The purpose of these hearings is for the Antitrust Modernization Commission to take testimony and receive evidence regarding the State Action Doctrine and Exclusionary Conduct. The hearing on the State Action Doctrine will consist of one panel. It will begin at 9:30 a.m. and conclude at 11:30 a.m. The hearing on Exclusionary Conduct will consist of two panels. The first panel will begin at 12:45 p.m. and run until 2:45 p.m. The second panel will run from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Materials relating to the hearings, including lists of witnesses and the prepared statements of the witnesses, will be made available on the Commission's Web site ( http://www.amc.gov ) in advance of the hearings.

Interested members of the public may submit written testimony on the subject of the hearing in the form of comments, pursuant to the Commission's request for comments. See 70 FR 28902 (May 19, 2005). Members of the public will not be provided with an opportunity to make oral remarks at the hearings.

The AMC is holding this hearing pursuant to its authorizing statute. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-273, section 11057(a), 116 Stat. 1758, 1858.

Public Law 97-446, as amended by Public Law 103-465, Public Law 106-36 and Public Law 108-429, requires the Departments of Commerce and the Interior to administer the distribution of watch duty-exemptions and watch and jewelry duty-refunds to program producers in the U.S. insular possessions and the Northern Mariana Islands. The primary consideration in collecting information is the enforcement of the laws and the information gathered is limited to that necessary to prevent abuse of the program and to permit a fair and equitable distribution of its benefits. Form ITA-334P is the principal program form used for recording operational data which are the bases for determining program entitlements and their distribution among the producers. This form also serves as the producer's application to the Departments for these entitlements. The form is completed biannually by watch and jewelry manufacturers. We propose modifying the form and the title of the form due to the passage of Public Law 106-36 and Public Law 108-429. Also, due to the passage of Public Law 108-429, new paperwork requirements need to be added to Form ITA-334P. Without the additional data, it would not be possible to calculate the further benefits mandated by law.

The Department of Commerce sends Form ITA-334P to each watch and jewelry producer biannually. A company official completes the form and returns it to the Department of Commerce.

OMB Number: 0625-0040.

Form Number: ITA-334P.

Type of Review: Revision-Regular Submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 16.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 48 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: The estimated annual cost for this collection is $40,960 ($960 for respondents and $40,000 for Federal government (included are most administration costs of program).

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

On August 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania for the period of August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review , 69 FR 46496 (August 3, 2004). On August 31, 2004, the Department received four timely requests for an administrative review of this order. The Department received a timely request from the International Steel Group, Inc. (“ISG”), a domestic interested party, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of shipments exported to the United States from the following Romanian plate producers/exporters: (1) MS Galati, (2) Metalexportimport, S.A. (“MEI”), (3) Metanef, S.A. (“Metanef”), and (4) Combinatul de Oteluri Speciali Tirgoviste (“COST”). In addition, the Department received a timely request from MS Galati and Ispat North America Inc. (“INA”), an exporter and U.S. affiliated importer of subject merchandise (collectively “respondents”), requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise exported to the United States from producer MS Galati. Also, the Department received a timely request on behalf of IPSCO Steel Inc. (“IPSCO”), a domestic producer, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise produced by MS Galati and exported from Romania by MEI. Finally, the Department received a timely request on behalf of Nucor Corporation, a domestic producer, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise exported by the following Romanian plate producers/exporters: (1) MS Galati, (2) MEI, (3) CSR SA Resita (“CSR”), and (4) MINMET, S.A. (“MINMET”).

On September 22, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania, for the period covering August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004, to determine whether merchandise imported into the United States is being sold at less than NV. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004) (“ Notice of Initiation ”).

On September 24, 2004, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the six above-referenced Romanian companies. On October 4, 2004, the Department received a letter from Metanef stating that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On October 8, 2004, MINMET submitted a letter stating that it has never shipped subject merchandise to the United States, including during the POR. On May 12, 2005, the Department received a letter from COST stating that it did not produce or make shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. On August 3, 2005, Nucor submitted a letter withdrawing its request for review of CSR. With regard to Metanef, CSR, COST, and MINMET, we intend to rescind this review based on the receipt of a withdrawal of request for a review and/or notification of no shipments made during the POR. For a full discussion of the intent to rescind with respect to these companies, see the “Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part” section of this notice below.

On October 29, 2004 and November 1, 2004, we received Section A responses from MS Galati and MEI, respectively. 2 On December 1, 2004, MS Galati filed its Section B and C questionnaire responses and MEI stated in this same filing that MEI did not have any home market (“HM”) sales during the POR and, thus, would not be filing a Section B response. 3 On February 28, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's Sections A through C questionnaire responses. On March 22, 2005, MS Galati submitted its response to the supplemental questionnaire. On June 16, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire with regard to Sections A through C. We received MS Galati's response to this supplemental questionnaire on July 1, 2005. On July 6, 2005, MS Galati submitted to the Department a revised U.S. sales database as it identified a programming error in the dataset when it was submitted as part of its second supplemental response.

On December 13, 2004, IPSCO submitted allegations of sales below cost of production (“COP”) against the former Ispat Sidex, now Mittal Steel. Upon a thorough review of IPSCO's allegation, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost investigation on April 4, 2005, and instructed MS Galati to respond to Section D of the antidumping questionnaire. On April 27, 2005, the Department received MS Galati's Section D Response. On May 6, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's section D questionnaire response. On June 29, 2005, we received MS Galati's supplemental questionnaire response. The Department requested that MS Galati provide revised exhibits for its supplemental response and those exhibits were received on July 19, 2005. See “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice below.

On April 15, 2005, due to the complexity of the case and pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department postponed the preliminary results in this administrative review until no later than August 31, 2005. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Extension of Preliminary Results for 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 19925 (April 15, 2005).

On August 5, 2005, and August 8, 2005, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's cost responses and a further supplemental regarding MS Galati's model match hierarchy, respectively. On August 17, 2005, MS Galati submitted additional information on the record confirming its date of sale methodology. See section on “Date of Sale” below. On August 17, 2005, the Department received the response for the cost supplemental questionnaire. On August 22, 2005, the Department sent a letter to MS Galati requesting specific changes to its home market and U.S. sales databases, based on the verification findings and minor corrections. See Letter to Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. from Abdelali Elouaradia, program manager, Request for New Databases, dated August 22, 2005. On August 24, 2005, the Department received MS Galati's response to the model match supplemental questionnaire. On August 25, 2005, the Department received MS Galati's revised sales files as requested by the Department.

On March 14, 2005, the Department received a request from Ispat Sidex S.A. to conduct a changed circumstances review, as the company recently changed its name to Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. following the acquisition of its parent, LNM Holdings, by the Mittal Steel Group in early 2005. Pursuant to Section 751(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 of the Department's regulations, the Department initiated a changed circumstance review to establish whether Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. is the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex, S.A. On May 3, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circustances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 84 (May 3, 2005). We allowed a period for public comment on our preliminary results. No comments were received by any interested party, and therefore the Department issued its final results, finding that Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. is the successor-in-interest to Ispat Sidex, S.A. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania , 70 FR 118 (June 21, 2005).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. See e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002) and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001). As discussed above, Metanef, MINMET, and COST informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with CBP. As also noted above, the Department received a withdrawal of the request for review from petitioner in regard to CSR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part , 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004) (“2002-2003 Rebar Review”) and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part , 68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sept. 9, 2003) (“2001-2002 Rebar Review”).

With regard to MEI, in the course of this review, we have found that (a) MEI is not the producer of subject merchandise, (b) MEI does not take title to the merchandise which MS Galati exports through MEI, and (c) MS Galati has knowledge of the destination of its subject merchandise exports. Therefore, the Department is concluding that MEI had neither sales nor shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and accordingly we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to MEI.

The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( i.e. , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included under this order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e. , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, and 19 C.F.R. 351.307 of the Department's regulations, we conducted a sales verification of the questionnaire responses of MS Galati and MS Galati's U.S. affiliate, INA. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of MS Galati's production facility. Our verification results are outlined in the following two memoranda: (1) Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of Home Market and U.S. Sales Information Submitted by Mittal Steel Galati S.A. and Metalexportimport S.A., dated August 9, 2004 (“MS Galati Verification Report”); and (2) Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of U.S. Sales Information Submitted by Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (“MS Galati”), dated August 22, 2004 (“CEP Verification Report”). Public versions of these reports are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations based on the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

In its Section C questionnaire response to the Department, MS Galati relied on two date of sale methodologies. For the first seven months of the POR, MS Galati reported the date of invoice as the date of sale. For the remaining five months of the POR ( i.e. , March through July 2004), MS Galati reported the order acknowledgment date as the date of sale. As a result, the universe of U.S. sales reported to the Department includes constructed export price (“CEP”) sales with entry dates outside of the POR. Consistent with the Department's practice and the antidumping duty questionnaire issued to MS Galati, dated September 24, 2004, the Department bases its analysis on “each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for consumption during the POR, except * * * for CEP sales made after importation * * *” where the Department will base its analysis on “each transaction that has a date of sale within the POR.” See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands , 69 FR 33630 (June 16, 2004); see also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea , 63 FR 39071 (July 21, 1998). Because all sales made by MS Galati to the United States are back-to-back CEP sales ( i.e. , the sales are made prior to importation and the merchandise was not taken into inventory upon entering the United States, as verified by the Department), we will only use entries of subject merchandise made during the POR. See Analysis Memo for further discussion of MS Galati's back-to-back CEP sales; see also CEP Verification Report, dated August 22, 2005, at pages 6 through 10.

As stated in the “Universe of Sales” section above, MS Galati reported two date of sale methodologies for its CEP sales. In determining the appropriate date of sale, the Department preference is to use the date of invoice as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also , Allied Tube and Conduit Corp . v. United States , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (CIT 2001) (“Allied Tube”). Moreover, the preamble to the Department's regulations expresses a strong preference for the Department to choose a single date of sale across the full period of review. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule ; 62 FR 27296, 27349 (May 19, 1997) (“the Preamble”).

