setting it too high to routinely prevent the use of market economy input prices, the Department can give greater effect to the intent of the regulations and improve its market economy inputs practice, to the benefit of all parties. This was the reasoning behind some of the proposals the Department put forward in its **Federal Register** notices soliciting comment on its methodology in this area. This decision, along with a discussion of the relevant public comments, is set forth below. Statement of Policy Drawing on the many submissions the Department has received in response to its requests for comment, the Department is now revising its methodology. While the Department may still consider amending its regulations to remove the regulatory requirement that the Department “normally” use market economy input prices to value the entire amount of such inputs, the Department is now establishing clearer guidance as to the circumstances in which it will accept market economy purchase prices to value an entire input. The Department is now instituting a rebuttable presumption that market economy input prices are the best available information for valuing an entire input when the total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources during the period of investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. In these cases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average market economy purchase price to value the entire input. Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's purchases from market economy suppliers as a percentage of its total volume of purchases during the period of review is below 33 percent, but where these purchases are otherwise valid and meet the Department's existing conditions (described in the *Background* section above), the Department will weight-average the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate surrogate value according to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. In determining whether market economy purchases meet this 33 percent threshold, the Department will compare the volume that the producer purchased from market economy sources during the period of investigation or review with the respondent's total purchases during the period. 2 When a firm has made market economy input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not *bona fide* , or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases meet the 33 percent threshold. This addresses the comment by Trade Pacific that the Department explain how it intends to calculate whether a given quantity of purchases meets the threshold, and ensures a fair comparison between acceptable market economy purchases and total purchases of the input during the period of investigation or review. Morever, because this 33 percent threshold constitutes a rebutable presumption, parties will have an opportunity to demonstrate that case-specific facts outweigh the presumption. 2 Notwithstanding the determination the Department reached in *Shrimp* , at comment 8, the Department will examine if and when the inputs were used in the production process when case-specific conditions demand it. Unless there are case-specific reasons to examine other criteria, the Department will base its decision on whether to accept market economy input purchases to value the entire input on the relative share of market economy purchases during the period of investigation or review to total purchases during the period of investigation or review. The practice described above is consistent with our current regulations directing the Department to “normally” use market economy input prices to value an entire input. While, as discussed above, the term “normally” is not defined in the regulations, it has been established in both the Preamble and through the Department's long-standing case precedent that the Department may decline to accept market economy purchases to value an input when the volume involved is insignificant. *See* , *e.g.* , *Preliminary Results of Administrative Review: Automotive Glass Windshields from China* , 70 FR 24373, 24380 (May 9, 2005) (“ *Windshields* ”) (“{w}here the quantity of the input purchased from market-economy suppliers was insignificant, the Department will not rely on the price paid by an NME producer to a market-economy supplier because it cannot have confidence that a company could fulfill all its needs at that price.”). *Windshields* is representative of the Department's consistent standard that it will rely on market economy purchases to value an entire input only when the share of the input sourced from market economy suppliers, relative to the total volume purchased, is high enough that the Department has confidence that the market economy purchase price is reflective of the firm's total purchases of the input. Accordingly, the Department's decision to introduce a flexible 33 percent threshold represents an extension of its previous practice. This standard of 33 percent is consistent with a threshold that the Department has defended, and the Court has upheld, as constituting a “meaningful” quantity in a prior case. *See Shakeproof* , 268 F.3d at 1382-83. However, the Department is now announcing what will generally constitute a “meaningful” or “significant” quantity, as opposed to making this determination on a strictly case-specific basis and without general guidance. Establishing a proportional, rather than absolute, threshold is also consistent with the logic described in *Windshields* , because the decision of whether to accept market economy input purchases to value an entire input rests on whether market economy purchases are reflective of what the total price would have been had the firm purchased solely from market economy suppliers. Some commenters (including PRC MOFCOM) have argued that the Department's proposed policy statements provide solutions to what are only theoretical problems. These parties argue that even if “bundling,” price fluctuations or other factors that could distort market economy purchases exist, they have not been shown to be a problem in past cases and so there is no need for a remedy. The Department disagrees with this assertion. The Department cannot be privy to the circumstances governing every purchase of market economy inputs, nor can it be expected to conduct an analysis of each input market to see if given sales were representative of what the total price would have been had the firm purchased solely from market economy suppliers. Instead, the Department has always relied on the quantity of the input sourced from market economies as a proxy to gauge its relative confidence that the market economy purchase price is indeed reflective of the total volume of the input. The only difference is that the Department is now announcing a threshold, rather than making exclusively case-specific decisions. On this point, PRC MOFCOM and others have argued that the Department should not establish a “bright line” threshold, that any threshold is arbitrary, and that the Department already has sufficient discretion to disregard market economy purchases that are not legitimate or *bona fide* . As described above, however, the Department is not introducing a rigid, “bright line” threshold, but rather a threshold that is amenable to interpretation in the light of case-specific facts and circumstances. Moreover, this threshold is not arbitrary, but is carefully crafted to balance two competing concerns; *i.e.* to ensure that market economy purchases are reflective of total purchases without contravening the regulatory requirement to “normally” accept market economy purchase prices to value an entire input when they are available. In response to the Department's proposal to weight-average the market economy purchase price with a surrogate value when the share of market economy purchases falls below the Department's flexible threshold, PRC MOFCOM argued that there can be only one single source of the “best available information,” and if the market economy purchase price constitutes the best information for valuing the portion of the input sourced from market economy countries, it must also constitute the best information for valuing the entire input. The Department disagrees with this assertion, and considers that the “best available information” in cases in which a respondent purchases a given input both domestically and from market economy sources may be, depending on the circumstances, a weighted-average of a surrogate value and a market economy purchase price. The fact that a given price is valid for a (relatively small) portion of the input in question does not necessarily mean that it is representative of the firm's total purchases of the input. While market economy input purchase prices present a valid price for the market economy purchases that an NME firm actually made, and the Department will use these data, when possible, to value the portion of the input purchased from market economy sources, these prices may not always be the best available information for valuing the portion of the input produced within the NME. When the Department cannot be confident that this price is representative, however, if the price is otherwise valid (as in being *bona fide* , not subsidized, etc.), weight-averaging an appropriate surrogate value with the market economy purchase price would be the most accurate valuation of the input. Other parties (including U.S. Steel, Stewart and Stewart, and CSUSTL) argue that except in rare cases, the Department should never accept market economy input purchases to value the portion of the input sourced domestically within the NME. Such a policy would contradict the applicable regulation, which clearly directs the Department to “normally” use market economy input purchases to value the entire input, even if the market economy purchases formed only a portion of an NME firm's total purchases of the input. The Department may consider a regulatory change in the future to grant it greater discretion in this area. Nevertheless, the Department disagrees with the assertion that market economy inputs *never* constitute the “best available information” just as it disagrees that these purchases *always* do so. Whether the best available information to value the NME-produced portion of the input is the price of the firm's market economy input purchases or another surrogate value is a decision that should guided by the relative shares of the two types of purchases, as well as by case-specific facts. U.S. Steel argues that “establishing a bright line threshold for market economy input purchases ( *i.e.