At the verifications conducted at MS Galati's headquarters in Romania and in Chicago at the headquarters of the U.S. affiliate, INA, we found that, based on sales documentation which the Department verified, the terms of sale changed between the order acknowledgment and the invoice for certain sales prior to March 2004. Furthermore, we found that the company will accept changes to the terms of sale after March 2004, although any change to the terms are memorialized in the form of an additional order acknowledgment. Therefore, after reviewing the sales process for U.S. sales for the full POR, we find that sales terms were susceptible to change, and in fact, quantities changed in excess of the allowable variations per the order acknowledgment. For these preliminary results, the Department will use the invoice date as the appropriate date of sale for the POR. Because the Department is not including sales which were entered into the United States after the POR for margin calculation purposes, and all of the reported sales using order acknowledgment as the date of sale entered after the POR, the issue of reporting different date of sale methodologies is no longer an issue in this case. See Analysis Memo for further discussion.

To determine whether MS Galati's sales of the subject merchandise from Romania to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the CEP to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. MS Galati initially reported sales directly to unaffiliated customers as export price (“EP sales”) in the United States, but we have disregarded those sales in these preliminary results because they appear to be of non-subject merchandise outside of the scope of these proceedings. For further explanation, see Analysis Memo.

Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2), we compared the constructed export prices of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the “Scope of the Order” section above, which were produced and sold by MS Galati in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We relied on eight characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of importance): (1) Painting; (2) quality; (3) specification and/or grade; (4) heat treatments; (5) standard thickness; (6) standard width; (7) whether or not checkered (floor plate); and (8) descaling. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. See Appendix V of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to MS Galati dated September 24, 2004.

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). For purposes of this administrative review, MS Galati has classified its sales as both EP and CEP. However, as noted in the “Fair Value Comparison” section, MS Galati initially reported sales directly to unaffiliated customers ( i.e. , EP sales) in the United States, but we have disregarded those sales in this preliminary determination as they appear to be of merchandise not covered by the scope of the order. MS Galati identified one channel of distribution for U.S. sales: MS Galati to MEI to INA and then to unaffiliated U.S. customers, who are distributors. See “Level of Trade” section below for further analysis.

For this sales channel, MS Galati has reported these sales as CEP sales because the first sale to an unaffiliated party occurred in the United States. Therefore, we based CEP on the packed duty paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act. Where applicable, we made a deduction to gross unit price for billing adjustments. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses ( i.e. , U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and surveying), and U.S. customs duty. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( i.e. , imputed credit expenses, commissions, and bank expenses) and indirect selling expenses. For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets.

We compared the aggregate volume of HM sales of the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product sold in Romania was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis for NV. Because the volume of HM sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based the determination of NV upon the HM sales of the foreign like product. Thus, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Romania, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the CEP sales, as appropriate. After testing home market viability, we calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice.

Based on a cost allegation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(d)(2)(ii), we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that MS Galati made sales of the foreign like product at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by MS Galati. See Memorandum from John Drury and Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, and Ernest Gziryan, Case Accountant, to Richard O. Weible, Office Director, regarding Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Ispat Sidex, S.A., April 4, 2005, on file in the CRU. The Department has conducted an investigation to determine whether MS Galati made home market sales at prices below their COP during the POR within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis in the “Calculation of Cost of Production” section as described below.

Because the Department initiated a sales-below-cost investigation, we instructed MS Galati to submit its responses to Section D of the Department's Antidumping Questionnaire. MS Galati submitted its response to the Section D questionnaire on April 27, 2005, and its response to the Department's Section D Supplemental questionnaire of May 6, 2005, on June 29, 2005.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home market general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, interest expenses, and packing expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by MS Galati in their cost questionnaire responses with the following exceptions:

We compared the weighted-average COP for MS Galati to its home-market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( i.e. , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses.

We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of MS Galati's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, and thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that MS Galati made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate.

MS Galati reported that it made sales in the HM to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. The Department did not require MS Galati to report its affiliated party's downstream sales because these sales represented less than five percent of total HM sales. Sales to affiliated customers in the HM not made at arm's length were excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings—Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002).

We based NV on the HM sales to unaffiliated purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's length test. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses ( i.e. , inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse and warehousing expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for imputed credit, where appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C). In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted HM packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where the Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of contemporaneous matches in accordance with 773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV on CV.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade LOT as the EP or CEP transaction. See also 19 CFR 351.412 of the Department's regulations. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and profits. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer. See § 351.412(c)(1) of the Department's regulations. As noted in the “Constructed Export Price” section above, we preliminarily find that all of MS Galati's sales through its U.S. affiliates are appropriately classified as CEP sales.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (“the CEP offset provision”). See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes from Canada , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).

In analyzing the differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000).

To determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the channels of distribution in each market, 4 including selling functions, class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

In this review, we obtained information from MS Galati regarding the marketing stages involved in sales to the reported home and U.S. markets. MS Galati reported that it sells to unaffiliated distributors and end users in the home market ( i.e. , Romania), as well as to affiliated end users for consumption and affiliated distributors. In the United States, MS Galati had sales to an affiliate, INA, that resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers. MS Galati initially reported sales directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States, but we have disregarded those sales in these preliminary results as they appear to be of merchandise not covered by the scope of the order.

MS Galati reported one LOT in the home market with two channels of distribution: (1) Direct sales to customers, and (2) consignment sales. Sales were made to two classes of customers: (1) End users, and (2) distributors. See MS Galati's Section A Questionnaire Response dated October 29, 2004, (“AQR”) at page 13 and Appendix 5. See also MS Galati's second supplemental response of July 1, 2005, at Appendix 4 (“Second Supplemental Response”) and its Section B Questionnaire Response (“BQR”) dated December 1, 2004, at page 16. For some sales made in the home market, MS Galati stored merchandise at an affiliated warehouse. MS Galati also had sales to affiliated end users for consumption. See AQR at page 3 and BQR at page 3. Based on our review of evidence on the record, we find that home market sales through both channels of distribution to both customer categories, whether affiliated or not, were substantially similar with respect to selling functions and stages of marketing. MS Galati performed the same selling functions at the same level for sales to all home market customers. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that MS Galati had only one LOT for its home market sales.

MS Galati reported one EP LOT and one CEP LOT with two channels of distribution in the United States: (1) Direct sales to end users and distributors, and (2) direct sales by the U.S. affiliate to end users and distributors with merchandise shipped directly from Romania. See AQR at A-13. As previously noted in the “Fair Value Comparison” section, we are disregarding sales reported as EP sales as we have preliminarily determined such sales to be of merchandise not covered by the scope of the order. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that MS Galati made CEP sales to the United States through one channel of distribution—direct sales to end users and distributors.

For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling functions and services performed by MS Galati on CEP sales, as described by MS Galati in its Second Supplemental Response, after these deductions. We have determined that the selling functions performed by MS Galati on all CEP sales were identical. Accordingly, because the selling functions provided by MS Galati on all sales to its affiliate in the United States are identical, we preliminarily determine that there is one CEP LOT in the U.S. market.

We then compared the selling functions performed by MS Galati on its CEP sales (after deductions) to the selling functions provided in the home market. We found that MS Galati performs additional selling functions for its home market sales to those it provides to its affiliate INA. See Second Supplemental Response dated July 1, 2005, at Appendix 3. According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is appropriate when the LOT in the home market or third country market is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP sales. MS Galati reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for the CEP LOT and that, therefore, the home market LOT is more advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions performed by MS Galati for sales in the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. market ( i.e. , sales support and activities provided by MS Galati on sales to its U.S. affiliate), we preliminarily find that the home market LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP sales because MS Galati provides many selling functions in the home market at a higher level of service as compared to selling functions performed for its CEP sales. See Second Supplemental Response dated July 1, 2005, at Appendix 3. Thus, we find that MS Galati's home market sales are at a more advanced LOT than its CEP sales. There was only one LOT in the home market, there was no data available to determine the existence of a pattern of price differences, and we do not have any other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Therefore, we applied a CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons.

To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home market indirect selling expenses from NV for home market sales that were compared to U.S. CEP sales. As such, we limited the home market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

We note that although MEI was the exporter for all of MS Galati's sales, because MS Galati provided information that it had knowledge that the subject merchandise was destined for the United States, we have calculated a margin solely for MS Galati as the producer of subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that the following margin is the weighted-average dumping margin of the POR:

For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin for MS Galati and MEI, see the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 31, 2004 (“Analysis Memo”). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU.

Pursuant to section 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( i.e. , at or above 0.50 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total value of the sales to that importer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the total quantity for the subject merchandise on each of MS Galati's importer's entries during the POR. Antidumping duties for MEI, where the merchandise was not produced by MS Galati, and for any other rescinded companies, shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise produced by MS Galati, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, 5 but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate described in the final results of this review. We note that all subject merchandise produced by MS Galati will be subject to MS Galati's cash deposit rate as established in the final results, whether or not that merchandise was exported by MEI.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. We note that the cash deposit rate established in the final results of this review will be applied prospectively to cover future entries.

The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with § 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Case briefs for this review must be submitted to the Department no later than fourteen days after the date of the final cost verification report issued in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be filed seven days from the deadline date for case briefs. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Case and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on interested parties in accordance with § 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Unless otherwise specified, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first business day thereafter. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under § 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On May 2, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the PRC. 1 On May 17, 2005, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from an interested party, the U.S. Apple Association (U.S. Apple) within the deadline specified in section 315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. U.S. Apple claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(E) of the Act, as a trade association representing all segments of the apple industry. On June 1, 2005, the Department received a complete substantive response from U.S. Apple within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. We did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department determined to conduct an expedited review of the order.

On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea (60 FR 41058). On August 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of an opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping order on OCTG from Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review , 69 FR 46496. On August 31, 2004, the Department received a properly filed, timely request for an administrative review from domestic producers, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, and Maverick Tube Corporations (“petitioners”). On September 22, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation for this antidumping duty administrative review. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 69 FR 56745.

On November 12, 2004, the Department issued questionnaires to Husteel and SeAH. Husteel and SeAH submitted Section A 1 responses on January 5, 2005 and Section B-D responses on January 18, 2005. SeAH also submitted a Section E response on January 18, 2005. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires on February 29, 2005, March 24, 2005, and June 6, 2005. Husteel and SeAH submitted responses on March 7, 2005, April 22, 2005, and June 24, 2005.

On March 7, 2005, the Department published a notice extending the deadline for the preliminary results of this administrative review from May 3, 2005, until August 31, 2005. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review , 70 FR 10962.

On November 30, 2004, and December 14, 2004, Husteel and SeAH, respectively submitted a request to the Department for a one-month adjustment to the cost reporting period in this review. Husteel and SeAH requested to report costs from July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004, rather than for the established period of review (“POR”), August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Husteel and SeAH claimed that the one-month shift in the reporting period would allow them to use their semi-annual financial information, which would ease their reporting burden and simplify accuracy and completeness tests for the Department. Both companies stated that the shift in cost period would not distort their reported costs. In Husteel's and SeAH's December 22, 2004, submissions, each company provided further information regarding their request for the shift in cost period. In their December 2, 2004, and December 28, 2004, submissions, petitioners argued that a shift in the cost period would materially impact the antidumping analysis in this review.

On January 5, 2005, the Department determined that a shift in cost reporting period would be inappropriate. See Letter to Husteel and SeAH regarding adjustment the cost reporting period dated January 5, 2005. The Department found that the difference in costs of primary inputs and in the cost of manufacturing between the two periods would have a significant effect on the results in this review. Therefore, the Department instructed Husteel and SeAH to provide cost information for the POR.

The POR for this administrative review is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.

The products covered by this order are OCTG, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under sub-headings: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS sub-headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the scope of the order.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we considered all products manufactured by the respondents that are covered by the description contained in the “Scope of the Order” section above and were sold in the comparison market during the POR, to be the foreign like product for purposes of determining the appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's November 12, 2004, antidumping questionnaire.

It is the Department's practice to use the invoice date as the date of sale. We may, however, use a date other than the invoice date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer first establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR section 351.401(i); see also Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27348-50 (May 19, 1997).

U.S. Sales : For its U.S. sales, Husteel's customers contact Husteel USA, Husteel's U.S. affiliate, by phone and negotiate quantity and price. After production is complete, the merchandise is shipped from Korea and Husteel USA issues its invoice to the U.S. customer. As such, Husteel reported the date of sale to be the shipment date from Korea since that date always precedes Husteel USA's invoice date. The Department has found no information that indicates that another date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were established. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily using shipment date as date of sale, as reported by Husteel.

U.S. Sales : For its U.S. sales, SeAH reported two channels of distribution: 1 - Inventory sales that were warehoused and, in most cases, further manufactured in the United States by Pusan Pipe America (“PPA”), SeAH's U.S. affiliate (U.S. Channel 1); and 2 - Constructed Export Price (CEP) sales made by PPA and shipped directly to the customer from Korea (U.S. Channel 2). In its submission, SeAH reported a different date of sale for each of its two channels of distribution. For sales in U.S. channel 1, SeAH reported the date of sale to be the date of the commercial invoice issued by PPA to the unaffiliated customer. For sales in U.S. channel 2, SeAH reported the date of sale to be the shipment date from Korea since this date precedes the date of PPA's commercial invoice to its unaffiliated U.S. customer. The Department has found no information that indicates that another date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were established. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily using the commercial invoice date as date of sale for U.S. channel 1 and the shipment date as date of sale for U.S. channel 2, as reported by SeAH.

Canadian Sales : For sales to Canada, the comparison market in this review (see “Normal Value Comparisons” below), PPA receives an inquiry from the customer by fax or telephone. Once SeAH and PPA agree on the price, the customer then sends a written purchase order to PPA. The merchandise is shipped and SeAH invoices PPA. PPA then invoices the Canadian customer, pays SeAH, and then receives payment from the customer. As such, SeAH reported the shipment date from Korea since this date precedes the date of PPA's commercial invoice to its unaffiliated Canadian customer. The Department has found no information that indicates that another date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were established. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily using shipment date as date of sale, as reported by SeAH.

To determine whether Husteel's or SeAH's sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared each company's CEP to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.

The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison-market sales to U.S. sales. A home market is not considered a viable comparison market if the aggregate quantity of sales of the foreign like product in that market amounts to less than five percent of the quantity of sales of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. See section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.404. Husteel and SeAH each reported that the aggregate quantity of sales of the foreign like product in Korea during the POR amounted to less than five percent of the quantity of each company's sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

In Husteel's and SeAH's January 18, 2005, questionnaire responses, each company reported that the aggregate quantity of their sales of the foreign like product to the People's Republic of China (PRC) amounted to more than five percent of the total quantity of each company's sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, pursuant to section 771(18) of Act, the Department has determined that the PRC is a non-market economy country (NME). Consequently, the Department finds that the prices of Husteel's and SeAH's OCTG sales to the PRC are unrepresentative. As such, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act, the Department finds that such prices are inappropriate for use as a basis to establish normal value.

In its January 5, 2005, questionnaire response, Husteel reported having no sales of OCTG to any other countries besides the United States and the PRC during the POR. Therefore, the Department has used constructed value (CV) for Husteel as the basis for NV for this review based on the cost of production (COP) (Section D) questionnaire responses submitted on January 18, 2005.

In its January 5, 2005, questionnaire response, SeAH reported sales of OCTG to Canada and Myanmar during the POR. Since the quantity of foreign like product sold by SeAH into Myanmar was less than five percent of the quantity of subject merchandise sold in the United States, the Department determined that only Canada qualified as a viable comparison market based on the criterion established in section 773(a)(1) of the Act. The Department calculated NV based on the information on sales to Canada provided in SeAH's April 22, 2005, questionnaire response. For U.S. sales for which a match with Canadian sales could not be found, the Department used CV as the basis for comparison based on the information provided by SeAH in Section D of its January 18, 2005, submission.

SeAH : Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. We added duty drawback and deducted movement expenses, third country packing expenses and third country direct selling expenses from the NV. We also made adjustments for CEP-offset (see “Level of Trade/CEP-offset” section below), based on the sum of inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses. We made further adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of merchandise. Finally, the Department added U.S. packing expenses to derive the foreign unit price in dollars (“FUPDOL”) to use as the NV.

Husteel : We used CV as the basis for NV for all sales because Husteel had no viable comparison market in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. Materials, labor, and factory overhead were totaled to derive the cost of manufacturing. Interest, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, selling expenses, profit and U.S. packing expenses were then added to derive the CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we based profit and selling expenses on amounts derived from SeAH's financial statements. Finally, we deducted direct selling expenses from the CV price to derive the FUPDOL to use as the NV.

SeAH : We used CV as the basis for NV for one sale because there were no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. Materials, labor, and factory overhead were totaled to derive the cost of manufacturing. Interest, G&A expenses, selling expenses, profit, and U.S. packing expenses were then added to derive the CV. Profit was calculated based on the total value of sales and total cost of production provided by SeAH in its questionnaire response. Finally, we deducted credit expenses and U.S. direct selling expenses from CV to derive the FUPDOL to use as the NV.

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. In Husteel's and SeAH's questionnaire responses, each company classified all of its export sales of OCTG to the United States as CEP sales.

All of Husteel's sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they were made for the account of Husteel by Husteel USA. Husteel reported one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: “produced to order” sales, shipped directly from Korea to the unaffiliated U.S. customers. All of SeAH's sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they were made for the account of SeAH by PPA. SeAH reported two channels of distribution for its U.S. sales: (1) CEP sales of further manufactured merchandise from PPA's inventory and (2) CEP sales shipped directly to the U.S. customer from Korea.

The Department recalculated SeAH's starting price taking into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment discounts. Where applicable, the Department made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance and U.S. customs duties in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. See Memorandum from Nicholas Czajkowski, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of Husteel Corporation (“Husteel”) for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea , and Memorandum from Nicholas Czajkowski, Case Analyst, to the File: Analysis of SeaH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”) for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe from Korea , dated August 31, 2005, on file in the CRU. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department also deducted U.S. direct selling expenses, including credit expense, packing expense, inventory carrying costs, profit and indirect selling expense. We also deducted the cost of further manufacturing, where applicable, for SeAH. Finally, we added duty drawback to the starting price to derive a net U.S. price to use as the CEP.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the U.S. sales. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the statute unambiguously requires Commerce to deduct the selling expenses set forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the CEP starting price prior to performing its LOT analysis. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States , 243 F.3rd 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Consequently, the Department will continue to adjust the CEP, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as articulated by the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.412. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.

To determine whether the comparison-market sales on which NV is based are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the first unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7) of the Act. Finally, if the data available is not sufficient to provide an appropriate basis to quantify a level-of-trade adjustment, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision).

In the current review, SeAH reported one LOT in the Canadian market and two LOT in the United States. SeAH claimed that, once adjustments for PPA's activities for U.S. sales, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, are made, the LOT in both U.S. channels would be less advanced than the Canadian LOT. SeAH claimed that they cannot quantify a level-of-trade adjustment, but that a CEP offset is warranted in this case. For this review, we obtained information from SeAH regarding the marketing stages involved in its selling activities for its reported U.S. and Canadian sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for each channel of distribution it claimed. (See SeAH's January 18, 2005, and April 22, 2005, questionnaire responses).

SeAH reported one channel of distribution and one LOT in the Canadian market. All sales into the Canadian market were CEP sales made between PPA and the customer and shipped directly to the customer from Korea. As such, we preliminarily find that all of SeAH's sales in the Canadian market were made at one LOT.

As previously stated, SeAH reported two channels of distribution for its sales into the U.S. market, U.S. Channel 1 and U.S. Channel 2. SeAH also reported two LOT. We examined the selling functions performed by SeAH and/or PPA for each U.S. channel of distribution and found that there were significant differences with respect to the inventory and further manufacturing activities which PPA performed. In SeAH's U.S. Channel 1 sales, subject merchandise was inventoried and further manufactured by PPA in the United States before being sold to the unaffiliated customer. In SeAH's U.S. Channel 2 sales, subject merchandise was shipped directly from Korea to the unaffiliated customer. Therefore, we preliminarily find that SeAH made its U.S. sales at two different LOT.