* , more than 33 percent) would encourage respondents to manipulate the results so as to favorably affect the calculation of their dumping margins.” The Department does not agree that a change in respondents' behavior as a result of this policy, by itself, amounts to “manipulation.” Moreover, it is the Department's view that requiring parties, in most cases, to meet a 33 percent threshold actually reduces the opportunity for manipulation. The Department's flexible percentage threshold of 33 percent for accepting market economy purchase prices to value an entire input will improve the predictability and accuracy of the Department's analysis, while continuing to meet the Department's regulatory requirement to “normally” use market economy purchases to value inputs when they are available. Predictability will be improved because parties will have a clearer idea of when the Department will accept market economy purchase prices to value an entire input. The Department will be able to calculate more accurate dumping margins, because the threshold sets a reasonable ratio of the market economy-sourced portion to that produced in the NME so that the Department can be more confident in the representativeness of the market economy purchase prices. However, this threshold is also not set so high that it would contradict the regulatory guidance on this issue. Finally, the fact that this threshold represents a rebuttable presumption means that it will be flexible, allowing the Department to take into account any case-specific facts that may arise. The approach detailed above will take effect for all segments of NME proceedings that are initiated after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Issue Two: Expected NME Wages Background With regard to its calculation of expected NME wages, the Department stated in its November 17, 2004 final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of sales at less than fair value regarding Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, that it would “invite comments from the general public on this matter in a proceeding separate from the (Furniture) investigation.” *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 67313 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 23 (November 17, 2004). On June 30, 2005, the Department published a detailed description of its methodology for the calculation of expected NME wages and a request for comment. *See Expected Non-Market Economy Wages: Request for Comment on Calculation Methodology* , 70 FR 37761 (June 30, 2005) (“ *Wage Rate FR* ”). The Department received comments on August 1, 2005, from the following six interested parties:
(1)CSUSTL;
(2)Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt (“Grunfeld”);
(3)Lacquer Craft Manufacturing Company, Ltd.;
(4)Dorbest Limited;
(5)PRC MOFCOM; and
(6)the Ministry of Trade of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“VN Ministry of Trade”). The Department's expected NME wages are currently calculated each year in two steps. First, the relationship between hourly wage rates (obtained from the International Labor Organization's (“ILO”) *Yearbook of Labour Statistics* , relying on data that has been reported within the six-year period described below) and per-capita gross national income (“GNI”) (obtained from the World Bank) from market-economy countries (the “basket of countries”) is estimated using an ordinary least squares (“OLS”) regression analysis. Second, the GNI of each of the countries designated by the Department as an NME is applied to the regression, which yields an expected hourly wage rate for each NME. For further information, see *Wage Rate FR* . PRC MOFCOM and the other interested parties (excluding CSUSTL) (“PRC MOFCOM et al.”) argued that when the Department is valuing any factor of production, including labor, the Department is obliged to use data from economically comparable countries and that the inclusion of countries not considered economically comparable is in contravention of our statute, citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4) and *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Part II* , 62 FR 27296, 27367 (May 19, 1997) (“ *Final Rule* ”). Finally, PRC MOFCOM et al. asserted that the Department's original intention was to limit the regression analysis to economically comparable countries, citing *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties Part II* , 61 FR 7308 (February 27, 1996) (“ *Proposed Rule* ”). Accordingly, these parties proposed that the Department revert to its former practice of valuing direct labor using a surrogate wage rate from a surrogate country selected in each individual proceeding, or an average of the wage rates for the countries designated by the Department as economically comparable to the NME at the outset of each proceeding. Alternatively, some parties proposed that the Department should estimate the relationship between wage rates and per-capita GNI only for countries that are economically comparable to the NME country in question, defined by either the Import Administration's Office of Policy or by the World Bank's national income classifications. These parties asserted that the inclusion of non-comparable countries is both distortive and contrary to the Department's statutory directive to use “economically comparable” surrogate values. Alternatively, acknowledging that the Department has a stated preference for more data when valuing labor, these parties proposed that the Department expand its basket of countries to include all countries for which the required data are available. Finally, some parties argued that the Department should use a generalized least squares (“GLS”) methodology for its regression analysis in order to account for heteroscedasticity in the data set. CSUSTL argued that the Department is required to value all factors of production for a given respondent, and must therefore capture all labor costs experienced by the respondent. Accordingly, CSUSTL proposed that the Department change its practice to rely on “labor cost” figures from Chapter 6 of the ILO's *Yearbook of Labour Statistics* or, failing that, that the Department should only use data from Chapter 5 that captures “employee earnings” rather than both earnings and wages. CSUSTL also noted that in order to capture all factors of production and other costs, the Department's calculation of surrogate financial ratios must be adjusted according to the labor cost elements that are included in the Department's expected NME wage rates. Statement of Policy Section 733(c) of the Act provides that the Department will value the factors of production in an NME using the best available information regarding the value of such factors in a market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the administering authority. The statute only requires that when valuing the factors of production, the Department utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy countries that are at a level of comparable economic development. *See* Section 733(c)(4) of the Act. While surrogate values for other factors of production are selected from a single surrogate country, the Department determined in its *Final Rule* that it would be more accurate to base estimated labor values on data from many countries, stating that “more data is better than less data, and that averaging of multiple data points (or regression analysis) should lead to more accurate results in valuing any factor of production. However, it is only for labor that we have a relatively consistent and complete database covering many countries.” *See Final Rule* at *62 FR 27367* . Accordingly, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations provides that: For labor, the Secretary will use regression-based rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national income in market economy countries. The Secretary will calculate the wage rate to be applied in nonmarket economy proceedings each year. The calculation will be based on current data, and will be made available to the public. 