SeAH reported that PPA is involved in all aspects of the selling functions for both of channels of distribution in the United States. In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses from the CEP prior to performing the LOT analysis.

In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we deducted inventory costs, further manufacturing costs, freight and movement expenses, and selling and marketing expenses performed by PPA for SeAH's U.S. Channel 1 sales. After deducting these expenses, we compared the Canadian LOT to the U.S. Channel 1 LOT. Based on our analysis, we find that the U.S. Channel 1 sales are at a less advanced LOT than the Canadian sales.

In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act, we deducted freight and movement expenses, and selling and marketing expenses performed by PPA for SeAH's U.S. Channel 2 sales. After deducting these expenses, we compared the Canadian LOT to the U.S. Channel 2 LOT. Based on our analysis, we find that the U.S. Channel 2 sales are at a less advanced LOT than the Canadian sales.

Therefore, since the sales in Canada are being made at a more advanced LOT than the sales to the United States, a LOT adjustment is appropriate for the Canadian sales in this review. However, since the data available is not sufficient to provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, we made a CEP offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f). This offset is equal to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market not exceeding the amount of indirect selling expenses and commissions deducted from the U.S. price in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists:

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department anticipates conducting a verification of Husteel and SeAH following the issuance of the preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review.

Furthermore, the following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of OCTG from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for Husteel and SeAH, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 12.17 percent. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea , 60 FR 33561 (June 28, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See 19 CFR 351.213(h).

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results of this administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC was published on January 4, 2005. On July 8, 2005, we received a new shipper review request from Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (“Kunyu”); on July 28, 2005, we received new shipper review requests from Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. (“Landmark”) and Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. (“Meikangchi”); on August 1, 2005, we received a new shipper review request from WBE Industries (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd. (“WBE”). All of these companies certified that they are both the producers and exporters of the subject merchandise upon which the respective requests for a new shipper review are based.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Kunyu, Landmark, Meikangchi, and WBE certified that they did not export wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Kunyu, Landmark, Meikangchi, and WBE certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), each of the above-mentioned companies also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC.

On February 2, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews , 70 FR 5415 (February 2, 2005). On February 17, 2005, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Heritage Salmon Company, Inc. and Atlantic Salmon of Maine within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status as domestic producers of fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department received a complete substantive response from the domestic parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this CVD order.

The Department determined that the sunset review of the CVD order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway is extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order ( i.e. , an order in effect on January 1, 1995). Therefore, on May 13, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this review until not later than August 31, 2005. 1

The merchandise covered by this order is the species Atlantic salmon (Salmon Salar) marketed as specified herein; the order excludes all other species of salmon: Danube salmon, Chinook (also called “king” or “quinnat”), Coho (“silver”), Sockeye (“redfish” or “blueback”), Humpback (“pink”) and Chum (“dog”). Atlantic salmon is a whole or nearly-whole fish, typically (but not necessarily) marketed gutted, bled, and cleaned, with the head on. The subject merchandise is typically packed in fresh-water ice (“chilled”). Excluded from the subject merchandise are fillets, steaks and other cuts of Atlantic salmon. Also excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or otherwise processed Atlantic salmon. Prior to January 1, 1990, Atlantic salmon was provided for under item numbers 0302.12.0060.8 and 0302.12.0065.3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) (56 FR 7678, February 25, 1991). At the time of the original investigation, it was provided for under HTSUS item number 0302.12.0002.9. Currently, it is provided for under HTSUS item numbers 0302.12.0003 and 0302.12.0004. 2 The subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

There have been no scope rulings for the subject order.

All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 30, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rate listed below:

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors, dated August 27, 2004, directed the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate, by February 27, 2005, a Government-wide standard for secure and reliable forms of identification to be issued by the Federal Government to its employees and contractors (including contractor employees). FIPS 201 was developed to satisfy the technical, administrative, and timeliness requirements of HSPD 12. The standard was developed in a “manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws, including the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and other statutes protecting the rights of Americans” as required in HSPD 12.

To assist departments and agencies in implementing the provisions of FIPS 201, Joshua Bolten, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), issued a Memorandum for All Departments and Agencies on August 5, 2005 entitled “Implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12—Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors.” The Memorandum provides implementation guidance and clarifies the requirements for identity proofing, registration and accreditation processes. Two provisions of FIPS 201 as promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce earlier this year are not consistent with the guidance contained in the Bolten Memorandum and those provisions of FIPS 201 are hereby proposed for revision. Sections 2.2, “PIV Identify Proofing and Registration Requirements,” and 5.3.1 of FIPS 201, “PIV Card Issuance,” are being revised to assure that they are consistent with the OMB guidance concerning National Agency Checks as part of the identity proofing and registration process. Therefore, NIST has prepared changes to FIPS 201 to clarify the identity proofing and registration process that departments and agencies should follow when issuing identity credentials. In short, under the proposed FIPS revision if an agency does not receive the results of the National Agency Checks (NAC) within five days, the identity credential can be issued based on the FBI National Criminal History Check (fingerprint check). Identity credentials issued to individuals without a completed NAC or equivalent must be electronically distinguishable from identity credentials issued to individuals who have a completed investigation. Director Bolten's Memorandum is available electronically from the OMB Web page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/index.html.

The proposed changes to FIPS Publication 201 are available electronically from the NIST Web site at: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/.

Irizarry Garcia has filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 930, Subpart H. Mr. Garcia appealed an objection raised by the Puerto Rico Planning Board to a consistency certification contained within his application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a permit necessary to reconstruct a private pier. The Appellant requests that the Secretary override the State's consistency objection on the basis that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives” of the CZMA. To make this determination, the Secretary must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in section 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of Puerto Rico's management program. 15 CFR 930.121.

Written public comments are invited on any of the issues that the Secretary must consider in deciding this appeal. Comments must be received within 30 days of the publication of this notice, and may be submitted by e-mail to garcia.comments@noaa.gov. Comments may also be sent to Jennifer Nist, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 6111, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments will be made available to the Appellant and the State.

NOAA intends to provide the public with access to all materials and related documents comprising the appeal record during business hours, at the NOAA Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services. In addition, copies of public filings by the parties will be available for review at the offices of the Puerto Rico Planning Board.

For additional information about this appeal contact Jennifer Nist, 301-713-2967.

The CINMS Advisory Council was originally established in December 1998 and has a broad representation consisting of 21 members, including ten government agency representatives and eleven members from the general public. The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Manager. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Manager by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Manger in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary program. Specifically, the Council's objectives are to provide advice on: (1) Protecting natural and cultural resources, and identifying and evaluating emergent or critical issues involving Sanctuary use or resources; (2) Identifying and realizing the Sanctuary's research objectives; (3) Identifying and realizing educational opportunities to increase the public knowledge and stewardship of the Sanctuary environment; and (4) Assisting to develop an informed constituency to increase awareness and understanding of the purpose and value of the Sanctuary and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.

The purpose of this meeting is to develop recommendations regarding management measures, including quotas and trip limits, for the Councils for the 2006/07 fishing year specifications for spiny dogfish.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office (302) 674-2331 ext: 18) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The purpose of this meeting is to review the results of the spring flume tank tests, prepare for the October Northeast Fisheries Science Center's experimental trawl survey cruise, and begin to thoroughly evaluate the protocols for the new survey.

The EA analyzes the potential environmental consequences of using mobile land-based sensors ( i.e. , radar, telemetry, command and control, and optical systems) and the use of airborne sensor systems (High Altitude Observatory [HALO] I and II, and Widebody Airborne Sensor Platform [WASP]). This EA considers impacts associated with the proposed use of land-based mobile sensors and airborne sensor systems on targets of opportunity.

Continuing levels of about 170,000 Reserve Component members activated in support of Noble Eagle/Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom in FY 2005 warrants the continuation of the Demonstration to support the healthcare needs and morale of family members of activated reservists and guardsmen. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 amended existing statutes that will enable the Secretary of Defense to provide these benefits permanently by regulation. The Demonstration needs to be extended to provide sufficient time for the rule-making process to establish the new regulation. The impact if the Demonstration is not extended, before permanent regulation is promulgated, includes higher out-of-pocket costs and potential inability to continue to use the same provider for ongoing care. There are three separate components to the demonstration. First, those who participate in TRICARE Standard will not be responsible for paying the TRICARE Standard deductible. By law, the TRICARE Standard deductible for active duty dependents is $150 per individual, $300 per family ($50/$150 for E-4's and below). The second component extends TRICARE payments up to 115 percent of the TRICARE maximum allowable charge, less the applicable patient co-payment, for care received from a provider that does not participate (accept assignment) under TRICARE to the extent necessary to ensure timely access to care and clinically appropriate continuity of care. Third, the Demonstration authorizes a waiver of the non-availability statement requirement for non-emergency inpatient care. This Demonstration project is being conducted under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1092. This Demonstration is extended through October 31, 2007.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Preschool Curricula Evaluation Research (PCER) Program.

Frequency: Semi-Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 15,924.

 Burden Hours: 5,110.

Abstract: The purpose of the PCER program is to implement rigorous evaluations of preschool curricula that will provide information to support informed choices of classroom curricula for early childhood programs. This research program supports research that will determine, through randomized experiments, whether one or more curricula produce educationally meaningful effects for children's language skill, pre-reading and pre-math abilities, cognition, general knowledge and social competence. The respondents for this research initiative include children, teachers and parents. The data collected from these respondents will provide critical information about preschool curricula to policy makers and early childhood practitioners.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2877. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Regular.

Title: Annual Collection of Elementary and Secondary Education Data for the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 52.

 Burden Hours: 297,060.

Abstract: The Performance Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI) is in the second phase of a multiple year effort to consolidate the collection of education information about States, Districts, and Schools in a way that improves data quality and reduces paperwork burden for all of the national education partners. To minimize the burden on the data providers, PBDMI seeks the transfer of the proposed data as soon as it has been processed for State, District, and School use. These data will then be stored in EDEN and accessed by federal education program managers and analysts as needed to make decisions. This will eliminate redundant data collections while providing for the timeliness of data submission and use.

Additional Information: The Department of Education (ED) is specifically requesting the data providers in each State Education Agency (SEA) to review the proposed data sets to determine which of these data can be provided for the upcoming 2005-06 school year and which data would be available in later years (2006-07 or 2007-08) and which data, if any, is never expected to be available from the SEA. ED also seeks to know if the SEA data definitions are consistent and compatible with the EDEN definitions and accurately reflect the way data is stored and used for education by the States, Districts, and Schools. Our responses to the public comments that were submitted in June and July are found in Attachment E (covering policy and process issues) and Attachment C (addressing changes in the proposed data requirements). There are some significant changes in this version of Attachment D. In it we describe the EDEN plan to reduce the paperwork burden on the states and districts.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2776. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Application for Grants under the Talent Search Program.

Frequency: Once every four years.

Affected Public:

Not-for-profit institutions; Businesses or other for-profit; State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 1,000.

 Burden Hours: 8,500.

Abstract: The application form is needed to conduct a national competition for the Talent Search Program for program year 2006-07. The program provides Federal financial assistance in the form of grants to institutions of higher education, public and private agencies and organizations, combinations of institutions, agencies, and organizations and in exceptional cases secondary schools. These grants enable grantees to establish and operate projects designed to identify qualified youths with potential for education at the postsecondary level and encourage them to complete secondary school and undertake a program of postsecondary education, publicize the availability of financial assistance and encourage persons who have not completed programs of education at the secondary or postsecondary level to reenter such programs.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2875. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Technical Guidelines Development Committee (the “Development Committee”) has scheduled a plenary meeting for September 29, 2005. The Committee was established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15361, to act in the public interest to assist the Executive Director of the Election Assistance Commission in the development of the voluntary voting system guidelines. The Technical Guidelines Development Committee held its first plenary meeting on July 9, 2004. At this meeting, the Development Committee agreed to a resolution forming three working groups: (1) Human Factors & Privacy; (2) Security & Transparency; and (3) Core Requirements & Testing to gather information and public input on relevant issues. The information gathered by the working groups was analyzed at the second meeting of the Development Committee January 18 and 19, 2005. Resolutions were adopted by the Development Committee at the January plenary session. The resolutions defined technical work tasks for NIST that would assist the Development Committee in developing recommendations for voluntary voting system guidelines. At the March 9, 2005 meeting, NIST scientists presented preliminary reports on technical work tasks defined by resolutions adopted at the January plenary meeting and one additional resolution was adopted by the Development Committee. The Development Committee approved with edits initial recommendations for voluntary voting system guidelines at the April 20 and 21, 2005 meeting. The document, Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Version 1: Initial Report was submitted by the Development Committee to the EAC as required by HAVA on May 9, 2005. The EAC is currently accepting public comment on proposed voluntary voting system guidelines through September 30, 2005. Proposed guidelines and public comment procedures are available at http://www.eac.gov .

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the disposal of approximately 37 cubic meters (m3) (1,307 cubic feet [ft 3 ]) of transuranic (TRU) waste generated as part of the cleanup of the Battelle Columbus Laboratory West Jefferson site near Columbus, Ohio, and currently stored on-site. TRU waste is waste that contains alpha particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbers greater than uranium (92) and half-lives greater than 20 years in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste.

TRU waste is categorized as either contact handled (CH) or remote handled (RH), based on the radiation level at the surface of the waste container. Some TRU waste is also mixed waste, having both radioactive and hazardous components.

The Battelle West Jefferson facility is privately owned; however, as part of the closeout of its nuclear materials research contract, DOE is assisting in the remediation of the site. Contract terms specify that all radioactive waste generated during the facility cleanup is “DOE-owned” for the purposes of disposal. DOE needs to ship the TRU waste off-site by December 31, 2005, to comply with Battelle's Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license, which will expire at that time. Removal of the TRU waste from the Battelle West Jefferson site is also required to allow site closure in fiscal year (FY) 2006.

In the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS), DOE analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the management (treatment and storage) of TRU waste at DOE sites. The Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste (63 FR 3629 (1998)) (TRU Waste ROD) documented DOE's decision that, with the exception of the Sandia National Laboratory, which would send its waste to Los Alamos National Laboratory, each DOE site that has generated or will generate TRU waste will prepare and store its TRU waste on the site, pending disposal at WIPP.

In an amended WM PEIS TRU Waste ROD issued in 2002, DOE decided to ship the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste to the Hanford Site for storage and characterization prior to disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located near Carlsbad, New Mexico [67 FR 56989 (2002)]. After issuing that decision, DOE completed three shipments of the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste to Hanford (approximately 5 m 3 [177 ft 3 ]). In March 2003, DOE suspended further shipments of this TRU waste to Hanford, and subsequently a preliminary injunction stopping further shipments of TRU waste to Hanford was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in response to actions filed by the State of Washington and Columbia Riverkeeper.

Shipments of TRU waste to Hanford for storage and characterization prior to disposal at WIPP remained suspended pending completion of the Hanford Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement (Hanford Solid Waste EIS) (DOE 2004a) and lifting of the preliminary injunction. The Hanford Solid Waste EIS was completed in January 2004, and a Record of Decision (ROD) was issued in June 2004. 1 On May 13, 2005, the district court issued a decision allowing the shipment of non-mixed TRU waste from the Battelle West Jefferson site to Hanford. However, the court has retained a preliminary injunction against off site shipments of mixed TRU to Hanford.

Although shipment of non-mixed TRU waste to Hanford is no longer enjoined, DOE has discovered information that calls into question the accuracy of some of the analyses contained in the Hanford Solid Waste EIS. Until these questions can be addressed, DOE has decided not to ship additional waste from Battelle West Jefferson to Hanford. Nevertheless, by the end of 2005, DOE needs to ship all Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste to off-site storage so that Battelle can comply with its NRC license and site closure can occur in FY 2006.

DOE is now proposing to ship the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste to the Savannah River Site (SRS), a DOE site near Aiken, South Carolina, or to Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS), a commercial facility in Andrews, Texas. For purposes of analysis, at SRS, the CH-TRU waste would be characterized and transported to WIPP for disposal, and the RH-TRU waste would be stored for up to 5 years pending ultimate disposal at WIPP. At WCS, the CH- and RH-TRU waste would be stored for up to 5 years pending ultimate disposal at WIPP.

DOE has a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit modification request pending before the New Mexico Environment Department that seeks to modify the characterization requirements for CH-TRU waste, apply those modified requirements to RH-TRU waste, and allow DOE to dispose of RH-TRU waste at WIPP. If DOE's request is granted without substantial modification, it may be possible to characterize the Battelle West Jefferson waste based on knowledge of the contents of the waste, without performing sampling and analysis currently required for CH-TRU waste under the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. If characterization can be performed without additional sampling and analysis, DOE would ship the stored waste directly from SRS or WCS to WIPP.

If the WIPP TRU waste characterization requirements that are established by the hazardous waste facility permit modification cannot be met at SRS or WCS, then DOE would ship the waste from SRS or WCS to Hanford, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) (formerly known as the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory), or Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for characterization prior to shipment to WIPP for disposal. If SRS can meet the characterization requirements, but WCS cannot, the waste might also be shipped from WCS to SRS for characterization prior to shipment to WIPP for disposal.

Future decisions regarding where to characterize the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste would be made based on (1) consideration of the characterization requirements that are eventually established for that waste, and (2) the characterization capabilities existing or to be established at the different DOE sites to meet those requirements. After TRU waste characterization requirements have been established, if additional characterization were needed, DOE would conduct appropriate further National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, for any additional characterization activities if necessary, including the associated transportation and shipment of the TRU waste to WIPP for disposal.

DOE has prepared the SA in accordance with DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) to determine whether the proposed shipment of the Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste for storage at SRS or WCS prior to disposal at WIPP is a substantial change to the proposal or whether there are significant new circumstances or information, relevant to environmental concerns, such that a supplement to the WM PEIS or a new EIS would be needed. DOE has concluded, based on the analysis in the SA that the impacts of shipping the waste to WCS or SRS would be very small and would not add significantly to impacts reported in prior NEPA analyses. Accordingly, DOE has determined that a supplement to the WM-PEIS or a new EIS is not needed.

DOE plans to issue an amended ROD under the WM PEIS for this waste no sooner than 30 days from the publication of this Notice. DOE will consider all public comments on this matter submitted by October 11, 2005 before issuing a ROD.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number RCRA-2005-0014, which is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to www.epa.gov./edocket.

Affected entities: Business or other for profit.

Title: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards.

Abstract: Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment. Subsections 3004(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6) specify that these standards include, but not be limited to, the following requirements: Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or listed under subtitle C that are treated, stored, or disposed of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of;

• Operating methods, techniques, and practices for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste;

• Location, design, and construction of such hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;

• Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; and

• Maintaining or operating such facilities and requiring such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable.

• The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, parts 264 and 265. The collection of this information enables EPA to properly determine whether owners/operators or hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet the requirements of Section 3004(a) of RCRA.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 319 hours per response.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Business or other for profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,675.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 719,059.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, Operating/ Maintenance Cost Burden: $760,000.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

EPA has agreed to take final action on further amendments to the transportation conformity rules to address requirements relating to PM 2.5 hotspots. EPA had indicated in the July 2004 final rule that the agency believed transportation conformity provisions relating to PM 2.5 hotspot air quality analyses would be appropriate, but the agency was not in a position to promulgate final regulations on that issue at that time. EPA indicated that it intended to take subsequent action with respect to this issue. Therefore, EPA proposes to enter into a settlement with Petitioners in which EPA will commit to take final action amending the conformity regulations to address PM 2.5 hotspot analyses by no later than March 31, 2006.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determine, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OGC-2005-0005 which contains a copy of the settlement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Information claimed at CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue is not included in the official public docket or in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that you comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identify, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

National Drinking Water Advisory Council: The Council consists of 15 members, including a Chairperson, appointed by the Deputy Administrator. Five members represent the general public; five members represent appropriate State and local agencies concerned with public water supply and public health protection; and five members represent private organizations or groups demonstrating an active interest in the field of public water supply and public health protection. The SDWA requires that at least two members of the Council represent small, rural public water systems. Additionally, members may be asked to serve on one of the Council's workgroups that are formed each year to assist EPA in addressing specific program issues. On December 15 of each year, five members complete their appointment. Therefore, this notice solicits nominations to fill the five vacancies with terms ending on December 15, 2008.