19 CFR 351.408 (c)(3). The Department's regulations concerning the valuation of labor were promulgated as part of a public notice and comment process. In the *Proposed Rule* the Department explained the benefits of a wage rate derived from a regression analysis, which include fairness and predictability. The *Proposed Rule* states: Moreover, use of this average wage rate will contribute to both the fairness and the predictability of NME proceedings. By avoiding the variability in results depending on which economically comparable country happens to be selected as the surrogate, the results are much fairer to all parties. To enhance predictability, the average wage to be applied in any NME proceeding will be calculated by the Department each year, based on the most recently available data, and will be available to any interested party. See *Proposed Rule* , at 7345. PRC MOFCOM et. al.'s comment that the Department should abandon its regression-based calculation of expected NME wage rates in favor of the use of a single surrogate value for wage rates would contravene the Department's regulations, which direct the Department to use regression-based labor rates. In addition, as the Department noted in the *Proposed Rule* , while there is a strong positive correlation between wage rates and GNI, there is also variation in the wage rates of comparable market economies. For example, the Department's November 2005 regression illustrates that the observed hourly wage rates for market economy countries with national incomes below US$1,000 ranged from US$0.23 to US$0.94. *See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/03wages/110805-2003-Tables/03wages-110805.html* . Therefore, if the Department adopted this suggestion in a proceeding involving an NME country with a GNI under US$1,000, values for labor might range from US$0.23 to US$0.94, depending on which economically comparable country is selected as the surrogate. *See Proposed Rule* at 7345. The Department is able to avoid this variability through the regression-based methodology for estimating wage rates due to the availability of reliable wage rate data and the consistent relationship over time between wage rates and GNI. The Department relies upon what is, in essence, an average wage rate, indexed to each NME's level of economic development via its GNI. Under the Department's regression methodology, the value for labor will be the same in every proceeding involving a given NME. This enhances the fairness and predictability of the Department's calculations. Similarly, restricting the basket of countries to include only countries that are economically comparable to each NME is not feasible and would undermine the consistency and predictability of the Department's regression analysis. A basket of “economically comparable” countries could be extremely small. For example, there were five countries with GNI less than US$1,000 in the Department's 2005 calculation. A regression based on an extremely small basket of countries would be highly dependent on each and every data point. The inclusion or exclusion of any one country could have an extreme effect on the regression results. As described below, the Department screens the available data every year to ensure that they meet a number of important data suitability criteria. Therefore, the number and composition of the countries in the basket may vary unavoidably from year to year. A larger basket minimizes this potential for dramatic year-to-year variability. Relative basket size would not be such a critical factor if there were a perfect correlation between GNI and wages. If this were the case, a precise regression line could be derived from suitable data from only two countries. However, while there is a strong world-wide relationship between wages and GNI (the r-square for the Department's 2005 calculation was .92, indicating an extremely strong relationship between GNI and wages), there is nevertheless variability in the data. For example, in the Department's 2005 calculation, observed wages did not increase in lockstep with increases in GNI in the five countries with GNI less than US$1,000: Pakistan, with a GNI of US$520, had reported a wage of US$0.38 per hour while Sri Lanka, with a GNI of US$930, had reported a wage of US$0.34 per hour. As stated above, a larger basket minimizes the effects of any single data point and, thereby, better captures the global relationship between wages and GNI. More data is, therefore, better than less data for the purposes of the Department's regression analysis, provided it is suitable and reliable data. For this reason, consistent with the regulation and the statute, the Department's methodology relies on a significantly larger basket of countries. This maximizes the accuracy of the regression results, minimizes the effects of the potential year-to-year variability in the basket, and provides predictability and fairness. Importantly, the Department notes that economic comparability is established in the regression calculation through the GNI of the NME in question, which ensures that the result represents a wage rate for a country economically comparable to the NME. With regard to the use of an alternative regression methodology, the Department notes that in its *Proposed Rule* , the Department explicitly stated that it would utilize an OLS regression analysis. *See Proposed Rule* , at 7345. OLS regression analysis is a commonly used analytical tool that is a basic component of any statistical analysis package. Like all statistical tools, the OLS analysis has certain limitations and cannot account for all characteristics of any given dataset, including heteroscedasticity. One of the assumptions of the OLS regression analysis is that the variance of the error terms is constant across observations. If the variance of the error terms is not constant, the error terms are considered heteroscedastic. The data set upon which the Department bases its regression analysis changes on an annual basis. The Department does not consider it prudent, especially in light of its stated intention to use an OLS analysis, to decide on a year-by-year basis whether or not the level of heteroscedasticity in a given year's data would weigh in favor of using a GLS regression analysis. Instead, the OLS regression analysis allows the Department to rely on a simple, easily-duplicated methodology that enhances the fairness, predictability and transparency of the Department's antidumping duty calculations, while also ensuring their accuracy. With regard to the CSUSTL comment that the Department should rely on “labor cost” figures from Chapter 6 of the ILO's *Yearbook of Labour Statistics* , the Department notes that the ILO defines data under “Chapter 5b: Wages in Manufacturing” as wages and bonuses, *i.e.* , pre-tax monetary remuneration received by the employee. This is the data set that the Department relies upon in its calculations of expected NME wage rates. The Department also notes that the ILO defines “earnings” under Chapter 5 of its *Yearbook of Labour Statistics* as being inclusive of “wages,” and as including both bonuses and gratuities. The Department agrees with CSUSTL that, in order to ensure that its calculation of expected NME wage rates accurately reflects the remuneration received by workers, it should rely on “earnings,” not “wages.” Chapter 6 data, on the other hand, includes all costs to the producer related to labor including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. As described below, the Department is already capturing as much of such labor costs as possible in its financial ratio calculations. The Department notes further that significantly fewer countries report Chapter 6 labor data than report Chapter 5b labor data. As of August 2006, 15 market economy countries had reported 2004 Chapter 6 data, while 65 market economy countries had reported 2004 Chapter 5b data. Chapter 6 therefore results in a significantly smaller basket of countries for which reliable data is available and may not accurately capture the global average of costs associated with labor. The Department agrees with CSUSTL, however, that in order to ensure that labor costs not included in the ILO defined “earnings” are accounted for in its calculation of normal value, it is best to adjust, where possible, the surrogate financial ratios employed by the Department to value overhead expenses, selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit. Accordingly, it is the Department's practice to categorize all individually identifiable labor costs not included in the ILO's definition of “earnings” under Chapter 5 of the *Yearbook of Labour Statistics* as overhead expenses. *See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2905 (January 18, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 1. Such adjustments are fact-specific in nature and subject to available information on the record. Specifically, where warranted, individually identifiable labor costs in the surrogate financial statements which are not included in “earnings” are categorized as overhead or SG&A expenses for purposes of the Department's calculation of surrogate financial ratios. Finally, the Department agrees that the basket of countries upon which the regression is based should be expanded to include all countries for which data are available in order to ensure accuracy and fairness. All such data must meet the Department's suitability requirements described below, which include contemporaneity and that the data cover both men and women and all reporting industries in the country. Under its practice heretofore, the Department includes data from Chapter 5 of the ILO *Yearbook of Labour Statistics* that has been reported within five years of the Base Year, thereby considering a total of six years of data. (As described below in Attachment 1, the “Base Year” is the year upon which the regression data are based and is two years prior to the year in which the Department conducts its regression analysis.) In the course of reviewing its methodology, the Department has concluded that the inflation of data up to five years potentially reduces the accuracy of the calculation. Wage data that are potentially six years old may not represent the wage dynamics in labor markets today. The Department believes that, given the significant availability of more contemporaneous data, inflating old data is no longer necessary in order to achieve an acceptably large basket of countries. For example, over 50 countries reported suitable data within one year of 2003. The Department expects that the number of countries that meet the Department's suitability requirements will increase over time, as a greater number of countries report wage data to ILO in a reliable manner. Therefore, in its revised methodology, the Department will only rely on ILO wage data that have been reported within one year prior to the Base Year, thereby considering a total of two years of data. Revision of Methodology Pursuant to the comments received and the Department's analysis thereof, effective for the 2006 calculation of expected NME wage rates, the Department will make the following revisions to its methodology: 1. The Department will only use earnings data reported in Chapter 5b of the ILO statistics. 2. The basket of countries upon which the wage regression is based will include data from all market economy countries that meet the criteria described below and that have been reported within 1 year prior to the Base Year. 3. Each year, the Department's annual calculation of expected NME wage rates will be subject to public notice prior to the adoption of the resulting expected NME wage rates for use in antidumping proceedings. Comment will be requested only with regard to potential clerical errors in the Department's calculation in light of its stated revised methodology. Accordingly, the Department intends to publish its 2006 expected NME wage rates on its website in the autumn of 2006, together with a notice in the **Federal Register** requesting comment with regard to potential clerical errors in light of the revised methodology described below. The Department intends to finalize its calculations within one month thereafter. The Department's methodology is described in full in below. The Expected NME Wage Rate Methodology The Department's regulations generally describe the methodology by which the Department calculates expected NME wages: For labor, the Secretary will use regression-based wage rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national income in market economy countries. The Secretary will calculate the wage rate to be applied in non-market economy proceedings each year. The calculation will be based on current data, and will be made available to the public. 19 CFR 351.408 (c)(3). In accordance with Section 351.408(c)(3), the Department annually calculates expected NME wages in two steps. First, the Department uses an ordinary least squares regression analysis to estimate a linear relationship between per-capita GNI and hourly wages in market economy (“ME”) countries. Second, the Department uses the results of the regression and NME GNI data to estimate hourly wage rates for NME countries. There is usually a two-year interval between the current year and the most recent reporting year of the data required for this methodology due to the practices of the respective data sources. The Department bases its regression analysis on this most recent reporting year, which the Department refers to as the “Base Year.” For example, the Department relied upon data from 2001 to calculate expected NME wages in 2003, *i.e.* , the “Base Year” for the 2003 calculation was 2001. In practice, the “Base Year,” *i.e.* , the year upon which the regression data are based, is two years prior to the year in which the Department conducts its regression analysis. 1. Regression Analysis The Department's regression analysis, which describes generally the relationship between wages and GNI, relies upon four distinct data series:
(A)country-specific wage rate (earnings) data from Chapter 5B of the International Labor Organization's (“ILO”) *Yearbook of Labour Statistics* ;
(B)country-specific consumer price index (“CPI”) data from the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”);
(C)exchange rate data from the IMF's *International Financial Statistics* ; and
(D)country-specific GNI data from the *World Development Indicators* of the World Bank (“WB”). The wage rate data described above are converted to hourly wage rates and adjusted using CPI data to be representative of the current Base Year. The data are then converted to U.S. dollars using the appropriate exchange rate data. A regression analysis is ultimately run on these adjusted wage rate data and GNI. The following sections describe each data series and how it is used.
(A)Wage Data For every country for which data is available and suitable (as described below), the Department chooses a single wage rate that represents a broad measure of wages for that country. The Department will choose data that is either contemporaneous with the Base Year or one year prior. Thus, the Department limits its selection of data to a two year period. The ILO Chapter 5B database categorizes data under a number of parameters. 3 The Department prioritizes these parameters in order to arrive at a single wage rate for each country representing the broadest possible measure of wages. As such, there are three criteria that all data must meet in order to be considered suitable for the Department's regression analysis. 3 For example, “Type of Data,” *i.e.* , whether the data reported is “earnings” or “wages,'” “Sex,” *i.e.* , male/female coverage; “Sub-Classification,” *i.e.* , coverage of different types of industry; “Worker Coverage,” *i.e.* , coverage of different types of workers, such as wage earners or salaried employees; “Type of Data,” *i.e.* , the unit of time for which the wage is reported, such as per hour or per month; and, “Source ID,” *i.e.* , a code for the source of the data; “Source,” *i.e.* , the original survey source of the data and “Classification,” *i.e.* , the industrial classification. First, under the category “Type of Data,” the Department will only use data that is reported in “earnings.” Second, under the category “Sex,” the Department will only use data that cover both men and women. 4 4 The Department does not consider values of “Indices, Men and Women” for this parameter. Third, under the category “Sub-Classification,” the Department will only use data that represent all reported industries. This is indicated in the database by a value of “Total” for the “Sub-Classification” parameter. If there is more than one record in the ILO database that meet these three requirements, the Department will choose the data point from the Base Year over data from the prior year. At times, there is more than one data record in the ILO database that is both
(1)reported in the same, most contemporaneous year and
(2)meet the three required criteria above. In such cases, the Department chooses a single data point by prioritizing the following three parameters, described in greater detail below:
(1)“Worker Coverage,” *i.e.* , coverage of different types of workers;
(2)“Type of Data,” *i.e.* , the unit of time for which the wage is reported; and,
(3)“Source ID,” *i.e.* , a code for the source of the data. For example, for the parameter “Worker Coverage,” the Department considers “wage earners” to be the best measurement for calculating expected NME wages and prioritizes such data over “employees,” “salaried employees” and “total employment,” in that order. When the values for all parameters listed above are equal, the Department prioritizes data reported on an hourly basis over that reported on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, in that order, for the parameter “Type of Data.” Through this choice, the Department minimizes potential error due to converting daily, weekly or monthly wages to hourly wages. When the values for all parameters listed above are equal, the Department prioritizes data classified under the International Standard Industrial Classification
(ISIC)Revision 3 (ISIC Rev.3-D) over ISIC Revision 2 (ISIC Rev. 2-3). ISIC Rev. 3-D was revised in 1989 and is a more recent classification standard than the 1968 ISIC Rev. 2-3. *See* http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/family2.asp?Cl=2 and http://laborsta.ilo.org/applv8/data/isic2e.html. Finally, when the values for all parameters listed above are equal, the Department prioritizes data with a “Source ID” value of “no value” over “1,” “2” and “3,” in that order. The ILO data that are not reported on an hourly basis are converted to an hourly basis based on the premise that there are 8 working hours per day, 5.5 working days a week and 24 working days per month.