Persons selected for membership will receive compensation for travel and a nominal daily compensation (if appropriate) while attending meetings. The Council holds two face-to-face meetings each year, generally in the spring and fall. Conference calls will be scheduled if needed.

Nomination of a Member: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals for membership. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address and telephone number. To be considered, all nominations must include a current resume, providing the nominee's background, experience and qualifications.

Summary: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, Notice is hereby given that the SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee will hold a public workshop and meeting to evaluate the state-of-the-practice of ecological risk assessment. The dates and times for the workshop and meeting are provided above.

Background: The ongoing growth of ecological risk assessment has prompted the SAB EPEC to undertake a project to develop information on the current state-of-the-practice of ecological risk assessment. The goal of the project is to evaluate ecological risk assessment practices and to provide advice and recommendations to EPA regarding ways to enhance the conduct and application of ecological risk assessment in environmental decision making. To complete this project, the SAB EPEC plans to hold a public workshop in order to develop information on: (1) Application of ecological risk assessment in decision making and (2) technical themes and issues regarding ecological risk assessment. EPEC will use the workshop proceedings to develop advice and recommendations to EPA. The workshop, focusing on application of ecological risk assessment in decision making, will be held at the dates and times indicated above. The workshop will include: SAB members and EPA staff on the workshop steering committee, members of the SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, and invited EPA and outside experts in the field of ecological risk assessment. The workshop will begin with a series of plenary presentations focusing on the application of ecological risk assessment: in product health and safety decision-making, management of contaminated sites, and natural resources protection. Following the plenary presentations, participants will be assigned to breakout groups to discuss key cross-cutting issues in the application of ecological risk assessment in decision making. The workshop will conclude with the attendees identifying opportunities to advance the state-of-the-practice of ecological risk assessment for application in decision making. SAB EPEC will meet following the workshop at the time and date identified above to develop workshop proceedings.

Availability of Meeting Materials: A draft workshop agenda is posted on the SAB Web site ( www.epa.gov/sab ). An updated agenda will be posted prior to the workshop.

Procedures for Providing Public Comments: The SAB Staff Office accepts written public comments, and will accommodate oral public comments at the workshop to the extent possible.

Written Comments: Written comments are preferred and should be submitted by e-mail to Dr. Thomas Armitage at armitage.thomas@epa.gov in Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format) by January 30, 2006. Those without access to e-mail may submit one signed hard copy of the comments to Dr. Armitage by mail or courier. Commenters planning to attend the workshop in person are asked to bring 100 copies of their comments for public distribution.

Oral Comments: Requests to provide oral comments must be in writing (e-mail or fax) and received by Dr. Armitage no later than January 30, 2006 to reserve time on the workshop agenda. Presentation time for oral comment will typically be about five minutes per speaker, but may be reduced depending on time availability and the number of requests.

Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access the workshop and public meeting listed above should contact the DFO at least five business days prior to the workshop and meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Background: In 2004, Americans spent over $60 billion on real estate brokerage services. 2 The vast majority of residential real estate sales involve real estate brokers, who help both home buyers and home sellers.

Traditionally, real estate professionals, such as brokers and their affiliated agents, have performed virtually all services relating to the sale of a home, including marketing a home, negotiating with potential buyers, and helping to coordinate the closing of the transaction. In most areas, brokers have established and run multiple listings services (MLSs) as joint ventures through which agents share information on homes for sale. Marketing includes listing the property in the local MLS, placing advertisements in local media and on the Internet, and conducting open houses. A seller's agent may also provide advice on pricing, home inspections, or other contractual terms. Buyers' agents help prospective home buyers find a suitable home from properties listed in the MLS and, like sellers' agents, typically assist in negotiating and helping to arrange closing the transaction. A seller's agent typically is compensated by a commission based on a percentage of the sales price of the home. He or she in turn compensates the buyer's agent, often but not always, by splitting the commission evenly between them.

Several related developments are presenting challenges to this traditional brokerage model. First, in response to perceived consumer demand, some real estate professionals are offering to provide only those services a home seller wants. In so-called “fee-for-service” or “limited-service” brokerage models, a home seller might, for example, choose to pay a broker only for the service of listing the home in the local MLS and placing advertisements, and choose to handle negotiations and paperwork himself or herself.

Second, real estate professionals are increasingly incorporating the Internet into their business models in a variety of ways. In general, these models use the Internet to allow someone else to perform a task traditionally done by the broker or agent. Some brokers, for example, offer potential buyers the option of viewing full, detailed listing information online, allowing them to delay contacting a real estate professional until they are ready to buy. When the transaction closes, these brokers may rebate a portion of their commission to the customer. Other firms use websites to gather “lead” information on customers who seek real estate services and sell those leads to real estate professionals, usually for a fee based on the commission that the professional earns in the transaction. Still other business models exist that use the Internet to match home buyers and sellers.

Actions by individual firms of real estate professionals, by groups of professionals acting through MLSs, by industry trade associations, and by state regulatory and legislative bodies have all spawned recent lawsuits or controversies. Some of the controversies concern how existing industry members and institutions have responded to real estate professionals that offer novel business models. There have been private lawsuits among brokerage firms alleging illegal anticompetitive activity by individual brokerages, and by groups of brokerages, in offering low commission “splits” to rival discount or minimum-service brokerages. The DOJ has acknowledged that it is investigating the potential competitive impact of certain rules involving the display of residential real estate data over the Internet.

Several states have considered or passed laws or regulations that would effectively curtail fee-for-service brokerage. Further, some states have either passed new laws or regulations, or interpreted existing laws or regulations, to prevent brokers from passing a proportion of their commissions along to consumers.

The FTC and the DOJ have been actively involved in analyzing potential restrictions on competition in the real estate brokerage industry. In July, the DOJ announced a settlement of a civil antitrust suit that it had filed earlier in the year against the Kentucky Real Estate Commission. 3 Under the settlement, which must be approved by the court, the Kentucky Real Estate Commission agrees to stop enforcing a regulation that prohibits Kentucky real estate brokers and sales associates from offering rebates and other inducements to attract customers. 4 Recently, the FTC and the DOJ also have jointly advocated against the passage of regulations proposed by the Texas Real Estate Commission that would have effectively limited consumers' ability to purchase a more limited, less expensive, set of real estate services. 5 In May 2005, the FTC and the DOJ also sent a letter urging the Alabama Senate not to pass a bill that would also have restricted consumer choice in real estate service levels. 6 Likewise, the two agencies also jointly issued a letter to the Governor of Missouri informing him of the competitive effects of a bill that similarly would have restricted the ability of Missouri real estate professionals to offer customized real estate services. 7

Because of the substantial changes in the real estate brokerage marketplace, and consumers' interest in a competitive real estate brokerage industry, the FTC and the DOJ will hold a workshop on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 in Washington, DC to provide a forum to discuss current issues affecting the competitiveness of real estate brokerage. In particular, discussion will center around the following topics:

1. The Real Estate Transaction: including the details of the real estate transaction from both the buyer's and seller's side; how broker efforts affect property sale price and how long a property remains on the market; and the economics of buyer and seller brokerage agreements and alternatives to the traditional arrangements.

2. The Multiple Listing Service: including how the MLS works and its efficiencies compared to alternative models; the legal and economic issues raised by the MLS; intellectual property rights in MLS listings; and MLS' online listing policies.

3. Private and State Actions that Inhibit Competition among Sellers' Brokers: including minimum-service requirements; state licensing and other requirements for for-sale-by-owner Web sites; local MLS rules that affect fee-for-service brokers and discount full-service brokers; and how any of the above restrictions may help protect consumers or otherwise provide benefits to consumers.

4. Private and State Actions that Inhibit Competition among Buyers' Brokers: including state anti-rebate provisions; state rules that define online display of listings as advertising; minimum-service requirements applied to buyers' brokers; discrimination in compensation against discount buyers' brokers; and how any of the above restrictions may help protect consumers or otherwise provide benefits to consumers.

Parties seeking to participate as panelists in the workshop must notify both the FTC and the DOJ in writing on or before September 25, 2005. Requests to participate as a panelist should be submitted electronically by e-mail to RealEstatePanelistRequest@ftc.gov and RealEstateWorkshop@usdoj.gov or, if mailed, should be submitted in the manner detailed in the ADDRESSES section, and should be captioned “Competition Policy in the Real Estate Industry—Request to Participate, Project No. V050015.” Parties are asked to include in their requests a statement setting forth their experience in or knowledge of the issues on which the workshop will focus and their contact information, including telephone number, facsimile number, and e-mail address (if available), to enable the FTC and the DOJ to provide parties with notice if selected. For requests filed in paper form, an original and two copies of each document should be submitted. Panelists will be notified on or before October 11, 2005 if they have been selected.

Using the following criteria, FTC and DOJ staff will select a limited number of panelists to participate in the workshop:

1. The party has expertise in or knowledge of the issues that are the focus of the workshop;

2. The party's participation would promote a balance of interests being represented at the workshop; or

3. The party has been designated by one or more interested parties (who timely file requests to participate) as a party who shares group interests with the designator(s).

In addition, there will be time during the workshop for those not serving as panelists to ask questions.

The FTC and the DOJ request that interested parties submit written comments on the above questions and other related issues to foster greater understanding of these topics. Especially useful are any studies, surveys, research, and empirical data. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before November 28, 2005.

Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in bilateral conventions between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when “hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest or egg” of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These regulations are issued with due regard to “the zones of temperature and the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds” and compatibility with the conventions. This responsibility has been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior as the lead Federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States.

The Service currently promulgates regulations allowing and governing the hunting of migratory game birds in the families Anatidae (waterfowl), Gruidae (cranes), Rallidae (rails), Scolopacidae (snipe and woodcock), and Columbidae (doves and pigeons). Regulations governing seasons and limits are promulgated annually, in part due to considerations such as the abundance of birds, which can change from year to year, and are developed by establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for earliest opening and latest closing dates, season lengths, limits (daily bag and possession), and areas for migratory game bird hunting. These “annual” regulations have been promulgated by the Service each year since 1918. Other regulations, termed “basic” regulations (for example, those governing hunting methods), are promulgated once and changed only when a need to do so arises. All hunting regulations are contained in 50 CFR parts 20 and 92.

Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions and an increased understanding of population status and distribution, the Service in 1947 administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary purpose of managing the harvest of migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), also assist in researching and providing migratory game bird management information for Federal, State, and Provincial Governments, as well as private conservation agencies and the general public.

The annual establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations is constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rulemaking process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycles of migratory game birds control the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available for consideration and deliberation.

The process includes two separate regulations-development schedules, based on early and late hunting-season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl ( i.e. , dove, woodcock, etc.); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as those for teal or resident Canada geese. Early hunting seasons generally begin in early September. Late hunting seasons generally start in late September, and include most waterfowl seasons not already established.

There are basically no differences in the processes for establishing early and late hunting seasons. For each cycle, Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties. Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory game birds and other factors into consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, we consider factors such as population size and trend, geographic distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest.

After frameworks are established by the Service for outside dates, season lengths, limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, States then select season dates, limits, and other regulatory options for their respective hunting seasons. States may be more conservative in their selections than the Federal frameworks allow but not more liberal.

Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 23467) to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The current guidelines include possibilities for:

(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members, with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);

(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and

(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.

In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to the establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations where tribes have full wildlife management authority over such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian lands.

The current process for establishing special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands consists of active solicitation of regulatory proposals from tribal groups that are interested in working cooperatively for the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory game birds. We encourage Tribes to work with us to develop agreements for management of migratory bird resources on tribal lands. Following submission of tribal proposals and review of proposals and population status information, proposed and final rules are published in a subsequent series of Federal Register documents. Similar to the establishment of the sport-hunting regulations, regulations are established for early-season and late-season hunting.

In 1916, the United States and Great Britain (on behalf of Canada) signed the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States (Canada Treaty). In 1936, the United States and Mexico signed the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (Mexico Treaty). In combination, the treaties prohibited all commercial bird hunting and specified a closed season on the taking of migratory game birds between March 10 and September 1 of each year. Additionally, and unfortunately, neither treaty adequately allowed for the traditional harvest of migratory birds by northern peoples during the spring and summer months. This harvest, which has occurred for centuries, was and is necessary to the subsistence way of life in the North and thus continued despite the closed season.

To remedy this situation, the United States negotiated Protocols amending the treaties to allow for subsistence harvest of migratory birds by indigenous inhabitants of identified subsistence harvest areas in Alaska. The U.S. Senate approved the amendments to both treaties in 1997.

The major goals of the amended treaty with Canada were to allow traditional subsistence harvest and improve conservation of migratory birds by allowing effective regulation of this harvest. The amended treaty with Canada provides a means to allow permanent residents of villages within subsistence harvest areas, regardless of race, to continue harvesting migratory birds between March 10 and September 1 as they have done for thousands of years.

In 1998, we began a public involvement process to determine how to structure management bodies to provide the most effective and efficient involvement for subsistence users. This process was concluded on March 28, 2000, when we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 16405) the Notice of Decision: “Establishment of Management Bodies in Alaska to Develop Recommendations Related to the Spring/Summer Subsistence Harvest of Migratory Birds.” This notice described the establishment and organization of 12 regional management bodies plus the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council (Co-management Council).

Establishment of a migratory bird subsistence harvest began on August 16, 2002, when we published in the Federal Register (67 FR 53511) a final rule at 50 CFR part 92 that set procedures for incorporating subsistence management into the continental migratory bird management program. These regulations established an annual procedure to develop harvest guidelines to implement a subsistence migratory bird harvest.

The first subsistence migratory bird harvest system was finalized on July 21, 2003, when we published in the Federal Register (68 FR 43010) a final rule at 50 CFR parts 20, 21, and 92 that created the first annual harvest regulations for the 2003 subsistence migratory bird season in Alaska. These annual frameworks were not intended to be a complete, all-inclusive set of regulations, but were intended to regulate continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska during the spring and summer. See the August 16, 2002, July 21, 2003, and April 2, 2004 (69 FR 17318), final rules for additional background information on the subsistence harvest program for migratory birds in Alaska.

Migratory bird hunting is an activity of considerable ecological and socio-economic importance. Recent analyses indicate that the expected welfare benefit of the annual migratory bird hunting frameworks is on the order of $734 million to $1.064 billion. Further, we estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend between $481 million and $1.2 billion at small businesses in 2004.

In June 1975, we published a programmatic document, “Final Environmental Statement for Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FES 75-54).” The continuation of annual regulations was the proposed action and the preferred alternative. In 1988, we published an additional programmatic document, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582) and our Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). The 1988 SEIS maintained the proposed action of issuing annual migratory bird hunting regulations. The Service's preferred alternative in the 1988 SEIS was to stabilize the so-called “framework” regulations (outside dates, season lengths, and limits) for fixed periods of time, subject to annual review and possible change according to population status; and to control the use of “special” regulations ( e.g. , special seasons).

Since 1988, a number of developments have occurred. The status of some migratory bird populations has changed significantly. Advances in the collection and interpretation of data have been made, including expansion of breeding-ground waterfowl surveys and implementation of the Harvest Information Program. Adaptive Harvest Management is now used as an approach for setting duck-hunting regulations in the United States and provides a framework for making objective decisions despite continued uncertainty about waterfowl population dynamics and regulatory impacts. The Alaska migratory bird subsistence regulations have been in existence since 2003. These developments and others make it desirable to supplement the preceding EIS documents and reexamine some of the issues associated with the issuance of annual regulations.

We intend to develop a supplemental EIS on the “Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds,” beginning the process with this announcement. Federal and State agencies, private conservation organizations, and all other interested parties and individuals are invited to participate in the process by presenting their views on the subject. We seek suggestions and comments regarding the scope and substance of this supplemental EIS, particular issues to be addressed and why, and options or alternatives to be considered. In particular, in regard to the scope and substance of this supplemental EIS, we seek comments on the following:

(1) Harvest management alternatives for migratory game birds to be considered,

(2) Limiting the scope of the assessment to sport hunting ( i.e. , exclusion of the Alaska migratory bird subsistence process), and

(3) Inclusion of basic regulations (methods and means).

Comments should be forwarded to the above address by the deadline indicated. We will conduct the development of this supplemental EIS in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), other appropriate federal regulations, and Service procedures for compliance with those regulations. We are furnishing this Notice in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7, to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies, tribes, and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in the supplemental EIS.

A schedule of public scoping meeting dates, locations, and times is not available at this time. We will publish a notice of any such meetings in the Federal Register .

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is requesting proposals to conduct commercial big game guide services within guide use areas on four national wildlife refuges in Alaska that have become vacant or may become vacant soon. We will authorize big game guiding services on these areas for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. We will award permits to conduct guiding services in these areas through a competitive selection process that is described in the prospectus. The offerings will include the following guide use areas:

Interested qualified guides who apply for the guide areas on the Arctic Refuge should be aware that the availability of both of those areas is uncertain at this time because the existing permittee may seek reconsideration or appeal a decision to not renew the permits. Interested qualified guides who apply for the guide area on the Koyukuk Refuge should be aware that the Service is in the process of revoking the existing KOY-02 permit. Since the Service does not plan to issue a separate notice for the Arctic and Koyukuk offerings, interested parties should submit proposals in response to this notice.

We will send a letter announcing these offerings to all State of Alaska-registered big game guides. You must postmark or hand deliver proposals to the Service at the address indicated above by 4 p.m., November 14, 2005.

Copies of the solicitation are available to any interested party by calling or writing the above telephone number or address.

The IRR final rules amending 25 CFR 170, effective November 13, 2004, are the result of negotiated rulemaking between tribal and Federal representatives under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The IRR final rules include the negotiated rulemaking committee's recommendation that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Transportation establish an IRR Program Coordinating Committee to provide input and recommendations to BIA and FHWA in developing IRR Program policies and to coordinate with and obtain input from tribes, BIA, and FHWA. As recommended, the Committee will consist of 12 tribal regional representatives (one from each BIA region) and two non-voting Federal representatives (from BIA and FHWA). In addition to the 12 tribal regional representatives, the Committee will include one alternate from each BIA region who will attend Committee meetings in the absence of the tribal regional representative. Each tribal regional representative must be a tribal governmental official or employee with authority to act for the tribal government.

The Secretary must select regional tribal representatives and alternates from nominees officially proposed by the region's tribes. The Secretary will appoint the initial tribal regional representatives and alternates from each BIA region to either a 1-, 2- or 3-year appointment in order to establish a yearly, one-third change in tribal regional representatives. All appointments thereafter will be for 3-year terms. To the extent possible, the Secretary must make the selection so that there is representation from a broad cross-section of large, medium, and small tribes. The Secretary of the Interior will provide guidance for the replacement of representatives.

The Secretary has selected 12 representatives from the regional nominees. In addition, 11 alternates have also been selected by the Secretary. No additional candidates were submitted by the Eastern Region tribes. The Secretary will entertain separate nominations from the tribes of Eastern Region. An orientation meeting for the primary and alternate committee members will be held at the BIA Southwest Regional Office, Conference Room #351, located at 1001 Indian School Road, NW, Albuquerque, NM, (505) 346-6834, on September 27-28, 2005.