(B)CPI Data Once hourly figures have been calculated based on the wage rate data discussed above, the wages are adjusted to the Base Year on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for each country, as reported by the IMF's *International Financial Statistics* . This adjustment is made for any wage rate data not reported for the Base Year.
(C)Exchange Rate Data These inflation-adjusted wage data, which are denominated in each country's national currency, are then converted to U.S. dollars using Base Year period-average exchange rates reported by the IMF's *International Financial Statistics* . Thus, using
(A)wage data,
(B)CPI data and
(C)exchange rate data, discussed above, the Department arrives at hourly wages, denominated in U.S. dollars and adjusted for inflation for each country for which all the above data are available. Finally, once the data have been converted to U.S. dollars per hour and adjusted for inflation, it is the Department's practice to eliminate values that could not possibly be reflective of actual wage levels or values that vary in either direction in the extreme from year to year (and which probably reflect errors in the original source data). For example, if a country is found to have average wage levels of US$0.01 per hour, the Department would eliminate that value as erroneous.
(D)GNI Data The Department uses Base Year GNI data for each of the countries in the Department's analysis, as reported by the WB. GNI data are denominated in U.S. dollars current for the Base Year. The WB defines GNI per capita as equivalent to gross national product (“GNP”) per capita, which is “the dollar value of a country's final output of goods and services in a year divided by its population.” The Department conducts its linear, ordinary least squares regression analysis using the Base Year wages per hour in U.S. dollars discussed above and Base Year GNI per capita in U.S. dollars to arrive at the following equation: Wage[i] = Y-intercept + X-coefficient * GNI. The X-coefficient describes the slope of the line estimated by the regression analysis, while the Y-intercept is the point on the Y-axis where the regression line intercepts the Y-axis. The results of this regression analysis describe generally the relationship between hourly wages and GNI. 2. Application of Regression Results to NME GNI Data The Department applies the NME Base Year GNI to the equation presented above to arrive at an estimated wage rate for the NME. This is done for each NME. Issue Three: Duty Drawback Background With respect to the duty drawback adjustment, the Department is directed by section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, which states that “{t}he price used to establish export price and constructed export price shall be --
(1)increased by …
(B)the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States.” Based upon this statutory language, the Department applies a two-prong test to determine entitlement to a duty drawback adjustment. That is, the party claiming such adjustment must establish that:
(1)the import duty paid and the rebate payment are directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another (or the exemption from import duties is linked to exportation); and
(2)there were sufficient imports of the imported raw material to account for the drawback received upon the exports of the manufactured product. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Results of the Eleventh Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 7513 (February 13, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at comment 2 (“ *CORE from Korea* ”). Moreover, the courts have sustained the Department's traditional two-prong test. *See* , *e.g.* , *Wheatland Tube Company v. United States* , 414 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1287 (CIT 2006); *Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 374 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1261 (CIT 2005); *Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1093 (CIT 2001); *Far East Machinery Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 699 F. Supp. 309, 311 (CIT 1988); *Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States* , 657 F. Supp. 1287, 1289-90 (CIT 1987). The Department previously requested and received comments regarding its practice with respect to duty drawback adjustments to export price in antidumping proceedings. *See Duty Drawback Practice in Antidumping Proceedings* , 70 FR 37764 (June 30, 2005) and *Duty Drawback Practice in Antidumping Proceedings* , 70 FR 44563 (August 3, 2005). Among other things, the Department requested comments on the appropriate methodology to apply when duty drawback is claimed for some, but not all, exports incorporating the input in question. In past cases, certain parties have argued that the Department should allocate the total amount of relevant drawback received to total exports, regardless of destination, to ensure that the adjustment claimed on U.S. sales is not overstated. *See* , *e.g.* , *CORE from Korea* , Issues and Decision Memorandum at comment 2. Some parties argued, for example, for application of a “reasonableness” standard in this regard. They claim that, while an adjustment in the full amount of the duty drawback received should be made when the foreign producer can directly trace particular imported duty-paid inputs through the subsequent production process and into particular finished goods that are exported to the United States, this is an unlikely situation. Because it is more likely that exported goods may or may not actually have incorporated the imported input, a reasonable approach would involve allocating the drawback received to all exports that may have incorporated the duty-paid input in question. By doing so, these commenters claim, the Department would reasonably avoid excessive claims for drawback adjustments in antidumping calculations. These commenters further suggest that parties claiming favorable adjustments such as claims based upon duty drawback carry the burden of proof in this regard. *See* Statement of Administrative Action, H. Doc. 103-316, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., 829
(1994)(“{A}s with all adjustments which benefit a responding firm, the respondent must demonstrate the appropriateness of such adjustment.”). The Department agrees with these commenters and proposes to modify its approach by limiting the duty drawback adjustment in certain circumstances. The Department generally agrees that it should allocate the total amount of duty drawback received across all exports that may have incorporated the duty-paid input in question, regardless of destination, to ensure that the adjustment claimed on U.S. sales is not overstated. Absent such a limitation, the Department is concerned that its current practice of permitting an adjustment to export price and constructed export price for all duty drawback received, whether or not it is related to U.S. sales, is an inappropriate application of its statutory authority to account for the effects of foreign drawback programs on price differentials between normal value and U.S. price. Furthermore, the Department is concerned that the adjustment could be manipulated by certain parties for purposes of obtaining a more favorable dumping margin. However, the Department will continue to permit a full adjustment for duty drawback received should the foreign producer claiming such adjustment demonstrate that it can directly trace the particular imported duty-paid inputs through the subsequent production process and into particular finished goods that are exported to the United States. The Department welcomes comment on this proposed methodology. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS (on duty drawback): November 17, 2006. Comments (Duty Drawback Issue Only) Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by the date specified above. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in development of any changes to its methodology. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying at Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the Import Administration Web site at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at
(202)482-0866, e-mail address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov. Dated: October 11, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-17376 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 050317077-6264-03; I.D. 101306D] Environmental Literacy Grants for Free-Choice Learning AGENCY: Office of Education (OED), Office of the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (USEC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of funding availability. SUMMARY: NOAA's Office of Education