The following table shows the term appointments by region:

The responsibilities of the Committee are to provide input and recommendations to BIA and FHWA during the development or revision of:

• BIA/FHWA IRR Program Stewardship Plan;

• IRR Program policy and procedures;

• IRR Program eligible activities' determinations;

• IRR Program transit policy;

• IRR Program regulations;

• IRR Program management systems policy and procedures;

• IRR Program fund distribution formula (under 25 CFR 170.157); and

• National tribal transportation needs.

The Committee also reviews and provides recommendations on IRR Program national concerns, including implementation of 25 CFR 170, as amended.

The Committee will provide input and recommendations to BIA and FHWA for:

• New IRR inventory data format and form;

• Simplified cost to construct (CTC) methodology (including formula calculations, formula program and design, and bid tab methodology);

• Cost elements;

• Over-design issues;

• Inflation impacts on $1 million cap for the Indian Reservation Roads High Priority Project (IRRHPP) and Emergency Projects (including the IRRHPP Ranking System and emergency/disaster expenditures report); and

• The impact of including funded but non-constructed projects in the CTC calculation.

The Committee will hold two meetings per fiscal year. The Committee may call additional meeting(s) with the consent of one-third of Committee members or BIA or FHWA may call additional meeting(s). A quorum consists of eight voting Committee members. The Committee will operate by consensus or majority vote, as the Committee determines in its protocols. The Committee must elect from among the Committee membership a Chair, Vice-Chair, and other officers. These officers will be responsible for preparing for and conducting Committee meetings and summarizing meeting results. The Committee may prescribe other duties for the officers. Any Committee member can submit an agenda item to the Committee Chair.

The Committee must keep the Secretary and tribes informed through an annual accomplishment report provided within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year. The Committee's budget, funded through the IRR Program management and oversight funds, will not exceed $150,000 annually.

Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Advisory Committee. Individuals may nominate themselves for Committee membership. You may obtain nomination forms from the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Manager, Bureau of Land Management ( see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). To make a nomination, you must submit a completed nomination form, letters of reference from the represented interests or organizations, as well as any other information that speaks to the nominee's qualifications, to the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Manager. You may make nominations for the following categories of interest:

• A representative of the Dolores County Commission (appointed from nominees submitted by the Dolores County Commission); and

• Persons representing any of the following tribes and pueblos representing Native American interests: The Ute Mountain Tribe, The Uintah-Ouray Ute Tribe, The Southern Ute Tribe, The Navajo Nation, The Hopi Tribe, The Pueblo of Acoma, The Pueblo of Cochiti, The Pueblo of Isleta, The Pueblo of San Felipe, The Pueblo of Santa Ana, The Pueblo of Santo Domingo, The Pueblo of Jemez, The Pueblo of Laguna, The Pueblo of Sandia, The Pueblo of Zia, The Pueblo of Zuni, The Pueblo of Nambe, The Pueblo of San Juan, The Pueblo of Picuris, The Pueblo of Pojoaque, The Pueblo of San Ildefonso, The Pueblo of Santa Clara, The Pueblo of Taos, The Pueblo of Tesuque (appointed from nominees submitted by the Bureau of Land Management).

The specific category the nominee would like to represent should be identified in the letter of nomination and in the nomination form. The Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Manager will collect the nominations and letters of reference and then forward them to the Secretary of the Interior who has final authority for making the appointments.

The purpose of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument Advisory Committee is to advise the Bureau of Land Management concerning development and implementation of a management plan for public lands within Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. Each member will be a person who, as a result of training and experience, has knowledge or special expertise which qualifies him or her to provide advice from among the categories of interest listed above.

Members will serve without monetary compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses at current rates for Government employees. The membership term will be for four years.

Devon Energy Corporation (Devon) is the primary applicant and has proposed drilling and developing up to 1,250 conventional natural gas and coal bed natural gas wells from up to 1000 well pad locations. Associated project facilities would include roads, well pads, gas and water collection pipelines, compressor stations, water disposal systems, and a power supply system. During the preparation of the EIS, any interim development on public lands will require a detailed environmental review by the BLM. Such a review will determine what, if any, development could and/or would be authorized based on the analysis of the environmental impacts without having an adverse environmental impact and/or potential to limit selection within the range of reasonable alternatives for this proposed Creston/Blue Gap II Project and/or the range of reasonable within alternatives pending Rawlins RMP revision/EIS.

The Creston Blue/Gap II Natural Gas Project is located in Townships 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 North, Ranges 91, 92, 93, and 94 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Carbon and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. The project area is located approximately 40 air miles southwest of Rawlins along the east and west sides of Wyoming State Highway 789. The project area is approximately 184,000 acres in size and involves a mixture of mostly Federal (71%) and private (26%) surface with some State land (3%). The BLM Rawlins Field Office manages the Federal surface lands and the Federal mineral estate.

The purpose of the natural gas development is to extract and recover natural gas from the Creston/Blue Gap II area and to provide more natural gas for distribution to consumers. This project confirms with the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan, through proposing to increase domestic energy supplies and strengthen America's energy security. The proposed action may add up to 200 million cubic feet of natural gas per day into the market to help meet this growing national demand.

The EIS will address cumulative impacts and will include consideration of the effects of the project. Potential issues to be addressed in the EIS include but are not limited to: surface and ground water resources, air quality, wildlife populations and their habitats, private and public land access concerns, road development and transportation, reclamation, noxious weeds livestock grazing, cultural and paleontological resources, threatened and endangered wildlife and plant species, and socioeconomic impacts.

The project area is managed under the Great Divide Resource Management Plan (RMP) (1990). This RMP is currently being revised under the title of Rawlins Resource Management Plan. A Draft EIS for the Rawlins RMP was released in December 2004. A decision for the Creston/Blue Gap II Natural Gas Project (C/BG2 Project) will not be made nor implemented until after a Record of Decision is issued for the Rawlins RMP revision FEIS.

The proposed information collection seeks to gather feedback to allow the Commission to ensure that its procedures for its import injury investigations are fair and are equitably implemented. The user survey asks if the Commission's rules and other written guidance make clear to participants what the Commission expects of them procedurally in an investigation; if there are area(s) where additional guidance would be of benefit to their participation in investigations; if the Commission personnel responded to procedural inquiries in a helpful way; if their access to information collected by/submitted to the Commission was satisfactory; and if they have any other comments or recommended improvements.

The user survey is a one-page form that will be sent to firms that have participated in an antidumping, countervailing duty, or safeguard investigation since October 1, 2003. Responses are voluntary.

OMB Number: 3117-0192.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Law firms and economic consulting groups.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: The estimated annual cost for this collection is $10,750 ($10,000 for respondents and $750 for the Federal government).

Comments are solicited as to (1) whether the user survey is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the user survey; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the user survey on those who are to respond (including through the use of automated collection techniques or other technological forms of information technology).

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The Commission instituted this investigation on January 6, 2005, based on a complaint filed on behalf of BIAX Corporation (“BIAX”), of Boulder, Colorado (70 FR 1277). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain digital processors, digital processing systems, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,487,755 (“the '755 patent”); 5,021,954 (“the '954 patent”); 5,517,628; 6,253,313; and 5,765,037. The notice of investigation named Texas Instruments, Inc. (“TI”), of Dallas, Texas; iBiquity Digital Corporation, of Columbia, Maryland; Kenwood Corporation, of Japan; and Kenwood U.S.A. Corporation, of Long Beach, California as respondents.

On April 12, 2005, respondent TI filed a motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the '755 and '945 patents. On May 20, 2005, complainant BIAX filed its opposition to TI's motion for summary determination. On May 23, 2005, the Commission's investigative attorney filed an opposition to TI's motion for summary determination.

On July 12, 2005, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an ID, Order No. 18, granting respondent TI's motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the '755 and '945 patents. On July 19, 2005, complainant BIAX filed a petition for review of Order No. 18.

On July 20, 2005, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the deadline for filing responses to BIAX's petition for review of Order No. 18 until August 10, 2005, and to extend the deadline for the Commission to determine whether to review Order No. 18 until August 30, 2005. On July 22, 2005, the Chairman extended the deadline for filing responses to the BIAX's petition for review of Order No. 18 until August 10, 2005.

On August 1, 2005, the Commission determined to extend the deadline for determining whether to review the Order No. 18, granting respondent TI's motion for summary determination of non-infringement of the asserted claims of the '755 and '945 patents, by 30 days, i.e. , until September 12, 2005.

On August 3, 2004, complainant BIAX and respondents filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a license agreement between BIAX and respondent TI. The Commission investigative attorney supported the joint motion.

On August 8, 2005, the presiding ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 23) granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a license agreement between BIAX and respondent TI. No party filed a petition to review the subject ID. The Commission has determined not to review ALJ Order No. 23.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and § 210.42 of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42.

On August 17, 2004, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on a complaint filed by Linear Technology Corporation of Milpitas, California (“Linear”) alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain voltage regulator circuits, components thereof and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1-6, 31, 34-35, 41, 44-48, and 51-57 of U.S. Patent No. 5, 481,178 (“the “178 patent”), and claims 1-19, 31, 34, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,580,258. 69 FR 51104 (August 17, 2004). The complainant named Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. of Los Gatos, California as respondent.

On March 16, 2005, the ALJ issued an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 12) extending the target date in the above-referenced investigation. The extension of the target date was necessary due to the previous postponement of the hearing due to the unavailability of witnesses. The ALJ determined that the target date for this investigation should be set at 18 months from institution, i.e. , February 17, 2006. No party petitioned for review of the ID, the Commission declined to review it, and it therefore became the determination of the Commission.

The hearing, which had been scheduled to commence on June 22, 2005, could not be held as scheduled. The ALJ issued Order No. 15 on July 27, 2005, rescheduling the hearing for October 5, 2005. On August 10, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 6) extending the target date for completion of the investigation until June 14, 2006.

No party petitioned for review of the ID and the Commission has determined not to review the ID, permitting it to become the determination of the Commission.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).