(OED)is requesting applications for environmental literacy projects in support of free-choice learning. The proposed projects should support NOAA's vision which is: an informed society that uses a comprehensive understanding of the role of the ocean, coasts, and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the best social and economic decisions. Successful projects should reach significant segments of the U.S. population at a State, multi-state or national level. The environmental literacy messages should clearly convey how the Earth system influences a project's target audience, how the target audience is influencing the Earth system and how an environmentally literate public can make informed decisions. The goal of these projects should be to provide adequate information to move the audience's knowledge beyond basic awareness while reaching audiences sufficient in size with a message that promotes such a change. Funded projects will last between one and five years in duration and will create new, or capitalize on existing, networks of institutions, agencies and/or organizations to provide common messages about key concepts in Earth System Science, for example the Ocean Literacy Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts ( *http://www.coexploration.org/oceanliteracy/documents/OceanLitConcepts_10.11.05.pdf* ). Applications for exhibits involving construction of part or all of a building are not eligible for funding under this announcement. Formal education projects and projects whose main focus is on development of new data visualizations and platforms will not be considered for funding through this announcement. Please visit *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* for information on additional funding opportunities in those areas. This funding opportunity meets NOAA's Mission Goal to protect, restore and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through ecosystems-based management. DATES: The deadline for preliminary proposals is 5 p.m., e.s.t., November 29, 2006. The deadline for full applications is 5 p.m., e.s.t. on March 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Pre-proposals may be submitted through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ), or if an applicant does not have Internet access, three copies must be mailed to Attn: ELG Competition Manager, DOC/NOAA, Office of Education, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6863, Washington, DC 20230. Please note that hard copies submitted via the U.S. Postal Service can take up to 4 weeks to reach this office, therefore applicants are recommended to send hard copies via expedited shipping methods (e.g, Airborne Express, DHL, Fed Ex, UPS). Full applications may be submitted through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ), or if an applicant does not have Internet access, one hard copy should be sent to Attn: ELG Competition Manager, DOC/NOAA Office of Education, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6863, Washington, DC 20230. If submitting a hard copy, applicants are requested to provide a CD-ROM of the application, including scanned signed forms or forms with electronic signatures. This announcement will also be available at: *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* or by contacting the program official identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Schoedinger at *sarah.schoedinger@noaa.gov* , telephone 704-370-3528 or Alyssa Gundersen at *Alyssa.Gundersen@noaa.gov* , telephone 202-482-3739. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA's Office of Education
(OED)is requesting applications for environmental literacy projects in support of free-choice learning. The proposed projects should support NOAA's vision which is: an informed society that uses a comprehensive understanding of the role of the ocean, coasts, and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the best social and economic decisions. Successful projects should reach significant segments of the U.S. population at a State, multi-state or national level. The environmental literacy messages should clearly convey how the Earth system influences a project's target audience, how the target audience is influencing the Earth system and how an environmentally literate public can make informed decisions. The goal of these projects should be to provide adequate information to move the audience's knowledge beyond basic awareness while reaching audiences sufficient in size with a message that promotes such a change. The proposed mechanisms for delivery of these messages may include, but are not limited to, public literacy campaigns, kiosks or traveling exhibits, and/or the revision of existing programs that would be made available at multiple venues. Funded projects will last between one and five years in duration and will create new, or capitalize on existing, networks of institutions, agencies and/or organizations to provide common messages about key concepts in Earth System Science, for example the Ocean Literacy Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts. ( *http://www.coexploration.org/oceanliteracy/documents/OceanLitConcepts_10.11.05.pdf* ). Applications for exhibits involving construction of part or all of a building are not eligible for funding under this announcement. Formal education projects and projects whose main focus is on development of new data visualizations and platforms will not be considered for funding through this announcement. Please visit *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* for information on additional funding opportunities in those areas. All projects shall employ the relevant strategies articulated in the NOAA Education Plan ( *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/NOAA_Ed_Plan.pdf* ). All projects should be implemented at a State, multi-state or national level and have evaluations that fully assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed project. It is anticipated that final recommendations for funding under this announcement will be made by June 30, 2007, and that projects funded under this announcement will have a start date no earlier than September 15, 2007. This funding opportunity meets NOAA's Mission Goal to protect restore and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through ecosystems-based management. A detailed description of the program requirements may be found in the full funding opportunity announcement that can be accessed via the Grants.gov Web site, the NOAA Web site at *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* , or by contacting the program official identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Electronic Access The full text of the full funding opportunity announcement for this OED program can be accessed via the Grants.gov Web site. That announcement will also be available at the NOAA Web site: *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* or by contacting the program officials identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the full funding opportunity announcement. This **Federal Register** notice is available through the NOAA home page at: *http://www.noaa.gov/* . Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1540. *CFDA:* 11.469, Congressionally Identified Awards and Projects. Funding Availability NOAA announces the availability, contingent upon FY 2007 appropriations, of approximately $1,500,000 of Federal financial assistance in FY 2007 for free-choice learning projects. Approximately 2 to 5 awards in the form of grants or cooperative agreements will be made through this project solicitation. NOAA will only consider projects that have a duration of 1 to 5 years. The total Federal amount for all years that may be requested from NOAA for the direct and indirect costs of the proposed project shall not exceed $750,000. The minimum Federal amount that must be requested from NOAA for all years for the direct and indirect costs is $200,000. Applications requesting Federal support from NOAA of less than $200,000 total or more than $750,000 total will not be considered for funding. Publication of this notice does not oblige the Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. If an applicant incurs any costs prior to receiving an award agreement signed by an authorized NOAA Grants Officer, the applicant would do so solely at one's own risk of such costs not being included under the award. Eligibility Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, and State, local and Indian tribal governments in the United States. Among those eligible applicants are K through 12 public and independent schools and school systems, and science centers and museums. For profit organizations, foreign institutions, foreign organizations and foreign government agencies are not eligible to apply. Federal agencies are not eligible to receive Federal assistance under this announcement, but may be project partners. DOC/NOAA is strongly committed to increasing the participation of Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), i.e., Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal colleges and universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian institutions, and institutions that work in underserved communities. OED encourages applications that involve any of the above institutions. An individual may serve as a principal investigator
(PI)in only one application for this funding opportunity, however individuals may serve as co-PIs or key personnel in an unlimited number of applications. Institutions may serve as a PI or co-PI in an unlimited number of applications. Cost Sharing Requirements There are no cost-sharing requirements. Preliminary Proposals and Full Application Requirements Applicants must submit pre-proposals for review to prevent the expenditure of effort on proposals that may not be successful. All applicants will receive a response to their pre-proposal via e-mail or letter indicating whether they are authorized to submit a full application. Only those who submit pre-proposals are eligible to submit a full application. The provisions for pre-proposal and full application preparation are mandatory. Additional guidance, including frequently asked questions (FAQ), is available online at *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html.* Evaluation and Selection Procedures The general evaluation criteria and selection factors that apply to both pre-proposals and full applications to this funding opportunity are summarized below. The evaluation criteria for pre-proposals and full applications will have different weights and details. Further information about the evaluation criteria and selection factors can be found in the full funding opportunity announcement. Evaluation Criteria for Projects 1. *Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed project to the program goals:* This ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, Federal, regional, State, or local activities. 2. *Technical/scientific merit:* This assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives. 3. *Overall qualifications of applicants:* This ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. 4. *Project costs:* The Budget is evaluated to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time-frame. 5. *Outreach and education:* NOAA assesses whether this project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural resources. Review and Selection Process Pre-Proposal Pre-proposals meeting the requirements listed in FFO will be evaluated by government and/or non-government representatives, each having relevant expertise. The individual reviewers' ratings shall be averaged for each application to establish rank order for the Office of Education
(OED)Program Officer. The review panel will provide no consensus advice. Decisions on whether to authorize or not authorize a full application will be based on the rank order of the pre-proposals, unless choosing out of rank order is justified by the selection factors below. The Office of Education anticipates asking up to 30 applicants to submit full applications. Full applications from applicants who were not asked to submit them will not be reviewed or considered for funding. Full Application Upon receipt of a full application by NOAA, an initial administrative review will be conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application. All applications that meet the minimum eligibility requirements and that are ascertained to be complete will be evaluated and scored by independent reviewers. The reviews will be conducted by a panel of individuals, who may be government or non-government representatives, each having relevant expertise. The individual reviewers' ratings will be averaged for each application to establish rank order. No consensus advice will be given by the review panel. The Program Officer will neither vote nor score applications as part of the review panel nor participate in discussion of the merits of any proposal. The Program Officer will make his/her recommendations for funding based on rank order and the selection factors listed below to the Selecting Official for the final funding decision. Selection Factors for Projects The panel review ratings shall establish the rank order that the Selecting Official will use for final recommendation to the NOAA Grants Officer. The Selecting Official shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors: 1. Availability of funding. 2. Balance/distribution of funds: a. Geographically. b. By type of institutions. c. By type of partners. d. By research areas. e. By project types. 3. Whether this project duplicates other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA or other Federal agencies. 4. Program priorities and policy factors. 5. Applicant's prior award performance. 6. Partnerships and/or Participation of targeted groups. 7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the Grants Officer. Intergovernmental Review Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Limitation of Liability In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA Federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/* , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf,* and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm.* Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment. The Department of Commerce Pre-award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this solicitation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements for the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Helen Hurcombe, Director, NOAA Acquisitions and Grants, U.S. Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E6-17535 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 050317077-6265-04; I.D. 101306C] Environmental Literacy Grants for Formal K-12 Education AGENCY: Office of Education (OED), Office of the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (USEC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of funding availability. SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Education
(OED)is requesting applications for environmental literacy projects in support of K-12 education. Funded projects will last between one and five years in duration and will propose ways to expand the amount of Earth System Science taught in the classroom to improve student learning of that subject. All projects shall employ the relevant strategies articulated in the NOAA Education Plan. All projects should be implemented at a State or multi-State level and have evaluations that fully assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed project. It is anticipated that final recommendations for funding under this announcement will be made by June 30, 2007, and that projects funded under this announcement will have a start date no earlier than September 15, 2007. This funding opportunity meets NOAA's Mission Goal to understand climate variability and change to enhance society's ability to plan and respond. DATES: The deadline for preliminary proposals is 5 p.m., E.S.T., November 29, 2006. The deadline for full applications is 5 p.m., E.S.T. on March 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: Pre-proposals may be submitted through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ), or if an application does not have Internet access, three copies may be mailed to ATTN: ELG Competition Manager, DOC/NOAA, Office of Education, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6863, Washington, DC 20230. Please note hard copies submitted via the U.S. Postal Service can take up to 4 weeks to reach this office therefore applicants are recommended to send hard copies via expedited shipping methods (e.g, Airborne Express, DHL, Fed Ex, UPS). Full applications may be submitted through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ) or, if an applicant does not have Internet access, one hard copy may be sent to ATTN: ELG Competition Manager, DOC/NOAA Office of Education, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 6863, Washington, DC 20230. If submitting a hard copy, applicants are requested to provide a CD-ROM of the application, including scanned signed forms or forms with electronic signatures. This announcement will also be available at: *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* or by contacting the program official identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The NOAA Education Plan may be accessed at: *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/NOAA_Ed_Plan.pdf.* The document entitled Ocean Literacy Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts may be accessed at *http://www.coexploration.org/oceanliteracy/documents/OceanLitConcepts_10.11.05.pdf.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Schoedinger at *sarah.schoedinger@noaa.gov* , telephone 704-370-3528 or Alyssa Gundersen at *Alyssa.Gundersen@noaa.gov* , telephone 202-482-3739. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NOAA Office of Education
(OED)is requesting applications for environmental literacy projects in support of K-12 education. Funded projects will last between one and five years in duration and will propose ways to expand the amount of Earth System Science taught in the classroom to improve student learning of that subject. Successful projects will catalyze change in K-12 education through development of new programs and/or materials, and/or revision of existing programs and/or materials that result in the increased use of Earth System Science in K-12 classrooms. Projects are encouraged to further the use of Earth System Science concepts, such as the concepts articulated in the Ocean Literacy Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts (See ADDRESSSES ). Projects might focus on the education of pre-service teachers or on the professional development for in-service teachers. Projects might also propose ways to create and/or support the retention of highly qualified teachers, *e.g.* creation of an Earth System Science certification program, or propose new, or modification to existing, K-12 curricula and related instructional materials. Projects focusing on pre-service education of teachers should involve post-secondary institutions or other entities that provide pre-service teacher education. Projects focusing on in-service teacher professional development should involve State or local governments, such as school districts, as appropriate. Projects focusing on the development of new, or modification to existing, curricula and related instructional materials should be able to demonstrate how they will address the relevant State standards, support State or national assessments, and be disseminated at the State or multi-State level. Projects that focus on free-choice learning or development of new data visualizations and platforms will not be considered for funding through this announcement. Please visit *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* for information on these additional funding opportunities. All projects shall employ the relevant strategies articulated in the NOAA Education Plan (See ADDRESSES ). All projects should be implemented at a State or multi-State level and have evaluations that fully assess the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed project. It is anticipated that final recommendations for funding under this announcement will be made by June 30, 2007, and that projects funded under this announcement will have a start date no earlier than September 15, 2007. This funding opportunity meets NOAA's Mission Goal to understand climate variability and change to enhance society's ability to plan and respond. Electronic Access The full text of the full funding opportunity announcement for this OED program can be accessed via the Grants.gov Web site. That announcement will also be available at the NOAA Web site: *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* or by contacting the program officials identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the full funding opportunity announcement. This **Federal Register** notice is available through the NOAA home page at: *http://www.noaa.gov/.* Statutory Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1540. *CFDA:* 11.469, Congressionally Identified Awards and Projects. Funding Availability NOAA announces the availability, contingent upon appropriations, of approximately $3,000,000 of Federal financial assistance in FY 2007 for K-12 education projects. Approximately 4 to 6 awards in the form of grants or cooperative agreements will be made. NOAA will only consider projects that have a duration of 1 to 5 years. The total Federal amount for all years that may be requested from NOAA for the direct and indirect costs of the proposed project shall not exceed $750,000. The minimum Federal amount that must be requested from NOAA for all years for the direct and indirect costs is $200,000. Applications requesting Federal support from NOAA of less than $200,000 total or more than $750,000 total will not be considered for funding. Publication of this notice does not oblige the Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. If an applicant incurs any costs prior to receiving an award agreement signed by an authorized NOAA Grants Officer, the applicant would do so solely at one's own risk of such costs not being included under the award. Eligibility Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, and State, local and Indian tribal governments in the United States. Among those eligible applicants are K through 12 public and independent schools and school systems, and science centers and museums. For profit organizations, foreign institutions, foreign organizations and foreign government agencies are not eligible to apply. Federal agencies are not eligible to receive Federal assistance under this announcement, but may be project partners. DOC/NOAA is strongly committed to increasing the participation of Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), *i.e.* , Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal colleges and universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian institutions, and institutions that work in underserved communities. Applications are encouraged that involve any of the above institutions. An individual may apply only once as principal investigator
(PI)through this funding opportunity, however individuals may serve as co-PIs or key personnel on more than one application. Institutions may serve as PIs or co-PIs on an unlimited number of applications. Cost Sharing Requirements There are no cost-sharing requirements. Preliminary Proposals and Full Application Requirements Applicants must submit pre-proposals for review to prevent the expenditure of effort on proposals that may not be successful. All applicants will receive a response to their pre-proposal via e-mail or letter indicating whether they are authorized to submit a full application. Only those who submit pre-proposals are eligible to submit a full application. The provisions for pre-proposal and full application preparation are mandatory. Additional guidance, including frequently asked questions (FAQ), is available online at *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* . Evaluation and Selection Procedures The general evaluation criteria and selection factors that apply to both pre-proposals and full applications to this funding opportunity are summarized below. The evaluation criteria for pre-proposals and full applications will have different weights and details. Further information about the evaluation criteria and selection factors can be found in the full funding opportunity announcement. Evaluation Criteria for Projects 1. Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed project to the program goals: This ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, Federal, regional, State, or local activities. 2. Technical/scientific merit: This assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives. 3. Overall qualifications of applicants: This ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. 4. Project costs: The Budget is evaluated to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time-frame. 5. Outreach and education: NOAA assesses whether this project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural resources. Review and Selection Process Pre-Proposal Pre-proposals meeting the requirements listed in FFO will be evaluated by government and/or non-government representatives, each having relevant expertise. The individual reviewers' ratings shall be averaged for each application to establish rank order for the Office of Education
(OED)Program Officer. The review panel will provide no consensus advice. Decisions on whether to authorize or not authorize a full application will be based on the rank order of the pre-proposals, unless choosing out of rank order is justified by the selection factors below. The Office of Education anticipates asking up to 30 applicants to submit full applications. Full applications from applicants who were not asked to submit them will not be reviewed or considered for funding. Full Application Upon receipt of a full application by NOAA, an initial administrative review will be conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application. All applications that meet the minimum eligibility requirements and that are ascertained to be complete will be evaluated and scored by independent reviewers. The reviews will be conducted by a panel of individuals, who may be government or non- government representatives, each having relevant expertise. The individual reviewers' ratings will be averaged for each application to establish rank order. No consensus advice will be given by the review panel. The Program Officer will neither vote nor score applications as part of the review panel nor participate in discussion of the merits of any proposal. The Program Officer will make his/her recommendations for funding based on rank order and the selection factors listed below to the Selecting Official for the final funding decision. Selection Factors for Projects The panel review ratings shall establish the rank order that the Selecting Official will use for final recommendation to the NOAA Grants Officer. The Selecting Official shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors: 1. Availability of funding. 2. Balance/distribution of funds: a. Geographically; b. By type of institutions; c. By type of partners; d. By research areas; e. By project types. 3. Whether this project duplicates other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA or other Federal agencies. 4. Program priorities and policy factors. 5. Applicant's prior award performance. 6. Partnerships and/or Participation of targeted groups. 7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the Grants Officer. Intergovernmental Review Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Limitation of Liability In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA Federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/,* including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf* , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm.* Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist ( *e.g.* , the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this solicitation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements for the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Helen Hurcombe, Director, NOAA Acquisitions and Grants, U.S. Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E6-17536 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary TRICARE; Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); Fiscal Year 2007 Diagnosis Related Group
(DRF)Updates AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Notice of DRG revised rates. SUMMARY: On October 12, 2006 the Department of Defense published a notice on Fiscal Year 2007 Diagnosis Related Group
(DRF)Updates. This notice corrects an error for TRICARE DRG base payment rate. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann N. Fazzini, Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Systems (TMA), telephone 303-676-3803. Correction In **Federal Register** at 71 FR 60112, the heading of the notice, DRF is corrected to read DRG. At 71 FR 60113, paragraph E, $22.639 is corrected to read $22,649. All other information remains unchanged. Dated: October 13, 2006. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. 06-8767 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 10
Traces to 10 documents
CFR
11 references not yet in our index
- 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
- 688 F. Supp. 639
- 19 CFR 341.213(d)(4)
- 159 F. Supp. 2d 714
- 268 F.3d 1376
- 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
- 414 F. Supp. 2d 1271
- 374 F. Supp. 2d 1257
- 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
- 699 F. Supp. 309
- 657 F. Supp. 1287
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Termination of Panel Review of the final Antidumping Duty Determination made by the International Trade Administration, respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, Secretariat File No
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
F. Supp.688 F. Supp. 639
F. Supp.159 F. Supp. 2d 714
Cites 21 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources