1. Purpose. The EMP provides funding for technical assistance to assist U.S. organizations, public and private, to improve market access through generic, rather than branded, activities that can develop and promote U.S. agricultural products and/or processes in low- to middle-income countries that offer promise of emerging market opportunities.

Activities funded are those that primarily benefit U.S. industry as a whole. All agricultural products, except tobacco, are eligible for consideration. Proposals which include multiple commodities are also eligible. Only technical assistance activities are eligible for reimbursement.

2. Appropriate Activities. The Program does not predetermine priority markets or export-related activities. There are, however, certain types of activities that are especially appropriate for the Program, such as those that focus on trade capacity building and which address technical barriers and other impediments to trade for U.S. agricultural commodities and products.

Examples of types of project activities which may be considered for funding support:

The program funds technical assistance activities on a project-by-project basis. EMP funds may not be used to support normal operating costs of individual organizations, nor as a source by which to recover pre-award costs or prior expenses from previous or ongoing projects.

Ineligible activities include restaurant promotions; branded product promotions (including labeling and supplementing normal company sales activities intended to increase awareness and stimulate sales of branded products); advertising; administrative and operational expenses for trade shows; and the preparation and printing of brochures, flyers, posters, etc., except in connection with specific technical assistance activities such as training seminars. Other items excluded from funding are contained in the EMP Regulations.

3. Eligible Markets. The Act defines an emerging market as any country that the Secretary of Agriculture determines:

(a) Is taking steps toward a market-oriented economy through the food, agriculture, or rural business sectors of the economy of the country; and

(b) Has the potential to provide a viable and significant market for United States agricultural commodities or products of United States agricultural commodities.

Because funds are limited and the range of potential emerging market countries is worldwide, proposals for technical assistance activities will be considered which target those countries or regional groups with per capita income less than $10,065 (the current ceiling on upper middle income economies as determined by the World Bank [World Development Indicators 2005/2006]) and populations of greater than 1 million.

Income limits and their calculation can change from year to year, with the result that a given country may qualify under the legislative and administrative criteria one year but not the next. Therefore, CCC has not established a fixed list of “emerging market” countries. For FY 2006, however, the following guidance is provided regarding country eligibility for the EMP:

Some markets can be more difficult to develop and sustain over a period of time; proposed activities in such markets should be considered in terms of whether they provide “viable and significant markets” for U.S. agricultural exports.

In the case of some oil-rich countries in the Middle East, e.g., Saudi Arabia, targeted activities may be considered on a case-by-case basis, for example, addressing technical barriers to exporting U.S. commodities.

A few countries technically qualify as emerging markets, but because of political sensitivities may require a separate determination before funding can be considered.

In general, all qualified proposals received before the application deadline will compete for EMP funding. Priority consideration will be given to proposals that identify and seek to address specific problems or constraints to agricultural exports in emerging markets through technical assistance activities that are intended to expand or maintain U.S. agricultural exports. Priority will also be given to those proposals that include the willingness of the applicant to commit its own funds, or those of the U.S. industry, to seek export opportunities in an emerging market. The percentage of private funding proposed for a project will, therefore, be a critical factor in determining which proposals are funded under the EMP. Proposals will also be judged on their ability to provide benefits to the organization receiving EMP funds and to the broader industry which that organization represents.

The limited funds and the range of emerging markets worldwide in which the funds may be used preclude CCC from approving large budgets for individual projects. While there is no minimum or maximum amount set for EMP-funded projects, most are funded at a level of less than $250,000 and for a duration of one year or less. Multi-year proposals, and at higher cost, may be considered in the context of a strategic detailed plan of implementation. Funding in such cases is normally provided one year at a time, with commitments beyond the first year subject to interim evaluations.

Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements. The CCC, through FAS, will be kept informed of the implementation of approved projects through the requirement to provide quarterly progress reports and final performance reports. Changes in the original project time lines and adjustments within project budgets beyond a certain amount must be approved by FAS.

1. Eligible Applicants. Any United States private or Government entity with a demonstrated role or interest in exports of U.S. agricultural commodities or products may apply to the program. Government organizations consist of Federal, State, and local agencies. Private organizations include non-profit trade associations, universities, agricultural cooperatives, state regional trade groups, and profit-making entities and consulting businesses. Proposals from research and consulting organizations will be considered if they provide evidence of substantial participation in and financial support by the U.S. industry. For-profit entities are also eligible, but may not use program funds to conduct private business, promote private self-interests, supplement the costs of normal sales activities, or promote their own products or services beyond specific uses approved by CCC in a given project.

U.S. market development cooperators and state regional trade groups (SRTGs) may seek funding to address priority, market specific issues and to undertake activities not suitable for funding under other marketing programs, e.g. , the Foreign Market Development Cooperator (Cooperator) Program and the Market Access Program (MAP).

Foreign organizations, whether government or private, may participate as third parties in activities carried out by U.S. organizations, but are not eligible for funding assistance from the program.

2. Cost Sharing. No private sector proposal will be considered without the element of cost-share from the participant and/or U.S. partners. The EMP is intended to complement, not supplant, the efforts of the U.S. private sector. There is no minimum or maximum amount of cost share, though the range in recent successful proposals has been between 35 and 75 percent. The degree of commitment to a proposed project represented by the amount and type of private funding are both used in determining which proposals will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or professional time of staff assigned to the project. Proposals in which private industry is willing to commit cash, rather than in-kind contributions such as staff resources, will be given priority consideration.

Cost-sharing is not required for proposals from U.S. Government agencies, but is mandatory for all other eligible entities, even when they may be party to a joint proposal with a U.S. Government agency. Contributions from USDA or other U.S. Government agencies or programs may not be counted toward the stated cost share requirement. Similarly, contributions from foreign (non-U.S.) organizations may not be counted toward the cost share requirement, but may be counted in the total cost of the project.

3. Other. Proposals should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without federal funding assistance and why participating organization(s) are unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance. Applicants may submit more than one proposal.

1. Address to Request Application Package. For 2006, EMP applicants have the opportunity to utilize the Unified Export Strategy (UES) application process, an online system which provides a means for interested applicants to submit a consolidated and strategically coordinated single proposal that incorporates funding requests for any or all of the market development programs administered by FAS.

Applicants are not required to use the UES, but are strongly encouraged to do so because it reduces paperwork and expedites the FAS processing and review cycle. Applicants planning to use the on-line system must contact the Marketing Operations Staff at (202) 720-4327 to obtain site access information including a user of id and password. The Internet-based application, including step-by-step instructions for its use, is located at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/cooperators.html . A Help file is available to assist applicants with the process. Applicants using the online system should also provide, promptly after the deadline for submitting the on-line application, an electronic version of each application (using Word or compatible format) via e-mail to emo@fas.usda.gov .

Applicants electing not to use the online system must submit the application(s) electronically via e-mail to emo@fas.usda.gov . A printed copy of the application(s) may be sent to one of the following addresses:

Hand Delivery (including FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Marketing Operations Staff, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.

U.S. Postal Delivery: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Marketing Operations Staff, STOP 1042, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission. It is highly recommended that any organization considering applying to the program first obtain a copy of the EMP Regulations. The regulations contain information on requirements that a proposal must include in order to be considered for funding under the program, along with other important information. EMP regulations and additional information may be obtained from the Marketing Operations Staff or at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/em-markets/em-markets.html .

In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's policy directive regarding the use of a universal identifier for all Federal grants or cooperative agreements, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number prior to submitting applications. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711.

Applications should be no longer than ten (10) pages and include the following information:

(a) Date of proposal;

(b) Name of organization submitting proposal;

(c) Organization address, telephone and fax numbers;

(d) Tax ID number;

(e) DUNS number;

(f) Primary contact person;

(g) Full title of proposal;

(h) Target market(s);

(i) Current conditions in the target market(s) affecting the intended commodity or product;

(j) Description of problem(s), i.e. , constraint(s), to be addressed by the project, such as: inadequate knowledge of the market, insufficient trade contacts, lack of awareness by foreign officials of U.S. products and business practices, impediments in infrastructure, financing, regulatory or other non-tariff barriers, etc.;

(k) Project objectives;

(l) Performance measures: benchmarks for quantifying progress in meeting the objectives;

(m) Rationale: explanation of the underlying reasons for the project proposal and its approach, the anticipated benefits, and any additional pertinent analysis;

(n) Clear demonstration that successful implementation will benefit a particular industry as a whole, not just the applicant(s);

(o) Explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without federal funding assistance and why participating organization(s) are unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance;

(p) Specific description of activity/activities to be undertaken;

(q) Time line(s) for implementation of activity, including start and end dates (start date should be no earlier than 15 July 2006);

(r) Information on whether similar activities are or have previously been funded with USDA sources in target country/countries (e.g., under MAP and/or FMD programs); and

(s) Detailed line item activity budget. Cost items should be allocated separately to each participating organization. Expense items constituting a proposed activity's overall budget (e.g., salaries, travel expenses, consultant fees, administrative costs, etc.), with a line item cost for each, should be listed, clearly indicating:

(1) Which items are to be covered by EMP funding;

(2) Which by the participating U.S. organization(s); and

(3) Which by foreign third parties (if applicable). Cost items for individual consultant fees should show calculation of daily rate and number of days. Cost items for travel expenses should show number of trips, destinations, cost, and objective for each trip. Qualifications of applicant(s) should be included as an attachment.

3. Submission Dates and Times. All proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on March 13, 2006, in the MOS office. Proposals received after this date and time will not be reviewed or considered for program funding.

4. Funding Restrictions. Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, and there are limits on other categories of expenses such as indirect overhead charges, travel expenses and consulting fees. CCC will not reimburse expenditures made prior to approval of a proposal or unreasonable expenditures. Full details are available in the EMP regulations.

1. Criteria. Key criteria used in judging proposals include:

2. Review and Selection Process. All applications undergo a multi-phase review within FAS, by appropriate FAS field offices, and by the private sector Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets to determine qualifications, quality and appropriateness of projects, and reasonableness of project budgets prior to making recommendations to the deciding official.

3. Anticipated Announcement Date. Announcements of funding decisions for the EMP are anticipated on or about July 1, 2006.

1. Award Notices. FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of its application. FAS will send an approval letter and project agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the levels of EMP funding and cost-share contribution requirements.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements. Interested parties should review the EMP regulations which are available at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/em-markets/em-markets.html. Printed copies may be obtained by contacting MOS at (202) 720-4327.

3. Reporting. Quarterly progress reports for all programs one year or longer in duration are required. Projects of less than one year generally require a mid-term progress report. Final performance reports are due 90 days after completion of each project. Content for both types of reports is contained in the Project Agreement. Final financial reports are also due 90 days after completion of each project, as attachments to the final reports.

For additional information and assistance, contact the Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1042, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042, phone: (202) 720-4327, fax: (202) 720-9361, e-mail: emo@fas.usda.gov.

Purpose: The Cooperator Program is designed to create, expand, and maintain foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products through cost-share assistance. Financial assistance under the Cooperator Program will be made available on a competitive basis and applications will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria contained herein. All agricultural commodities, except tobacco, are eligible for consideration.

The FAS allocates funds in a manner that effectively supports the strategic decision-making initiatives of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the USDA's Food and Agricultural Policy (FAP). In deciding whether a proposed project will contribute to the effective creation, expansion, or maintenance of foreign markets, the FAS seeks to identify a clear, long-term agricultural trade strategy and a program effectiveness time line against which results can be measured at specific intervals using quantifiable product or country goals. The FAS also considers the extent to which a proposed project targets markets with the greatest growth potential. These factors are part of the FAS resource allocation strategy to fund applicants who can demonstrate performance and address the objectives of the GPRA and FAP.

Under the Cooperator Program, the FAS enters into agreements with nonprofit U.S. trade organizations which have the broadest possible producer representation of the commodity being promoted and gives priority to those organizations which are nationwide in membership and scope. Cooperators may receive assistance only for the promotion of generic activities that do not involve promotions targeted directly to consumers. The program generally operates on a reimbursement basis.

1. Eligible Applicants. To participate in the Cooperator Program an applicant must be a nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade organization.

2. Cost Sharing. To participate in the Cooperator Program, an applicant must agree to contribute resources to its proposed promotional activities. The Cooperator Program is intended to supplement, not supplant, the efforts of the U.S. private sector. The contribution must be stated in dollars and be at least 50 percent of the value of resources provided by CCC for activities conducted under the project agreement.

The degree of commitment of an applicant to the promotional strategies contained in its application, as represented by the agreed cost share contributions specified therein, is considered by the FAS when determining which applications will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or in-kind contributions, such as professional staff time spent on design and execution of activities. The Cooperator Program regulations, in sections 1484.50 and 1484.51, provide detailed discussion of eligible and ineligible cost-share contributions.

3. Other. Applications should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without federal funding assistance and why participating organization(s) are unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance.

1. Address to Request Application Package. Organizations that are interested in applying for Cooperator Program funds are encouraged to submit their requests using the Unified Export Strategy (UES) format. The UES allows interested entities to submit a consolidated and strategically coordinated single proposal that incorporates requests for funding and recommendations for virtually all the FAS marketing programs, financial assistance programs, and market access programs. The suggested UES format encourages applicants to examine the constraints or barriers to trade that they face, identify activities, which would help overcome such impediments, consider the entire pool of complementary marketing tools and program resources, and establish realistic export goals. Applicants are not required, however, to use the UES format. Organizations can submit applications in the UES format by two methods. The first allows an applicant to submit information directly to the FAS through the Unified Export Strategy (UES) application Internet website. The FAS highly recommends applying via the Internet, as this format virtually eliminates paperwork and expedites the FAS processing and review cycle. Applicants also have the option of submitting electronic versions (along with two paper copies) of their applications to the FAS on diskette.

Applicants planning to use the Internet-based system must contact the FAS Marketing Operations Staff on (202) 720-4327 to obtain site access information. The Internet-based application, including a Help file containing step-by-step instructions for its use, may be found at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/cooperators.html.

Applicants who choose to submit applications on diskette can obtain an application format by contacting the Marketing Operations Staff on (202) 720-4327.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission. To be considered for the Cooperator Program, an applicant must submit to the FAS information required by the Cooperator Program regulations in § 1484.20. In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's issuance of a final policy (68 FR 38402) regarding the need to identify entities that are receiving government awards, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711. Incomplete applications and applications which do not otherwise conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review.

The FAS administers various other agricultural export assistance programs, including the Market Access Program (MAP), Cochran Fellowships, the Emerging Markets Program, the Quality Samples Program, Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program, and several Export Credit Guarantee programs. Any organization that is not interested in applying for the Cooperator Program but would like to request assistance through one of the other programs mentioned should contact the Marketing Operations Staff on (202) 720-4327.

3. Submission Dates and Times. All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 13, 2006. All Cooperator Program applicants, regardless of the method of submitting an application, also must submit by the application deadline, via hand delivery or U.S. mail, an original signed certification statement as specified in 7 CFR 1484.20(a)(14). Applications or certifications received after this date will not be considered.

4. Funding Restrictions. Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, and there are limits on other categories of expenses. CCC will not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or expenditures made prior to approval. Full details are available in the Cooperator Program regulations in §§ 1484.54 and 1484.55.

5. Other Submission Requirements and Considerations. All Internet-based applications must be properly submitted by 5 p.m. eastern standard time, March 13, 2006. Signed certification statements also must be received by that time at one of the addresses listed below.

All applications on diskette (with two accompanying paper copies and a signed certification statement) and any other form of application must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 13, 2006, at one of the following addresses:

Hand Delivery (including FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Marketing Operations Staff, 1250 Maryland Ave., SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.

U.S. Postal Delivery: Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1042, Washington, DC 20250-1042.

1. Criteria and Review Process. Following is a description of the FAS process for reviewing applications and the criteria for allocating available Cooperator Program funds.

Applications received by the closing date will be reviewed by the FAS to determine the eligibility of the applicants and the completeness of the applications. These requirements appear at sections 1484.14 and 1484.20 of the Cooperator Program regulations. Applications that meet the requirements then will be further evaluated by the proper FAS Commodity Division. The Divisions will review each application against the criteria listed in sections 1484.21 and 1484.22 of the Cooperator Program regulations. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals and to recommend an appropriate funding level for each application based upon these criteria.

Meritorious applications then will be passed on to the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Commodity and Marketing Programs, for the purpose of allocating available funds among the applicants. Applications will compete for funds on the basis of the following allocation criteria (the number in parentheses represents a percentage weight factor):

• The applicant's 6-year average share (2002-2007) of all contributions (contributions may include cash and goods and services provided by U.S. entities in support of foreign market development activities) compared to

• The applicant's 6-year average share (2002-2007) of all Cooperator marketing plan expenditures.

• The 6-year average share (2001-2006) of the value of exports promoted by the applicant compared to

• The applicant's 6-year average share (2001-2006) of all Cooperator marketing plan expenditures plus a 6-year average share (2000-2005) of MAP expenditures and a 6-year average share (2000-2005) of foreign overhead provided for co-location within a U.S. agricultural trade office.

• The 6-year average share (2001-2006) of the total value of world trade of the commodities promoted by the applicant compared to

• The applicant's 6-year average share (2001-2006) of all Cooperator marketing plan expenditures plus a 6-year average share (2000-2005) of MAP expenditures and a 6-year average share (2000-2005) of foreign overhead provided for co-location within a U.S. agricultural trade office.

• The projected total dollar value of world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2012 compared to

• The applicant's requested funding level.

• The actual dollar value share of world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2005 compared to

• The applicant's past projected share of world trade of the commodities being promoted by the applicant for the year 2005, as specified in the 2002 Cooperator Program application.

The Commodity Divisions' recommended funding levels for each applicant are converted to percentages of the total Cooperator Program funds available then multiplied by each weight factor to determine the amount of funds allocated to each applicant.

2. Anticipated Announcement Date. Announcements of funding decisions for the Cooperator Program are anticipated during June 2006.

1. Award Notices. The FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of its application. The FAS will send an approval letter and project agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the levels of Cooperator Program funding and cost-share contribution requirements.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements. Interested parties should review the Cooperator Program regulations which are available at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/programs/fmd.html. Hard copies may be obtained by contacting MOS at (202) 720-4327.

3. Reporting. The FAS requires various reports and evaluations from Cooperators. Reporting requirements are detailed in the Cooperator Program regulations in §§ 1484.53, 1484.70, and 1484.72.

For additional information and assistance, contact the Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1042, Washington, DC 20250-1042, phone: (202) 720-4327, fax: (202) 720-9361, e-mail: mosadmin@fas.usda.gov.

Purpose: The MAP is designed to create, expand and maintain foreign markets for United States' agricultural commodities and products through cost-share assistance. Financial assistance under the MAP will be made available on a competitive basis and applications will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria contained herein. All agricultural commodities, except tobacco, are eligible for consideration.

The FAS allocates funds in a manner that effectively supports the strategic decision-making initiatives of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the USDA's Food and Agricultural Policy (FAP). In deciding whether a proposed project will contribute to the effective creation, expansion, or maintenance of foreign markets, the FAS seeks to identify a clear, long-term agricultural trade strategy and a program effectiveness time line against which results can be measured at specific intervals using quantifiable product or country goals. The FAS also considers the extent to which a proposed project targets markets with the greatest growth potential. These factors are part of the FAS resource allocation strategy to fund applicants who can demonstrate performance and address the objectives of the GPRA and FAP.

Under the MAP, the CCC enters into agreements with eligible participants to share the costs of certain overseas marketing and promotion activities. MAP participants may receive assistance for either generic or brand promotion activities. The program generally operates on a reimbursement basis.

1. Eligible Applicants. To participate in the MAP, an applicant must be: A nonprofit U.S. agricultural trade organization, a nonprofit state regional trade group (i.e., an association of State Departments of Agriculture), a U.S. agricultural cooperative, or a State agency. A small-sized U.S. commercial entity (other than a cooperative or producer association) may participate through a MAP participant.

2. Cost Sharing. To participate in the MAP, an applicant must agree to contribute resources to its proposed promotional activities. The MAP is intended to supplement, not supplant, the efforts of the U.S. private sector. In the case of generic promotion, the contribution must be stated in dollars and be at least 10 percent of the value of resources provided by CCC for such generic promotion. In the case of brand promotion, the contribution must be stated in dollars and be at least 50 percent of the total cost of such brand promotion.

The degree of commitment of an applicant to the promotional strategies contained in its application, as represented by the agreed cost share contributions specified therein, is considered by the FAS when determining which applications will be approved for funding. Cost-share may be actual cash invested or in-kind contributions, such as professional staff time spent on design and execution of activities. The MAP regulations, in section 1485.13(c), provide detailed discussion of eligible and ineligible cost-share contributions.

3. Other. Applications should include a justification for funding assistance from the program—an explanation as to what specifically could not be accomplished without federal funding assistance and why participating organization(s) are unlikely to carry out the project without such assistance.

1. Address to Request Application Package. Organizations that are interested in applying for MAP funds are encouraged to submit their requests using the UES format. The UES allows interested entities to submit a consolidated and strategically coordinated single proposal that incorporates requests for funding and recommendations for virtually all the FAS marketing programs, financial assistance programs, and market access programs. The suggested UES format encourages applicants to examine the constraints or barriers to trade, which they face, identify activities, which would help overcome such impediments, consider the entire pool of complementary marketing tools and program resources, and establish realistic export goals. Applicants are not required, however, to use the UES format. Organizations can submit applications in the UES format by two methods. The first allows an applicant to submit information directly to the FAS through the Unified Export Strategy (UES) application Internet website. The FAS highly recommends applying via the Internet, as this format virtually eliminates paperwork and expedites the FAS processing and review cycle. Applicants also have the option of submitting electronic versions (along with two paper copies) of their applications to the FAS on diskette.

Applicants planning to use the Internet-based system must contact the FAS Marketing Operations Staff on (202) 720-4327 to obtain site access information. The Internet-based application, including a Help file containing step-by-step instructions for its use, may be found at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/cooperators.html.

Applicants who choose to submit applications on diskette can obtain an application format by contacting the Marketing Operations Staff on (202) 720-4327.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission. To be considered for the MAP, an applicant must submit to the FAS information required by the MAP regulations in section 1485.13. In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's issuance of a final policy (68 FR 38402) regarding the need to identify entities that are receiving government awards, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711. Incomplete applications and applications which do not otherwise conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review.

The FAS administers various other agricultural export assistance programs including the Foreign Market Development Cooperator (Cooperator) Program, Cochran Fellowships, the Emerging Markets Program, the Quality Samples Program, the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program and several Export Credit Guarantee programs. Any organization that is not interested in applying for the MAP but would like to request assistance through one of the other programs mentioned should contact the Marketing Operations Staff on (202) 720-4327.

3. Submission Dates and Times. All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 13, 2006. All MAP applicants, regardless of the method of submitting an application, also must submit by the application deadline, via hand delivery or U.S. mail, an original signed certification statement as specified in 7 CFR 1485.13(a)(2)(i)(G). Applications or certifications received after this date will not be considered.

4. Funding Restrictions. Certain types of expenses are not eligible for reimbursement by the program, and there are limits on other categories of expenses. CCC will not reimburse unreasonable expenditures or expenditures made prior to approval. Full details are available in the MAP regulations in § 1485.16.

5. Other Submission Requirements and Considerations. All Internet-based applications must be properly submitted by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 13, 2006. Signed certification statements also must be received by that time at one of the addresses listed below.

All applications on diskette (with two accompanying paper copies and a signed certification statement) and any other form of application must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 13, 2006, at one of the following addresses:

Hand Delivery (including FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Marketing Operations Staff, 1250 Maryland Ave., SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.

U.S. Postal Delivery: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Marketing Operations Staff, STOP 1042, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042.

1. Criteria and Review Process. Following is a description of the FAS process for reviewing applications and the criteria for allocating available MAP funds.

Applications received by the closing date will be reviewed by the FAS to determine the eligibility of the applicants and the completeness of the applications. These requirements appear at sections 1485.12 and 1485.13 of the MAP regulations. Applications that meet the requirements then will be further evaluated by the proper FAS Commodity Division. The Divisions will review each application against the criteria listed in section 1485.14 of the MAP regulations. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals and to recommend an appropriate funding level for each application based upon these criteria.

Meritorious applications then will be passed on to the Office of the Deputy Administrator, Commodity and Marketing Programs, for the purpose of allocating available funds among the applicants. Applications will compete for funds on the basis of the following allocation criteria (the number in parentheses represents a percentage weight factor):

• The applicant's 4-year average share (2003-2006) of all contributions (cash and goods and services provided by U.S. entities in support of overseas marketing and promotion activities) compared to

• The applicant's 4-year average share (2003-2006) of the funding level for all MAP participants.

• The 3-year average share (2003-2005) of the value of exports promoted by the applicant compared to

• The applicant's 2-year average share (2004-2005) of the funding level for all MAP applicants plus, for those groups participating in the Cooperator program, the 2-year average share (2005-2006) of Cooperator marketing plan budgets, and the 2-year average share (2004-2005) of foreign overhead provided for co-location within a U.S. agricultural office;

• The total dollar value of projected exports promoted by the applicant for 2006 compared to

• The applicant's requested funding level;

• Actual exports for 2004 as reported in the 2006 MAP application compared to

• Past projections of exports for 2004 as specified in the 2004 MAP application.

The Commodity Divisions' recommended funding levels for each applicant are converted to percentages of the total MAP funds available then multiplied by each weight factor as described above to determine the amount of funds allocated to each applicant.

2. Anticipated Announcement Date. Announcements of funding decisions for the MAP are anticipated during June 2006.

1. Award Notices. The FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of its application. The FAS will send an approval letter and project agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the levels of MAP funding and cost-share contribution requirements.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements. Interested parties should review the MAP regulations which are available at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/mos/programs/map.asp. Hard copies may be obtained by contacting MOS at (202) 720-4327.

3. Reporting. The FAS requires various reports and evaluations from MAP participants. Reporting requirements are detailed in the MAP regulations in section 1485.20(b) and (c).

For additional information and assistance, contact the Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1042, Washington, DC 20250-1042, phone: (202) 720-4327, fax: (202) 720-9361, e-mail: mosadmin@fas.usda.gov.

Purpose: The QSP is designed to encourage the development and expansion of export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities by assisting U.S. entities in providing commodity samples to potential foreign importers to promote a better understanding and appreciation for the high quality of U.S. agricultural commodities.

QSP participants will be responsible for procuring (or arranging for the procurement of) commodity samples, exporting the samples, and providing the technical assistance necessary to facilitate successful use of the samples by importers. Participants that are funded under this announcement may seek reimbursement for the sample purchase price and the costs of transporting the samples domestically to the port of export and then to the foreign port, or point, of entry. Transportation costs from the foreign port, or point, of entry to the final destination will not be eligible for reimbursement. CCC will not reimburse the costs incidental to purchasing and transporting samples, for example, inspection or documentation fees. Although providing technical assistance is required for all projects, CCC will not reimburse the costs of providing technical assistance. A QSP participant will be reimbursed after CCC reviews its reimbursement claim and determines that the claim is complete.

General Scope of QSP Projects: QSP projects are the activities undertaken by a QSP participant to provide an appropriate sample of a U.S. agricultural commodity to a foreign importer, or a group of foreign importers, in a given market. The purpose of the project is to provide information to an appropriate target audience regarding the attributes, characteristics, and proper use of the U.S. commodity. A QSP project addresses a single market/commodity combination.

As a general matter, QSP projects should conform to the following guidelines:

• Projects should benefit the represented U.S. industry and not a specific company or brand;

• Projects should develop a new market for a U.S. product, promote a new U.S. product, or promote a new use for a U.S. product, rather than promote the substitution of one established U.S. product for another;

• Sample commodities provided under a QSP project must be in sufficient supply and available on a commercial basis;

• The QSP project must either subject the commodity sample to further processing or substantial transformation in the importing country, or the sample must be used in technical seminars designed to demonstrate to an appropriate target audience the proper preparation or use of the sample in the creation of an end product;

• Samples provided in a QSP project shall not be directly used as part of a retail promotion or supplied directly to consumers. However, the end product, that is, the product resulting from further processing, substantial transformation, or a technical seminar, may be provided to end-use consumers to demonstrate to importers consumer preference for that end product; and,

• Samples shall be in quantities less than a typical commercial sale and limited to the amount sufficient to achieve the project goal (e.g., not more than a full commercial mill run in the destination country).

QSP projects shall target foreign importers and target audiences who:

• Have not previously purchased the U.S. commodity which will be transported under the QSP;

• Are unfamiliar with the variety, quality attribute, or end-use characteristic of the U.S. commodity which will be transported under the QSP;

• Have been unsuccessful in previous attempts to import, process, and market the U.S. commodity which will be transported under the QSP (e.g., because of improper specification, blending, or formulation; or sanitary or phytosanitary issues);

• Are interested in testing or demonstrating the benefits of the U.S. commodity which will be transported under the QSP; or

• Need technical assistance in processing or using the U.S. commodity that will be transported under the QSP.

Under this announcement, the number of projects per participant will not be limited. However, individual projects will be limited to $75,000 of QSP reimbursement. Projects comprised of technical preparation seminars, that is, projects that do not include further processing or substantial transformation, will be limited to $15,000 of QSP reimbursement as these projects require smaller samples. Financial assistance will be made available on a reimbursement basis; that is, cash advances will not be made available to any QSP participant.

All proposals will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria contained herein and funds will be awarded on a competitive basis. Funding for successful proposals will be provided through specific agreements. These agreements will incorporate the proposal as approved by FAS. FAS must approve in advance any subsequent changes to the project.

1. Eligible Applicants. Any United States private or government entity with a demonstrated role or interest in exporting U.S agricultural commodities may apply to the program. Government organizations consist of federal, state, and local agencies. Private organizations include non-profit trade associations, universities, agricultural cooperatives, state regional trade groups, and profit-making entities.

2. Cost Sharing. Although a minimum level of cost share contribution is not required under the program, FAS does consider the applicant's willingness to contribute resources, including cash and goods and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties, when determining which proposals are approved for funding.

1. Address to Request Application Package. Organizations can submit applications to the FAS through the Unified Export Strategy (UES) application Internet Web site. Applicants also have the option of submitting electronic versions in the UES format (along with two paper copies) of their applications to the FAS on diskette. However, the UES format is not required.

Applicants planning to use the UES Internet-based system must contact the FAS Marketing Operations Staff on (202) 720-4327 to obtain site access information including a user ID and password. The UES Internet-based application, including a Help file containing step-by-step instructions for its use, may be found at the following URL address: http://www.fas.usda.gov/cooperators.html.

Applicants who choose to submit applications on diskette can obtain a UES application format by contacting the Marketing Operations Staff, phone: (202) 720-4327, fax: (202) 720-9361, e-mail: mosadmin@fas.usda.gov .

2. Content and Form of Application Submission . To be considered for the QSP, an applicant must submit to the FAS information detailed in this notice. In addition, in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's issuance of a final policy (68 FR 38402) regarding the need to identify entities that are receiving government awards, all applicants must submit a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. An applicant may request a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line at 1-866-705-5711. Incomplete applications and applications which do not otherwise conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review.

Applicants to the QSP are not required to submit proposals in any specific format; however, FAS recommends that proposals contain, at a minimum, the following:

(a) Organizational information, including:

• Organization's name, address, Chief Executive Officer (or designee), Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN), and DUNS number;

• Type of organization;

• Name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the primary contact person;

• A description of the organization and its membership;

• A description of the organization's prior export promotion experience; and

• A description of the organization's experience in implementing an appropriate trade/technical assistance component;

(b) Market information, including:

• An assessment of the market;

• A long-term strategy in the market; and

• U.S. export value/volume and market share (historic and goals) for 2002-2007;

(c) Project information, including:

• A brief project title;

• Amount of funding requested;

• A brief description of the specific market development trade constraint or opportunity to be addressed by the project, performance measures for the years 2006-2008 which will be used to measure the effectiveness of the project, a benchmark performance measure for 2005, the viability of long term sales to this market, the goals of the project, and the expected benefits to the represented industry;

• A description of the activities planned to address the constraint or opportunity, including how the sample will be used in the end-use performance trial, the attributes of the sample to be demonstrated and its end-use benefit, and details of the trade/technical servicing component (including who will provide and who will fund this component);

• A sample description (i.e., commodity, quantity, quality, type, and grade), including a justification for selecting a sample with such characteristics (this justification should explain in detail why the project could not be effective with a smaller sample);

• An itemized list of all estimated costs associated with the project for which reimbursement will be sought; and

• The importer's role in the project regarding handling and processing the commodity sample; and

(d) Information indicating all funding sources and amounts to be contributed by each entity that will supplement implementation of the proposed project. This may include the organization that submitted the proposal, private industry entities, host governments, foreign third parties, CCC, FAS, or other Federal agencies. Contributed resources may include cash or goods and services.

3. Submission Dates and Times . All applications must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 13, 2006. Applications received after this date will be considered only if funds are still available.

4. Funding Restrictions . Proposals which request more than $75,000 of CCC funding for individual projects will not be considered. Projects comprised of technical preparation seminars will be limited to $15,000 in QSP funding. CCC will not reimburse expenditures made prior to approval of a proposal or unreasonable expenditures.

5. Other Submission Requirements . All applications on diskette (with two accompanying paper copies) and any other form of application must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 13, 2006, at one of the following addresses:

Hand Delivery (including FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Marketing Operations Staff, 1250 Maryland Ave., SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.

U.S. Postal Delivery: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Marketing Operations Staff, STOP 1042, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042.

1. Criteria . FAS will use the following criteria in evaluating proposals:

• The ability of the organization to provide an experienced staff with the requisite technical and trade experience to execute the proposal;

• The extent to which the proposal is targeted to a market in which the United States is generally competitive;

• The potential for expanding commercial sales in the proposed market;

• The nature of the specific market constraint or opportunity involved and how well it is addressed by the proposal;

• The extent to which the importer's contribution in terms of handling and processing enhances the potential outcome of the project;

• The amount of reimbursement requested and the organization's willingness to contribute resources, including cash and goods and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties; and

• How well the proposed technical assistance component assures that performance trials will effectively demonstrate the intended end-use benefit.

Highest priority for funding under this announcement will be given to meritorious proposals that target countries that meet either of the following criteria:

• Per capita income less than $10,065 (the ceiling on upper middle income economies as determined by the World Bank [World Development Indicators 2005/2006]); and population greater than 1 million. Proposals may address suitable regional groupings, for example, the islands of the Caribbean Basin; or

• U.S. market share of imports of the commodity identified in the proposal of 10 percent or less.

2. Review and Selection Process . Proposals will be evaluated by the applicable FAS commodity division. The divisions will review each proposal against the factors described above. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals, recommend an appropriate funding level for each proposal based upon these factors, and submit the proposals and funding recommendations to the Deputy Administrator, Commodity and Marketing Programs.

3. Anticipated Announcement Date . Announcements of funding decisions for the QSP are anticipated during June 2006.

1. Award Notices . The FAS will notify each applicant in writing of the final disposition of its application. The FAS will send an approval letter and agreement to each approved applicant. The approval letter and agreement will specify the terms and conditions applicable to the project, including the levels of QSP funding and any cost-share contribution requirements.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements . The agreements will incorporate the details of each project as approved by FAS. Each agreement will identify terms and conditions pursuant to which CCC will reimburse certain costs of each project. Agreements will also outline the responsibilities of the participant, including, but not limited to, procurement (or arranging for procurement) of the commodity sample at a fair market price, arranging for transportation of the commodity sample within the time limit specified in the agreement (organizations should endeavor to ship commodities within 6 months of effective date of agreement), compliance with cargo preference requirements (shipment on United States flag vessels, as required), compliance with the Fly America Act requirements (shipment on United States air carriers, as required), timely and effective implementation of technical assistance, and submission of a written evaluation report within 90 days of expiration of the agreement.

QSP agreements are subject to review and verification by the FAS Compliance Review Staff. Upon request, a QSP participant shall provide to CCC the original documents which support the participant's reimbursement claims. CCC may deny a claim for reimbursement if the claim is not supported by adequate documentation.

3. Reporting . A written evaluation report must be submitted within 90 days of the expiration of each participant's QSP agreement. Evaluation reports should address all performance measures that were presented in the proposal.

For additional information and assistance, contact the Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1042, Washington, DC 20250-1042, phone: (202) 720-4327, fax: (202) 720-9361, e-mail: mosadmin@fas.usda.gov .

Title: Special Use Administration.

OMB Number: 0596-0082.

Expiration Date of Approval: 04/30/2006.

Type of Request: Extension with Revision.

Type of Respondents: Individuals, groups, organizations, businesses, corporations, and Federal, State, and local governments.

Several statutes authorize the Forest Service to issue and administer authorizations for use and occupancy of National Forest System (NFS) lands and require the collection of information from the public for those purposes, including the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551); Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1761-1771); the Act of March 4, 1915 (16 U.S.C. 497); the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act (16 U.S.C. 497b); section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185); the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA, 16 U.S.C. 532-538); section 7 of the Granger-Thye Act (16 U.S.C. 480d); the Act of May 26, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460 l -6d); and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6801-6814).

Forest Service regulations implementing these authorities, found at 36 CFR part 251, subpart B, contain information collection requirements, including submission of applications, execution of forms, and imposition of terms and conditions that entail information collection requirements, such as the requirement to submit annual financial information; to prepare and update an operating plan; to prepare and update a maintenance plan; and to submit compliance reports and information updates. The information collection requirements described in this request for an extension with revision of a currently approved information collection are necessary for the Forest Service to issue and administer special use authorizations to use and occupy NFS lands under these authorities.

The information collected is evaluated by the Forest Service to ensure that authorized uses of NFS lands are in the public interest and are compatible with the agency mission. The information helps the agency identify environmental and social impacts of special uses for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and program administration. In addition, the agency uses the information to ascertain whether the land use fee being charged for special use authorizations is based on market value. The information is collected through application forms and terms and conditions in special use authorizations and operating plans.

There are six categories of information collected: (1) Information required from proponents and applicants to evaluate proposals and applications to use or occupy NFS lands; (2) information required from applicants to complete special use authorizations; (3) annual financial information required from holders to determine land use fees; (4) information required from holders to prepare and update operating plans; (5) information required from holders to prepare and update maintenance plans; and (6) information required from holders to complete compliance reports and information updates. The six categories cover all information collection requirements involved in administration of the special uses program, including application and reporting forms; authorization forms; supplemental special use authorization clauses in Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, chapter 50, and information collection requirements not associated with an approved standard form.

These six categories demonstrate the complexity of the special uses program and the importance of standard forms to administration of the program. There are approximately 77,000 special use authorizations in effect, authorizing a variety of activities that range from individual private uses to large-scale commercial facilities and public services. Examples of authorized special uses include public and private road rights-of-way, apiaries, domestic water supply conveyance systems, telephone and electric service rights-of-way, oil and gas pipeline rights-of-way, communications facilities, hydroelectric power-generating facilities, ski areas, resorts, marinas, municipal sewage treatment plants, and public parks and playgrounds. Each year the Forest Service issues approximately 9,000 special use authorizations.

Because of the significance of the forms to program administration, the Forest Service needs the ability to update and modify them through expedited procedures when the agency is not imposing new information collection requirements, e.g. , when the agency is proposing purely minor, technical changes; is tailoring an existing standard form to a particular use; or is proposing revisions needed for consistency, updating, or legal sufficiency. Consequently, the agency is proposing to broaden the scope of the currently approved information collection for the special uses program to include these types of changes. These changes would not affect the burden estimate for the special use program's information collection and they would be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, without publication for public notice and comment. The Forest Service would publish for public notice and comment any new information collection requirements, such as forms created to implement new statutory or regulatory requirements or additional information collection requirements imposed under existing standard forms.

1. SF-299: Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to evaluate the applicant's technical and financial capability, nature of the proposed operations, and anticipated environmental impacts and proposed mitigation of those impacts. This form is used for most requests for nonrecreational uses of NFS lands.

2. FS-2700-3a: Holder-Initiated Revocation of Existing Authorization and Request for a Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to facilitate issuance of a new authorization when there is a change in ownership of authorized improvements or a change in control of the holder of a special use authorization.

3. FS-2700-3b: Special Use Application and Permit for Noncommercial Group Use. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to evaluate requests to use NFS lands for noncommercial gatherings involving 75 or more people, such as a wedding or an activity involving the exercise of First Amendment rights.

4. FS-2700-3c: Special Use Application and Permit for Recreation Events. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to evaluate requests to use NFS lands for events involving an entry or participation fee, such as an endurance ride.

5. FS-2700-3e: Special Use Application and Permit for Government-Owned Buildings. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to evaluate requests to use government-owned facilities on NFS lands.

6. FS-2700-10: Technical Data for Communications Uses. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to evaluate the compatibility of communications equipment at a communications site to minimize frequency interference and other compatibility problems.

7. FS-2700-NEW: Application for Permit for Archaeological Investigations. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to evaluate the financial capability and qualifications of an applicant to undertake archaeological investigations on NFS lands.

8. FS-2700-11: Agreement Concerning a Small Business Administration Loan for a Holder of a Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to enter into an agreement with a holder, a lender, and the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) regarding a loan guaranteed by the SBA.

9. FS-2700-12: Agreement Concerning a Loan for a Holder of a Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to enter into an agreement with a holder and a lender regarding a loan that is not guaranteed by the SBA.

10. FS-2700-28: Additional Insured Endorsement for a Special Use Authorization. The information provided on this form is used to name the United States as an additional insured in an insurance policy issued to the holder of a special use authorization.

11. FS-6500-24: Financial Statement. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer, or financial analyst to evaluate the financial capability of an applicant to undertake the requested use and to comply with the terms and conditions of an authorization. This form is used primarily for requests to operate ski areas, resorts, and government-owned campgrounds on NFS lands.

12. FS-6500-25: Request for Verification. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer, or financial analyst to obtain a release of information from a financial institution in order to verify the financial capability of an applicant to undertake the requested use and to comply with the terms and conditions of an authorization. This form is used primarily for requests to operate ski areas, resorts, and government-owned campgrounds on NFS lands.

1. FS-2700-4: Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize a variety of uses on NFS lands that are not covered by their own standard form.

2. FS-2700-4a: Special Use Permit Granger-Thye Supplement. The information provided on this form is used to modify the standard form FS-2700-4 when used to authorize government-owned improvements.

3. FS-2700-4b: Forest Road Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize under FLPMA the construction and use of an NFS road, typically to access private property within a national forest for commercial purposes, such as timber hauling or noncommercial purposes such as residential use.

4. FS-2700-4c: Private Road Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize under FLPMA the construction and use of a road that is not part of the forest transportation system to access non-Federal land, a mining claim, a mineral leasing area, or other uses of NFS lands.

5. FS-2700-4d: Temporary Cost Share Agreement Road Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize under FLPMA the construction, maintenance, and use of a temporary road on NFS lands covered by a cost share agreement to access private property within a national forest for commercial purposes, such as timber harvesting.

6. FS-2700-4h: Special Use Permit for Campground and Related Granger-Thye Concessions. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize the operation and maintenance of a government-owned recreation site on NFS lands.

7. FS-2700-4h, Appendix B: Annual Granger-Thye Fee Offset Agreement. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer and the holder to specify the government maintenance, reconditioning, renovation, and improvement to be used to offset the land use fee for a Campground and Related Granger-Thye Concessions Special Use Permit.

8. FS-2700-4h, Appendix G: Granger-Thye Fee Offset Claim Certification. The information provided on this form is used by the holder to provide a record of the holder's direct and indirect costs attributable to a project enumerated in a Granger-Thye fee offset agreement.

9. FS-2700-4h, Appendix F: Special Use Permit for Campground and Related Granger-Thye Concessions. The information provided on this form describes the Forest Service's drinking water program and the requirements that apply to holders who are authorized to operate a Federally owned drinking water system.

10. FS-2700-4i: Special Use Permit for Outfitting and Guiding. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize the use and occupancy of NFS lands to provide outfitting and guiding services.

11. FS-2700-5: Term Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize long-term use of NFS lands involving privately owned facilities.

12. FS-2700-5a: Term Special Use Permit for Recreation Residences. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize a privately owned recreation residence on NFS lands.

13. FS-2700-5b: Ski Area Term Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize ski areas on NFS lands.

14. FS-2700-5c: Resort/Marina Term Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize resort/marinas on NFS lands.

15. FS-2700-9a: Agricultural Irrigation and Livestock Watering System Easement. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to grant an easement for an agricultural irrigation or a livestock watering system on NFS lands.

16. FS-2700-9b: Cost Share Easement. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize under FRTA the acquisition, construction, or reconstruction and the maintenance and use of an NFS road that is subject to a cost share agreement. The parties to the cost share agreement grant each other easements within the geographic area covered by the agreement. A cost share easement, which is for an NFS road, is subject to the cost sharing provisions of the agreement.

17. FS-2700-9c: Non-Cost Share Easement. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize under FRTA the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and use of private roads under a cost share agreement. The parties to the cost share agreement grant each other easements within the geographic area covered by the agreement. A non-cost share easement, which is for a private rather than an NFS road, is not subject to the cost sharing provisions of the agreement.

18. FS-2700-9d: Public Road Easement. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to grant easements under FRTA to public road authorities, such as States or counties, to construct and maintain public roads that are not part of the Federal Aid Highway System.

19. FS-2700-9e: Forest Road Easement Issued Under the National Forest Roads and Trails Act The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to grant an easement under FRTA to a party to a cost share agreement, or to another non-Federal landowner who is cooperating in the acquisition, construction, or maintenance of an NFS road. The easement is for acquisition, construction, or reconstruction and maintenance and use of an NFS road that is outside the boundaries of a cost share agreement. At the time the easement is granted, the grantor and the grantee share the costs of acquisition, construction, and reconstruction. After the easement is granted, the grantor and the grantee share only the cost of maintenance.

20. FS-2700-9f: Private Road Easement Issued Under the National Forest Roads and Trails Act. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to grant an easement under FRTA to a party to a cost share agreement, or to another non-Federal landowner who is cooperating in the acquisition, construction, or maintenance of an NFS road. The easement is for construction or reconstruction and maintenance and use of a private road that is outside the boundaries of a cost share agreement. Since the easement is for a private rather than an NFS road, the costs of constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining the road are borne by the grantee.

21. FS-2700-9g: Forest Road Easement Issued Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to grant an easement under FLPMA for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and use of an NFS road, when the grantee is not a party to a cost share agreement for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of an NFS road, or when the grantee does not meet the requirements for issuance of a forest road easement under FRTA.

22. FS-2700-9h: Private Road Easement Issued Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to grant an easement under FLPMA for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and use of a private road, when the grantee is not a party to a cost share agreement for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of NFS roads, or when the grantee does not meet the requirements for issuance of a private road easement under FRTA.

23. FS-2700-10b: Communications Site Lease. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize a communications use within a designated communications site on NFS lands.

24. FS-2700-NEW: Electric Transmission Line Easement. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to grant a long-term easement under FLPMA for an electric transmission line.

25. FS-2700-NEW: Permit for Archaeological Investigations. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to grant a permit to a qualified applicant to conduct archeological investigations on NFS lands.

26. FS-2700-23: Amendment for Special Use Authorization. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to amend an existing special use authorization.

27. FS-2700-25: Temporary Special Use Permit. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to authorize uses of one year or less on NFS lands.

28. FS-2700-26: Major Category Cost Recovery Agreement. The information provided on this form is used to effectuate cost recovery for special use applications or authorizations involving over 50 hours to process or monitor.

29. FS-2700-26b: Cost Recovery Master Agreement. The information provided on this form is used to effectuate cost recovery for special use applications or authorizations involving multiple phases of development or groups of applications or similar applications for a specified geographic area.

30. FS-2700-27: Notice to Alaska Native Corporations Regarding Prospectus for Visitor Services. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to provide notice to Alaska Native Corporations of the issuance of a prospectus to conduct visitor services in Conservation System Units in Alaska so that they may request designation as a most directly affected Native Corporation for purposes of competing for the opportunity.

1. FS-2700-6b: Recreation Residence Self-Inspection Report. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to review and record any modifications made to a recreation residence.

2. FS-2700-7: Reconciliation of Sales for Fee Calculation. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to determine land use fees that are based on sales revenue.

3. FS-2700-8: Reconciliation of Gross Fixed Assets to Booked Amounts. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to determine land use fees that are based on the gross fixed assets of the holder.

4. FS-2700-10a: Telecommunications Facility Inventory. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to determine the rent for a communications facility based on the number of tenants in the facility.

5. FS-2700-19: Fee Calculation for Concession Permits. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to determine the land use fee for concession permits under the Graduated Rate Fee System.

6. FS-2700-19a: Fee Calculation for Ski Area Permits. The information provided on this form is used by the authorized officer to determine the land use fee for ski area permits.

7. Business Practices (no standard form). Information regarding various business practices, such as basic accounting or financial records, is provided by the holder when requested by the authorized officer or as a term and condition of an authorization. This type of information is usually maintained in a form that is customary for the type of business involved.

Special use authorizations may contain a clause requiring the holder to prepare and update an operating plan governing day-to-day operations of the authorized use. This information is useful to the holder and the authorized officer because it specifies procedures and policies for conducting the authorized use. Typically, operating plans contain daily operating guidelines, fire abatement and control procedures, monitoring guidelines, maintenance standards, safety and emergency plans, and inspection standards. Operating plans are usually necessary for complex operations, commercial uses, and uses conducted in environmentally sensitive areas.

A permit or easement issued under FLPMA or FRTA may require the holder or grantee to submit and update a road maintenance plan or information necessary for the preparation of a road maintenance plan. A road maintenance plan governs a holder's or grantee's responsibility to perform or pay for maintenance of an NFS road.

Special use authorizations may contain a clause requiring the holder to provide the authorized officer with compliance reports, information reports, and other information required by Federal law or to manage NFS lands to ensure adequate protection of national forest resources and public health and safety. Examples of compliance and information updates include dam maintenance inspection reports and logs required by the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978, the Federal Dam Safety Inspection Act of 1979, and the Dam Safety Act of 1983; documentation that authorized facilities passed safety inspections; documentation showing that the United States is named as an additional insured in an insurance policy issued to a holder; notifications involving a change in ownership of authorized improvements or a change in control of the holder; and documentation of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Comment is invited on (1) whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and proper performance of the agency's functions and mission, including whether the information will have practical or programmatic utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The prior notice of intent for this project appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 2005. The Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement appeared on May 20, 2005. A Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision were issued on August 9, 2005. The legal notice of the Record of Decision appeared in the Feather River Bulletin on August 24, 2005. The decision was appealed and later reversed on November 18, 2005.

The purpose and need remain the same as was described in the FEIS. In the FEIS, the purpose of and need for the project has three elements: (1) To implement fuel reduction in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and, as part of the larger HFQLG fuel treatment strategic network as called for by the HFQLG Act (Section 401(b)(1) and (d)(1)) and the HFQLG amendment to the LRMP, to reduce the potential size and intensity of wildfires and provide fire suppression personnel safe locations for taking action against wildfires; (2) to implement group selection and individual tree selection, as directed in the HFQLG Act (Section 401(b)(1) and (d)(2)) and the HFQLG amendment to the LRMP, to test the effectiveness of an uneven-aged silvicultural system in achieving an all-aged, multistory, fire resilient forest, providing an adequate timber supply that contributes to the economic stability of rural communities, and improving and maintaining ecological health of the forest; and (3) to reduce impacts of the transportation system on forest resources and provide the necessary access for the fuel treatments and the group and individual tree selection harvests.

The proposed action and all alternatives will remain the same as described in the FEIS. These alternatives include varied levels of fuel treatments, group selection timber harvest, individual tree selection harvest and transportation system improvement.

Jim Pen a, Forest Supervisor, Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971.

Based on the supplement, the responsible official will decide whether to implement the project based on an alternative in the FEIS or not implement the project at this time.

A draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft supplemental environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft supplemental environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final supplemental environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final supplemental environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages of the draft supplement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft supplemental environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

The Census Bureau is authorized to conduct surveys necessary to furnish current data on the subjects covered by the major censuses authorized by Title 13, United States Code, Sections 61, 81, 182, 193, 224, and 225.

These surveys will provide continuing and timely national statistical data on manufacturing for the period between economic censuses. The next economic censuses will be conducted for the year 2007. The data collected in these surveys will be within the general scope and nature of those inquiries covered in the economic censuses.

Most of the following commodity or product surveys provide data on shipments or production, stocks, unfilled orders, orders booked, consumption, and so forth. Reports will be required of all, or a sample of, establishments engaged in the production of the items covered by the following list of surveys:

The following list of surveys represents annual counterparts of monthly and quarterly surveys and will cover only those establishments that are not canvassed, or do not report, in the more frequent surveys. Accordingly, there will be no duplication in reporting. The content of these annual reports (listed below) will be identical with that of the monthly and quarterly reports:

The Annual Survey of Manufactures collects industry statistics, such as total value of shipments, employment, payroll, workers' hours, capital expenditures, cost of materials consumed, supplemental labor costs, and so forth. This survey, conducted on a sample basis, covers all manufacturing industries, including data on plants under construction, but not yet in operation.

The Survey of Industrial Research and Development measures spending on research and development activities in private U.S. businesses. The Census Bureau collects and compiles this information in accordance with a joint project agreement between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Census Bureau. The NSF publishes the results in its publication series. Five data items in the survey provide interim statistics collected in the Census Bureau's economic censuses. These items (total company sales, total employment, total expenditures for research and development conducted within the company, federally-funded expenditures for research and development conducted within the company, and total expenditures and federally-funded expenditures for research and development within the company by state) are collected on a mandatory basis under the authority of Title 13, United States Code. Responses to all other data collected are voluntary.

The Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization is designed to measure the use of industrial capacity. The survey collects information on actual output and estimates of potential output in terms of value of production. These data are the basis for calculating rates of utilization of full production capability and use of production capability under national emergency conditions.

Under a joint project agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Survey of Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures is designed to collect from establishments in manufacturing, mining, and electric utilities industries the total expenditures by industry and geographic area to abate pollutant emissions. The survey covers current operating costs and capital expenditures to abate air and water pollution and solid waste. The survey also will obtain the costs recovered from abatement activities.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a current, valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. In accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 45, the OMB approved the 2005 Annual Surveys under the following OMB control numbers: Current Industrial Reports—0607-0392, 0607-0395, and 0607-0476; Annual Survey of Manufactures—0607-0449; Survey of Industrial Research and Development—0607-0912; Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization—0607-0175, and Survey of Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures—0607-0176.

Based upon the foregoing, I have directed that the Annual Surveys in the Manufacturing Area be conducted for the purpose of collecting these data.

Background

On June 1, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from Japan and Singapore. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 70 FR 31423 (June 1, 2005). The Department received the Notice of Intent to Participate from the Timken Company, Pacamor Kubar Bearings, RBC Bearings (Collectively, “the domestic interested parties”), NSK Corporation, and American NTN Bearing Manufacture Corporation (NTN USA) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). NSK Corp. and NTN USA claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler of the subject merchandise in the United States. We received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). NSK Corp. and NTN USA filed complete substantive responses within the statutory deadlines.

We received complete substantive responses from the following foreign producers of the subject merchandise within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(I): Japan —Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. and Koyo Corporation USA (collectively Koyo), NTN Corporation and NTN USA (collectively NTN), and NSK Ltd. and NSK Corp. (collectively NSK) (collectively, the respondents); Singapore —NMB/Pelmec.

We received rebuttal comments form the domestic interested parties and the respondents within the proper deadlines as specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). On September 12, 2005, the Department sent a letter to the respondents asking them to resubmit their substantive responses in order to revise the treatment of certain business-proprietary and public information. We also asked the domestic interested parties to re-submit their rebuttal comments to the respondents' revised responses. The respondents filed their revised substantive responses on September 15, 2005, and the domestic interested parties filed their revised substantive rebuttals on September 27, and October 12, 2005. Based on the responses received from interested parties, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department has conducted full (240-day) sunset reviews of these orders.

19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) provides that the Secretary normally will conclude that respondent interested parties have provided adequate response to a notice of initiation where the Department receives complete substantive responses from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 percent, by volume, or value basis, if appropriate, of the total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation. On July 21, 2005, the Department released its adequacy determination and found that the respondent interested parties accounted for more than 50 percent of exports by volume of the subject merchandise from Japan and Singapore to the United States. For more information, see Adequacy Determination Memorandum from the Sunset Team to Laurie Parkhill, dated July 21, 2005. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department determined to conduct full sunset reviewed of these antidumping duty orders. The final results in the full sunset review of these antidumping duty orders are scheduled on or before January 27, 2006.

The products covered by these orders are ball bearings and parts thereof. These products include all bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof.

Imports of these products are classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.00, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.5010; 8431.20.00, 8431.39.0010, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.2580, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.6595, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.50.8040, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.70.6060, 8708.70.8050, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.5000, 8708.93.6000, 8708.93.75, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31, 8708.99.4960, 8708.99.50, 8708.99.5800, 8708.99.8080, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, and 8803.90.90.

Although the HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes, written descriptions of the scopes of these orders remain dispositive.

All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 19, 2005 (Decision Memo), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-009 of the main Department building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “December 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

The Department preliminarily determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings from Japan and Singapore is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins:

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after rebuttal briefs are due, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department will issue a notice of final results of these sunset reviews, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs, no later than January 27, 2006.

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

On December 1, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (the order) covering the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 69 FR 69889 (December 1, 2004).

On December 28, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), a PRC exporter, Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd. (Rongxin), requested an administrative review of the order on certain cased pencils from the PRC. On December 30, 2004, CSR Industries, doing business as American Business Technology (CSR), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise exported by Shanghai Weijun International Trading/Grand World Inc. (Weijun). Also on December 30, 2004, domestic interested parties, Sanford L.P., Musgrave Pencil Company, RoseMoon Inc., and General Pencil Company, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of exports of subject merchandise made by ten producers/exporters. 2 In addition, on January 3, 2005, China First Pencil Company, Ltd, SFTC, and Shanghai Three Star requested a review of their exports of subject merchandise to the United States. 3

The Department published a notice announcing its initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review covering the exports of the above-referenced companies during the POR. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). 4 On February 1, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the exporters/producers subject to this review.

In their respective February 22, 2004, responses to the Department's questionnaire, TCW and GSSG stated that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. CFP/Three Star, Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (SFTC), and Rongxin submitted timely questionnaire responses. On March 10, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), CSR withdrew its request for review. The remaining exporters/producers did not submit questionnaire responses and did not request that we extend the applicable deadlines for doing so. 5

On July 22, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this review until December 16, 2005. See Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 42303 (July 22, 2005).

The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain cased pencils of any shape or dimension (except as described below) which are writing and/or drawing instruments that feature cores of graphite or other materials, encased in wood and/or man-made materials, whether or not decorated and whether or not tipped ( e.g. , with erasers, etc.) in any fashion, and either sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the scope of the order are mechanical pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, non-cased crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, chalks, and pencils produced under U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from paper infused with scents by the means covered in the above-referenced patent, thereby having odors distinct from those that may emanate from pencils lacking the scent infusion. Also excluded from the scope of the order are pencils with all of the following physical characteristics: 1) length: 13.5 or more inches; 2) sheath diameter: not less than one-and-one quarter inches at any point (before sharpening); and 3) core length: not more than 15 percent of the length of the pencil.

Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

We are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to TCW because it reported that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department reviewed CBP data which did not indicate that TCW exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

We are rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) with respect to Weijun. CSR withdrew its request for review of Weijun on March 10, 2005. There was no other request for a review of Weijun and CSR's letter withdrawing its request for a review was timely filed.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during September 2005, the Department conducted verifications of SFTC and Rongxin. During the verification of SFTC and Rongxin, the Department followed standard procedures in order to test the information submitted by the respondents. These procedures include on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of relevant source documentation as exhibits. We adjusted reported data used in our preliminary results based on our findings at verification as applicable. See Memoranda from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, to the file, Margin Calculation Analysis: Orient Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. and Margin Calculation Analysis: Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd. , both dated December 16, 2005 (Calculation Memoranda). Our verification findings are on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, room B099, of the main Commerce building (CRU-Public File). See Memoranda from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Verification Reports: U.S. Sales and Factors-of-production , dated December 13, 2005 (Verification Reports).

In proceedings involving non-market-economy (NME) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to governmental control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that its export activities are sufficiently independent so that it should be granted a separate rate. Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC provided the separate-rates information we requested and reported that their export activities are not subject to governmental control.

We examined the separate-rates information the respondents provided in order to determine whether the companies are eligible for separate rates. The Department's separate-rates test, which is used to determine whether an exporter is independent from governmental control, does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g. , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from governmental control of its export activities so as to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( Sparklers ) at Comment 1, as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) ( Silicon Carbide ). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers , 56 FR at 20588 (May 6, 1991).

Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC reported that the merchandise under review was not subject to restrictive stipulations associated with their business license ( e.g. , pencils were not on the government's list of products subject to export restrictions or subject to export licensing requirements). Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC submitted copies of their business licenses in their questionnaire responses. We found no inconsistencies in their statements regarding the absence of restrictive stipulations associated with their business licenses. Furthermore, Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC submitted copies of PRC legislation demonstrating the statutory authority for establishing the de jure absence of governmental control over the companies. This legislation included the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China, and other legislation. Thus, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of the absence of de jure governmental control based on an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the business licenses of Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC, and the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC companies.

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide , 56 FR at 22587 (May 2, 1994). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

Typically, the Department considers the following four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or are subject to, the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).

CFP/Three Star and SFTC reported that they determine prices for sales of the subject merchandise based on market principles, the cost of the merchandise, and profit. Rongxin reported that it set prices “via direct competitive negotiation.” Moreover, Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC stated that they negotiated their prices directly with their customers. In addition, the record indicates that Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC have the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements. Further, these companies claimed that their negotiations are not subject to review or guidance from any governmental organization. Finally, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in the negotiation of their contracts.

Furthermore, Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC reported that they have autonomy in making decisions regarding the selection of management. All three companies indicated that their selection of management is not subject to review or guidance from any governmental organization.

Finally, Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC reported that there are no restrictions on the use of their export revenues. There is no evidence on the record with respect to any of these companies to suggest that there is any governmental involvement in decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.

Therefore, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of the absence of de facto governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: (1) Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC set their own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a governmental authority; (2) Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC have the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC have adequate autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management; and (4) Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC retain the proceeds from their sales and make independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses.

The evidence placed on the record of this review by Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC demonstrates an absence of governmental control, both in law and in fact, with respect to their exports of the merchandise under review in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide . Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are granting separate rates to Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC.

To determine whether the respondents' sales of subject merchandise were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below.

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated EPs for sales by Rongxin, CFP/Three Star, and SFTC to the United States because the subject merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States (or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States) prior to importation, and constructed export-price methodology was not otherwise indicated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c), we made deductions from the net sales price for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling. Each of these services was provided by an NME vendor and, thus, as explained in the “Normal Value” section below, we based the deductions for these movement charges on values from a surrogate country.

For the reasons stated in the “Normal Value” section below, we selected India as the primary surrogate country. To value brokerage and handling, the Department used an average of the publicly summarized data from the following two sources which we have placed on the record of this review: 1) data reported in the U.S. sales listing in the February 28, 2005, submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (Essar Steel) in the antidumping duty administrative review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, A-533-820 (covering December 2003 - November 2004), and 2) data reported in Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the AD investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, A-533-838 (covering the period November 2002 - September 2003). We identify the source used to value foreign inland freight in the “Normal Value” section of this notice, below. We adjusted these values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation adjustments for these values using the wholesale price indices (WPI) for India as published in the International Financial Statistics Online Service maintained by the Statistics Department of the International Monetary Fund at the website http://www.imfstatistics.org on May 17, 2005 ( IFS ).

For Rongxin we also made deductions to two invoices for billing adjustments discovered by the Department during verification. For a full discussion of these expenses see the Rongxin verification report.

For exports from NME countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production (FOP) methodology if the subject merchandise is exported from an NME country and available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Section 351.408 of the Department's regulations sets forth the methodology the Department uses to calculate the NV of merchandise exported from NME countries. The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in every proceeding involving the PRC. Because none of the parties to this proceeding contested such treatment, we calculated NV in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).

In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOPs the parties used in producing pencils include but are not limited to the following inputs: (1) hours of labor required, (2) quantities of raw materials employed, (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and (4) representative capital costs, including depreciation. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department valued the FOPs, to the extent possible, using the costs of the FOP in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. We determined that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita gross national product and the national distribution of labor. Furthermore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. In instances where we were unable to use Indian surrogate-value information, we relied on Indonesian or Filipino import data, and U.S. values as discussed below. Indonesia and the Philippines are also comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita gross national product and the national distribution of labor, and both are significant producers of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Office Director, China/NME Group, Office 8 , dated March 15, 2005, regarding potential surrogate countries, and Memorandum from Paul Stolz to File , dated December 16, 2005, regarding significant producers of pencils, which are available in the CRU - Public File.

In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of calculating NV, we attempted to value the FOPs using surrogate values that were in effect during the POR. If we were unable to obtain surrogate values that were in effect during the POR, we adjusted the values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation adjustments for all factor values, as applicable, except labor, using the WPI for the appropriate surrogate country as published in the IFS . We valued the FOPs as follows:

1) For producers that purchased Chinese lindenwood pencil slats, we valued slats using publicly available, published U.S. prices for American basswood lumber because price information for Chinese lindenwood and American basswood is not available from any of the potential surrogate countries. 6 The U.S. lumber prices for basswood are published in the 2005 Hardwood Market Report for the period December 2003 through November 2004.

2) For producers that manufactured slats from Chinese lindenwood timber, we valued the timber using publicly available, published U.S. prices for American basswood timber because price information for Chinese lindenwood and American basswood is not available from any of the potential surrogate countries. The U.S. timber prices for basswood are published in the Sawlog Bulletin . Timber prices contemporaneous with the POR were not available for use in the preliminary results. We will attempt to obtain contemporaneous timber prices for use in the final results. For the preliminary results we inflated timber prices published in the Sawlog Bulletin in the months of January, February, April, May, July, August, October, and November 2003 using U.S. WPI data.

3) We valued the following material inputs using Indian import data from the World Trade Atlas (WTA) for December 2003 through November 2004: acetone, alkyds resin, butanes, butanol, butter, butyl ester, calcium carbonate, carbon black, erasers, eraser caps, ethanol, ethyl ester, foam grips, foil, formaldehyde, glitter, glue, graphite powder, gum arabic, hardening oil, heat transfer film, hooks, ink oil, lacquer, lithopone, malice acid ester, methanol, methyl benzene, oxalic acid, penetrating agent, petroleum jelly, plastic, plastic topper, printing ink, propylene, pyroxylin, sawdust/wood, sealing paper, sharpeners, soap, soft agent, stearic acid, syrup, talcum powder, tallow, thinner, titanium, velvet wrap and wooden boxes.

4) We valued the following material inputs using inflated Indian import data from the WTA for December 2002 through November 2003 because contemporaneous data were not available: beeswax, clear wax, dibutyl ester, diluent, dyestuff, ferrules, kaolin clay, key chains, nitro-paint/lacquer, pigment, sticker paper, wax, and yellow dye.

5) We valued the castor oil using inflated Indian import data from the WTA for December 2001 through November 2002 because contemporaneous data were not available.

6) We valued black and color cores using inflated Indonesian import data from the WTA for January 2002 through December 2002 because contemporaneous data were not reliable. We were not able to calculate separate surrogate values for black versus color cores based on information on the record of this review.

7) In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408 (c)(1), we valued color cores, erasers, eraser material, foam grips, and lacquer used by CFP/Three Star at acquisition cost because it purchased these inputs from market-economy suppliers and paid for them using a market-economy currency.

8) We valued the following packing materials using inflated Indian import data from the WTA for December 2002 through November 2003 because contemporaneous data were not available/reliable: cardboard cartons, master cartons, packing boxes, paper labels, plastic boxes, plastic canisters, polypropylene film.

9) We valued the following packing materials using Indian import data from the WTA for December 2003 through November 2004: packing tape, plastic shrink wrap, plastic straps, and polybags.

10) We valued electricity using rates from Energy Prices and Taxes: Second Quarter 2003 (Energy Prices) , published by the International Energy Agency. We valued coal using the Teri Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (2004). We adjusted these values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR. We valued steam using the value for natural gas, as adjusted, based on the ratio of British thermal units (BTU) generated by natural gas to the BTUs generated by steam. We inflated the surrogate value for steam using the U.S. wholesale price index for the POR as published in the IFS .

11) We valued labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), using the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, and posted to Import Administration's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages . The source of this wage rate data on Import Administration's website is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, International Labor Office, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing ( http://laborsta.ilo.org ). The years of the reported wage rates range from 1998 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent.

12) We derived ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit using the 2003 financial statements of Asia Wood International Corporation (Asia Wood), a wood-products producer in the Philippines. As stated above, the Philippines is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Asia Wood's financial statements represent the best available record information with which to derive financial ratios because Asia Wood employs a number of the same production processes as those used by the respondents, including, for example, cutting wood, sanding wood, glueing wood, and painting wood. From this information, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage of direct materials, labor, and energy expenses, SG&A expenses as a percentage of the total cost of manufacturing, and profit as a percentage of the sum of the total cost of manufacturing and SG&A expenses.

13) We used the following sources to value truck and rail freight services provided to transport the finished product to the port and direct materials, packing materials, and coal from the suppliers of the inputs to the producers. To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published at http://www.infreight.com . We valued rail-freight services using the April 1995 rates published by the Indian Railway Conference Association. We adjusted these values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the POR using the WPI published by the Reserve Bank of India.

For further discussion of the surrogate values we used for these preliminary results of review, see the Memorandum From Paul Stolz Regarding Factors-of-Production Valuation for Preliminary Results (December 16, 2005), which is on file in the CRU - Public File.

Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, inter alia , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person: (A) withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (AFA) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record.

For the reasons explained below, and pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to apply partial AFA for certain U.S. sales that SFTC failed to report. On February 1, 2005, the Department requested that SFTC report all shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In section A(4)(a) of the February 1, 2005, questionnaire, the Department requested that SFTC describe the date selected as the date of sale to be used in the POR. In section C of the questionnaire, the Department also requested that SFTC report the date of sale as defined in the Glossary of Terms at Appendix I, which states the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business. On March 8, 2005, and April 7, 2005, SFTC submitted questionnaire responses to sections A and C, respectively, and responded that its date of sale is the date of invoice. On July 29, 2005, in a supplemental questionnaire response, SFTC stated that it compiled its reported U.S. sales list through a manual inspection of invoices. On April 7, 2005, SFTC submitted to the Department what it reported to be all sales of subject merchandise sold to the United States during the POR, based upon invoice date.

Prior to the start of verification, SFTC provided the Department with its submission of clerical errors and minor corrections. 7 However, during verification, the Department discovered several sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR which were not reported to the Department by SFTC. SFTC explained that it did not report these sales, which it deemed outside the POR, because SFTC did not believe the merchandise associated with these sales would have entered the United States until after the end of the POR. Nevertheless, the sales invoices were clearly dated within the POR. Therefore, because SFTC withheld information the Department requested, that is the sales in question, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department is applying facts available to those transactions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the “best of its ability” standard “requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do.” See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed Cir. 2003) ( Nippon Steel ). The Department has determined that SFTC did not act to the best of its ability because it neither included nor notified the Department in a timely manner that it was not including these sales in its filing. This information was within SFTC's control. The company itself explained that the U.S. sales date should be based on invoice date. Under these circumstances, it is fully reasonable for the Department to expect that SFTC would be forthcoming with this information, and that its failure to do so demonstrates that SFTC failed to put forth the maximum effort. Nippon Steel , 337 F.3d at 1382; see also Neuberg Fertigung GmbH v. United States , 797 F. Supp. 1020, 1024 (CIT 1992) (“{u}ltimately it is the respondent's responsibility to make sure that {Commerce} understands, and correctly uses, any information provided by the respondent.”)

Section 776(b) of the Act states that AFA may include information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. As AFA for the preliminary results, and in accordance with section 776(b), the Department is applying the highest transaction margin for SFTC from the current administrative review to SFTC's unreported sales.

Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements established by the administering authority.

Four producers/exporters named in the notice of initiation did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from PRC producers/exporters that have their own calculated rate. Companies that have not demonstrated their entitlement to a separate rate are appropriately considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we determine it is necessary to review the PRC-wide entity because it did not provide information necessary to the instant proceeding. In doing so, we note that section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts available if necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party or any other person: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.

Because the PRC-wide entity provided no information, we determine that sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not relevant to our analysis. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 1 (1994) at 870. Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

As above stated, the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information in the form or manner requested, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity. In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. As noted above, the PRC-wide entity failed to respond in the proper format or in a timely manner to the Department's questionnaire, despite repeated requests that it do so. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review. An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding as total AFA when a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability. See Honey from the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Final Rescission In Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 38873 (July 6, 2005). Specifically, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-entity 114.90 percent, which is the current PRC-wide rate.

Application of AFA to GSSG is appropriate in this review because GSSG withheld or failed to provide information specifically requested by the Department. In our original questionnaire (at C-1) we asked GSSG to “Report for each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for consumption during the POR, except: (1) for EP sales, if you do not know the entry dates, report each transaction involving merchandise shipped during the POR. . . .” See the antidumping questionnaire issued to GSSG on February 1, 2005. On February 22, 2005, GSSG submitted a letter requesting an extension of the due date to file its Section A response. GSSG further stated that no extension for Sections C and D was required because

We reviewed CBP data and found information indicating that subject merchandise exported by GSSG entered the U.S. during the POR. On November 16, 2005, we issued a supplemental questionnaire (GSSG supplemental) to GSSG which included the CBP entry number, entry date, export date, and the quantity and value of the entry in question. The CBP data indicated that the entry date and export date are clearly within the POR. We specifically asked GSSG to “Please review GSSG's sales, exports, and shipments made during the POR (and prior to the POR as applicable) and clarify whether GSSG had any exports, sales or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.” On November 23, 2005, GSSG responded to our supplemental questionnaire stating that “Because the date of the invoice is prior to the POR, the transaction is not a 'sale' that need have been reported.” However, the invoice GSSG submitted as support was undated and did not cover subject merchandise. Moreover, GSSG did not dispute that the subject merchandise was exported during the POR and entered the United States during the POR. Neither did GSSG claim that it was unaware that the merchandise was destined for the United States.

On November 18, 2005, we requested from CBP entry documents covering the transaction in question. We received these documents on December 5, 2005. The entry documents show that the merchandise was destined for the United States and originated in the PRC. The CBP entry documents confirm that GSSG exported subject merchandise during the POR. Although given ample opportunity to provide the requested information which any producer/exporter would be expected to keep in the ordinary course of business, GSSG failed to provide this information. Accordingly, because GSSG failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the Department is using information adverse to GSSG's interests as facts otherwise available. In its supplemental questionnaire response GSSG stated that “The reference in GSSG's earlier submission to the fact that it had 'no sales, exports or entries' of subject merchandise was . . . slightly inaccurate.” See GSSG's supplemental questionnaire response dated November 23, 2005. However, GSSG did not clarify or correct the inaccuracies. Notwithstanding this, evidence on the record clearly substantiates the fact that GSSG exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that the merchandise entered the United States during the POR. See the GSSG supplemental and the memorandum from Paul Stolz to the file dated December 13, 2005 regarding customs entry documents. GSSG has not disputed these facts. In addition, GSSG stated in its supplemental response dated November 23, 2005, that it is attempting to locate additional records related to this transaction and will attempt to provide them to the Department as they are located. To date, GSSG has not submitted any information in this regard. Moreover, the commercial invoice GSSG submitted in support of its supplemental questionnaire response did not cover the transaction in question and was undated. GSSG made no attempt to explain this or to link this invoice to the sale of subject merchandise. Therefore, because the evidence shows that GSSG had at least one export of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, but GSSG did not submit any sales or factors of production data as requested in the questionnaire, it is appropriate to use AFA. Furthermore, we find that GSSG does not merit a separate rate and will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. As stated above, with respect to the PRC-wide entity (including GSSG) we are applying as AFA, the current PRC-wide rate, which is 114.90 percent.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. However, the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. Id. at 869.

In this review, we are using as AFA the highest dumping margin from this or any prior segment of the proceeding, the current PRC-wide rate of 114.90 percent. This rate was calculated in the 1999 - 2000 administrative review of the order on certain cased pencils from the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 59049 (September 19, 2002). Therefore, the PRC-wide rate of 114.90 percent constitutes secondary information within the meaning of the SAA. See SAA at 870. Unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling expenses, however, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin from the current or from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin if it was calculated from verified sales and cost data. The 114.90 percent PRC-wide rate is based on verified information provided by Kaiyuan Group Corporation in the 1999 - 2000 administrative review of the order on certain cased pencils from the PRC. This rate has not been invalidated judicially. Therefore, we consider this rate to be reliable.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Nothing in the record of this review calls into question the relevance of the margin we have selected as AFA. Moreover, the selected margin is the current PRC-wide rate and is currently applicable to exporters who do not have a separate rate. Thus, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA in the instant review.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice the calculations it performed for the preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. We will issue a memorandum identifying the date of a hearing, if one is requested. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated customer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts for subject merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. We calculated these assessment amounts because there is no information on the record which identifies entered values or the importers of record. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment amounts, calculated as described above, on each of the applicable entries during the review period.

The following deposit requirements will apply to all shipments of pencils from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above will be the rates for those firms established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this review, with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the most recent segment of this proceeding; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of this review; and (4) the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On November 7, 2005, Eutectic, a U.S. importer, requested that the Department exclude a product commonly known as “wear plate” and marketed under the name of “CastoDur Diamond Plate.” See Eutectic's letters to the Secretary, dated November 7, 2005 (Eutectic Request Letters). Specifically, Eutectic requested that the Department exclude from the AD orders on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada and Germany, imports meeting the following description: certain flat-rolled wear plate ranging from 30 inches to 50 inches in width, from 45 inches to 110 inches in length and from 0.187 inch to 0.875 inch in total thickness, having a layer on one side composed principally of a combination of boron carbides, chromium carbides, nickel carbides, silicon carbides, manganese carbides, niobium carbides, iron carbides, tungsten carbides, vanadium carbides, titanium carbides and/or molybdenum carbides fused to a non-alloy flat-rolled steel substrate. The carbides are in the form of MxCx where M stands for the metal and x for the atomic ratio. An example of a common carbide would be (Cr7C3). The carbide layer will be a visually distinct layer ranging in thickness from 0.062 inch to 0.312 inch with hardness at the surface of the carbide layer in excess of 55 HRC. See Eutectic Request Letters at 1.

Additionally, Eutectic included in its request letters from petitioners and domestic interested parties attesting to their lack of interest in having this merchandise, as described above, continue to be subject to the AD orders on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Canada and Germany. See Eutectic Request Letters at Attachments 1-4. The Department contacted these parties and confirmed their expressed lack of interest for this merchandise to be subject to the AD orders. See Memorandum to the File, from Angelica L. Mendoza, Senior Case Analyst, Office 7, “Confirmation of Interested Parties' Lack of Interest for “Wear Plate” (marketed as “CastoDur Diamond Plate”) to Be Subject to the Above-Captioned Antidumping Duty Orders,” dated December 7, 2005.

The products covered by each of these orders are corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (corrosion-resistant steel) from Canada and Germany, respectively. This scope includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in these orders are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e. , products which have been “worked after rolling”) for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from these orders are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from these orders are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from these orders are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

On September 22, 1999, the Department issued the final results of a changed circumstances review partially revoking the order with respect to certain corrosion-resistant steel from Germany. 2 This partial revocation applies to certain corrosion-resistant deep-drawing carbon steel strip, roll-clad on both sides with aluminum (AlSi) foils in accordance with St3 LG as to EN 10139/10140. The merchandise's chemical composition encompasses a core material of U St 23 (continuous casting) in which carbon is less than 0.08; manganese is less than 0.30; phosphorous is less than 0.20; sulfur is less than 0.015; aluminum is less than 0.01; and the cladding material is a minimum of 99% aluminum with silicon/copper/iron of less than 1%. The products are in strips with thicknesses of 0.07mm to 4.0mm (inclusive) and widths of 5mm to 800mm (inclusive). The thickness ratio of aluminum on either side of steel may range from 3%/94%/3% to 10%/80%/10%.

The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an AD duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As noted above, on November 7, 2005, Eutectic requested a ruling from the Department in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(b) to exclude the “wear plate” product described above from these AD orders. Therefore, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), we are initiating changed circumstances reviews. Although petitioners and domestic interested parties have expressed a lack of interest in the orders with respect to the “wear plate” product in question, they did not claim that they represent substantially all of the production of the domestic like product, nor has the Department made such a determination. Therefore, the Department is not, at this time, preliminarily revoking the AD orders with respect to the product in question pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i). Interested parties are invited to comment on this initiation, or to demonstrate that the petitioners and domestic interested parties account for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product.

Interested parties may submit comments which the Department will take into account in the preliminary results of these reviews. The due date for filing any such comments is no later than 15 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 7 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.

The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 351.221(c)(3)(i), which will set forth the Department's preliminary factual and legal conclusions. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will issue its final results of review in accordance with the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.216(e).

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 351.221(b) of the Department's regulations.

On September 8, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of this administrative review of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“cut-to-length plate”) from Romania. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission , 70 FR 53333 (September 8, 2005) (“ Preliminary Results ”). In the Preliminary Results we stated that we would make our final determination for the antidumping duty review no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results ( i.e. , January 6, 2006).

The Department is extending the time limit for the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length plate from Romania. This review covers the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period, following the date of publication of the preliminary results, to issue its final results by an additional 60 days. Due to the complexity of issues raised in this review segment, including the respondent's notification of unreported sales following the Department's preliminary results, and the respondent's withdrawal of its business proprietary versions of all information submitted on the record of this review, the completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by an additional 31 days until no later than February 6, 2006.

The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC was published on November 16, 1994. See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 59209 (November 16, 1994). The Department received five timely requests for a new shipper review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), dated as follows:

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Qingdao Camel, Qingdao Saturn, Qingdao Xiantianfeng, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple certified that they did not export fresh garlic to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, Lufang and Taifeng, producers of the subject merchandise, exported by Qingdao Camel and Qingdao Saturn, respectively, provided certifications that they did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), all companies discussed above certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any exporter or grower who exported fresh garlic 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), these companies also certified that their export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC.

In addition to the certifications described above, each exporter submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) the date on which it first shipped fresh garlic for export to the United States and the date on which the fresh garlic was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of its first shipment and the volume of subsequent shipments; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating five new shipper reviews for shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC:

(1) grown by Lufeng and exported by Qingdao Camel,

(2) grown by Taifeng and exported by Qingdao Saturn,

(3) grown and exported by Qingdao Xiantianfeng,

(4) grown and exported by XuZhou Simple, and

(5) grown and exported by Longtai.

The POR is November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A). We intend to issue preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

Because Qingdao Xiantianfeng, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple have certified that they grew and exported the fresh garlic on which they based their requests for a new shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of fresh garlic both grown and exported by Qingdao Xiantianfeng, Longtai, and XuZhou Simple, respectively, until the completion of the new shipper review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act.

With respect to Qingdao Camel and Qingdao Saturn, they have certified that they exported, but did not grow, the subject merchandise on which they based their requests for a new shipper review. Therefore, until completion of these new shipper reviews, we will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise (1) grown by Lufeng and exported by Qingdao Camel, or (2) grown by Taifeng and exported by Qingdao Saturn. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).

On December 10, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Honey from Argentina , 66 FR 63672 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 2004, the Department published its opportunity to request a review. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 69 FR 69889. On December 30, 2004, the petitioners 1 requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina in response to the Department's notice of opportunity to request a review. Petitioners requested that the Department review entries of subject merchandise made by 24 Argentine producers/exporters. In addition, the Department received individual requests for review from four Argentine exporters, three of which were included as part of petitioners' request for review. 2 The Department initiated the review for all 24 companies included in petitioners' request for review plus El Mana S.A. (El Mana), a Argentine exporter of honey. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005), corrected in Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 70 FR 7143 (February 10, 2005).

On February 22, 2005, petitioners withdrew their request for review with respect to fifteen of the 24 exporters that comprised petitioners' request for administrative review. On March 3, 2005, El Mana, an exporter not included in petitioners' request for review, submitted a withdrawal of its request for administrative review. On March 24, 2005, petitioners and Nexco S.A. (Nexco) submitted a withdrawal of request for administrative review for Nexco. On March 31, 2005, petitioners submitted a withdrawal request for a further two companies. On April 15, 2005, the Department rescinded its administrative review for El Mana and eighteen of the 24 companies in petitioners' December 30, 2004, request for review. See Honey from Argentina: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 19927 (April 15, 2005).

The following exporters submitted letters claiming no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR: Nutrin on March 9, 2005; Radix on March 14, 2005; CEASA on March 14, 2005; and HoneyMax on March 16, 2005. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below.

On February 23, 2005, the Department issued Sections A, B, and C of the antidumping questionnaire to all exporters subject to the review. 3 We received responses on March 29 and April 22, 2005, for ACA and on March 24 and April 8, 2005, for Seylinco.

The Department issued supplemental questionnaires for ACA on May 17, 2005, and on May 18, 2005, for Seylinco. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires from ACA on May 31, 2005, and from Seylinco on June 1, 2005. On July 8, 2005, petitioners filed comments on ACA's questionnaire responses and on July 13, 2005, ACA filed a response to petitioners' comments. On August 2, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to ACA. On August 19, 2005, ACA filed its response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On August 25, 2005, the Department determined a “particular market situation” existed in Argentina during the POR. See the discussion of “Selection of Comparison Market” under “Normal Value” below. On November 10, 2005, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to ACA, which ACA timely responded to on November 28, 2005.

On July 1, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review to December 20, 2005. See Honey from Argentina; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review , 70 FR 38102 (July 1, 2005).

The merchandise covered by this order is honey from Argentina. The products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise covered by this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive.

As noted above, Nutrin, Radix, CEASA, and HoneyMax informed the Department that they did not have shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed with CBP that these exporters did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Nutrin, Radix, CEASA, and HoneyMax. See e.g. , Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 51008, 51009 (October 5, 2001) and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review , 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998).

Section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation submit the following: (1) a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the receipt of such a request; and (3) an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Department must ascertain that the party sold merchandise at not less than normal value ( i.e. , zero or de minimis margins) for a period of at least three consecutive years. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). See , e.g. , Oil Country Tubular Goods From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part , 66 FR 15832 (March 21, 2001).

On December 27, 2004, ACA submitted a request for revocation of the antidumping duty order with the requisite certifications set forth in 19 CFR 351.222(e). ACA based its request on the absence of dumping for three consecutive review periods, that is, the first, second and current administrative reviews. The Department found zero dumping margins in both the first and second administrative reviews. See Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 19926 (April 15, 2005) and Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004).

In the current administrative review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin of 2.95 percent for ACA. The margin calculated during the current review period constitutes one of the three consecutive reviews cited by ACA to support its request for revocation. Consequently, we preliminarily find that ACA is not eligible for revocation of the order under section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations and preliminarily determine not to revoke the order with respect to ACA. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(d)(1) we have examined ACA's shipments over the past three PORs and have preliminarily determined that ACA has not shipped in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the request for revocation. See Memorandum to Richard Weible, Director, through Robert James, Program Manager, from Angela Strom, Case Analyst: “Request by Asociation of Coopertivas Argentinas (ACA) for Revocation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Honey from Argentina,” dated December 20, 2005.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we verified sales information provided by ACA, using standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of our verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room B-099 of the main Department building. See ACA's Sales Verification Report, dated December 13, 2005.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all sales of honey covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, supra , which were sold in the respective third-country markets during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to honey sold in the United States. We matched products based on the physical characteristics reported by ACA and Seylinco. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third-country market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (CV), as appropriate.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. In this review, both ACA and Seylinco claimed only EP sales.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, 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 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 LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act.

ACA reported two LOTs in the third-country market corresponding to differing channels of distribution: 1) sales to packers and 2) sales to importers. Differing channels of distribution, alone, do not qualify as separate LOTs when selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). We found that the selling functions ACA provided to its reported channels of distribution in the third-country and U.S. markets were virtually the same, varying only by the degree to which testing and warranty services were provided. We do not find the varying degree of testing and warranty services alone sufficient to determine the existence of different marketing stages. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina , 66 FR 50611 and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 18 (October 4, 2001); Honey from Argentina: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 621 (January 6, 2004). Thus, we have determined that there is only one LOT for ACA's sales to all markets. See ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005.

Seylinco reported a single LOT for all U.S. and third-country sales. Seylinco claimed that its selling activities in both markets are identical, although we note Seylinco sold to two general classes of customers in both the U.S. and its comparison market. For Seylinco, we preliminarily determine that all reported sales are made at the same LOT, and we therefore have no need to make an LOT adjustment. See Seylinco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005.

Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the Department normally will use date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the date on which material terms of sale are established. For ACA, the Department, consistent with its practice, used the reported shipment date as the date of sale for both its third-country and U.S. markets since shipment occurred prior to invoice date. See Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada , 68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 3. For Seylinco, the Department used the invoice date as the date of sale for both its comparison and U.S. market sales.

Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. . . .,” as adjusted under section 772(c). Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as “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). ACA and Seylinco have classified their U.S. sales as EP because all of their sales were made before the date of importation directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the U.S. market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have accepted these classifications.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compare each company's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Because Seylinco did not have home market sales, we preliminarily find that Seylinco's home market did not provide a viable basis for calculating NV. ACA, however, did have home market sales in excess of five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales.

Section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department may determine that home market sales are inappropriate as a basis for determining NV if a particular market situation would not permit a proper comparison with EP or CEP. During the first and second reviews of this order, the Department found a particular market situation rendered the Argentine market inappropriate for the calculation of NV because of, among other reasons, the export-oriented nature of the Argentine honey industry. 4 In the first supplemental questionnaire dated May 17, 2005, the Department asked ACA to provide further information in order to evaluate the market situation in Argentina with respect to honey, and on May 31, 2005, ACA responded to the Department's request. ACA states that the circumstances in this review are the same as in the first two reviews and that the Department should find a “particular market situation” in Argentina.

On August 25, 2005, the Department determined that a particular market situation does, in fact, exist with respect to ACA's sales of honey in Argentina, rendering the Argentine market inappropriate for purposes of determining NV. See Decision Memorandum “Analysis of Particular Market Place Situation” from Angela Strom through Robert James to Richard Weible, dated August 25, 2005.

When sales in the home market are not suitable to serve as the basis for NV, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that sales to a third-country market may be utilized if (i) the prices in such market are representative; (ii) the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in the third-country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and (iii) the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third-country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. ACA reported France as its largest third-country market during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales is five percent or more of sales to the United States). Seylinco reported Germany as its largest third-country market during the POR, in terms of volume of sales (and the aggregate quantity of such sales is five percent or more of sales to the United States). See , e.g. , Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination To Revoke the Order in Part, and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile , 67 FR 51186, 51186 (August 7, 2002) (selecting the largest third-country market as the basis for NV). The Department preliminarily determines that the prices in France and Germany are representative and no particular market situation exists that would prevent a proper comparison to EP. As a result, for ACA, NV is based on sales to France and for Seylinco NV is based on sales to Germany.

In summary, therefore, NV for all companies is based on third-country market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the EP. We calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice.

The Department disregarded certain sales made by ACA to its comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the subject merchandise during the investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina , 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001) and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina , 66 FR 58434 (Nov 21, 2001) (Final Determination). However, because we did not find sales below cost in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding and because petitioners made no allegation of sales below cost in the context of this review, the Department determined there were not reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that ACA made sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in this review. See section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. As a result, on May 17, 2005, we informed ACA that ACA would not be required to submit cost information.

We based NV on the third-country market prices to unaffiliated purchasers. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act, we made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit and other direct selling expenses, where appropriate. We note that for certain claimed direct expenses in the third-country market, the Department has re-classified them as indirect for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis Memorandum.

As in previous segments of this proceeding, ACA originally reported warranty expenses on a customer-specific basis. ACA allocated warranty claims corresponding to POR sales to total tons of honey sold to a particular customer during the POR. In response to our first request for information, ACA also submitted transaction-specific warranty expenses. See Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated May 31, 2005. In response to our most recent request for information, ACA reported its historical experience for warranties by market. See Supplemental Questionnaire Response dated November 28, 2005.

Notwithstanding ACA's reporting of warranty expenses both on a customer-specific and transaction-specific basis, the Department finds that these allocation methodologies fail to reflect the nature and terms of warranty costs as incurred by ACA, i.e. , at the time of sale, warranty claims for specific customers or transactions cannot be known or quantified and the terms for such claims did not vary from customer to customer. Indeed, in the less than fair value investigation involving honey from Argentina, the Department recalculated ACA's warranty expense over total sales to the market in question. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from Argentina , 66 FR 24108 (May 11, 2001), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Honey from Argentina , 66 FR 50611 (October 4, 2001). In the second administrative review, the Department accepted ACA's reported warranty expenses on a customer-specific basis. See ACA's Sales Verification Report, dated November 26, 2004,and ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2004. However, based upon our review of the facts in this case, this is not the appropriate methodology.

If the warranty terms offered by a respondent at the time of sale vary significantly from customer to customer, a customer-specific allocation of warranty expenses may be appropriate. However, as in this case, if the warranty terms offered by the respondent at the time of sale are not significantly different from customer to customer, an allocation of warranty expenses over total sales or sales to the market in question is more reflective of the nature of the expense and the respondent's expectation that its pricing behavior will allow it to recoup these costs over time. Furthermore, because warranty expenses are not incurred until after a warranty claim has been received from a customer, can vary greatly from year to year, and can occur months or years after the relevant date of sale, the Department often bases warranty expenses on historical data rather than the expenses incurred during a single POR. ( See , e.g. , Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 11557 (February 26, 2001) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.)

Based on the foregoing considerations, we have re-calculated ACA's reported warranty expenses. In order to capture warranty expenses reflective of ACA's historical experience for the market in question, we used warranty expenditures incurred in that market in the three most recently completed fiscal years 5 and allocated those expenses over ACA's total sales to that market for the same three-year period. The resulting ratio which we applied to the gross unit price for these Preliminary Results represents a three year historical average of ACA's warranty expenses with respect to the market in question. In addition, we revised certain warranty expenses for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Analysis Memorandum. See ACA's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005.

We based NV on the third-country prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. Where appropriate, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for other direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. See Seylinco's Analysis Memorandum, dated December 20, 2005.

The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France , 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the Argentine peso. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion dates involving Saturday through Sunday where necessary.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004:

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion of the review.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:

(1) the cash deposit rates for all companies reviewed will be the rates established in the final results of review;

(2) for any previously reviewed or investigated company not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent period;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the 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 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 from the investigation (30.24 percent). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina , 66 FR 50611 (Oct. 4, 2001), Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Honey From Argentina , 66 FR 58434 (Nov. 21, 2001), and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Honey From Argentina , 66 FR 63672 (Dec. 10, 2001).

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

On July 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the Notice of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005), for the above-cited segment of this antidumping duty proceeding. We received a timely filed request for review for 57 companies from the Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm; Enfield Farms, Inc.; Maberry Packing; and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, “the petitioners”). We also received timely filed requests for review from Fruticola Olmue, S.A. (“Olmue”); Santiago Comercio Exterior Exportaciones, Ltda. (“SANCO”); Valles Andinos, S.A. (“Valles Andinos”); Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. (“VBM”); and Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. (“Vitafoods”).

On August 29, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005), initiating this review for all 57 companies. On September 23, 2005, we received a submission from the petitioners withdrawing their request for review for all of the companies for which they had requested an administrative review, except for the following companies: Arlavan, S.A. (“Arlavan”), Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio, Ltda. (“Valle Frio”), Olmue, Valles Andinos, VBM, SANCO, and Vitafoods.

The petitioners filed their withdrawal request within the deadline established by the Department. Therefore, we are rescinding the above-cited administrative review with respect to the following companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1):

Agricola Nova, Ltda.

Agrocomercial Las Tinajas, Ltda.

Agrofruta Chilena, Ltda.

Agroindustria Framberry, Ltda.

Agroindustria Niquen, Ltda.

Agroindustria Sagrada Familia, Ltda.

Agroindustria y Frigorifico M y M, Ltda.

Agroindustrial Frisac, Ltda.

Agroindustrial Frutos del Maipo, Ltda.

Agroindustrial Merco Trading, Ltda.

Agroindustrias San Francisco, Ltda.

Agross, S.A.

Alimentos Prometeo, Ltda.

Alimentos y Frutos, S.A.

Andesur, S.A.

Angloeuro Comercio Exterior, S.A.

Armijo Carrasco, Claudio del Carmen

Bajo Cero, S.A.

Certified Pure Ingredients (Chile) Inc. y Cia., Ltda.

Chile Andes Foods, S.A.

Comercializadora Agricola Berries & Fruit, Ltda.

Comercializadora de Alimentos del Sur, Ltda.

Comercio y Servicios, S.A.

Copefrut, S.A.

C y C Group, S.A.

Exportaciones Meyer, S.A.

Exportadora Fragaria Ltda.

Exportadora Pentagro, S.A.

Exportadora South Berries Ltda.

Francisco Nancuvilu Punsin

Frigorifico Ditzler, Ltda.

Frutas de Guaico, S.A.

Fruticola Viconto, S.A.

Hassler Monckeberg, S.A.

Hortifrut, S.A.

Interagro Comercio y Ganado, S.A.

Kugar Export, Ltda.

Maria Teresa Ubilla Alarcon

Multifrigo Valparaiso, S.A.

Nevada Export, S.A.

Prima Agrotrading, Ltda.

Procesadora y Exportadora de Frutas y Vegetales

Rio Teno, S.A.

Sociedad Agricola Valle del Laja, Ltda.

Sociedad Comercial C y C, S.A.

Sociedad Exportaciones Antiquina, Ltda.

Sociedad San Ernesto, Ltda.

Surfrut

Terra Natur, S.A.

Terrazas Export, S.A.

The following companies remain subject to this administrative review: Olmue, SANCO, VBM, Valles Andinos, Vitafoods, Arlavan and Valle Frio. We intend to issue our preliminary results in this administrative review for Olmue, SANCO, VBM, Valles Andinos, Vitafoods, Arlavan, and Valle Frio by April 3, 2006.

The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties 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 Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice.

For the companies for which this review is rescinded, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 6.33 percent, the “all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile , 67 FR 40270 (June 12, 2002).

These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of this administrative review.

This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The certain preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis . “Certain Preserved Mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Certain preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are presalted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) All other species of mushroom, including straw mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”; (3) dried mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and (5) “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 2

The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

On September 14, 2005, the Department published the final results of this administrative review in the Federal Register . See Final Results .

After analyzing all interested parties' comments, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that ministerial errors existed in the calculations for the Final Results , with respect to COFCO. A ministerial error is defined in Section 751(h) of the Act and further clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” For a detailed discussion of these ministerial errors, as well as the Department's analysis, see memorandum from Christopher D. Riker to James C. Doyle, Analysis of COFCO Ministerial Error Allegations , dated December 21, 2005, on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 in the main Department building.

Therefore, in accordance with Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC for COFCO. The revised weighted-average dumping margin is detailed in the chart below. For the company-specific calculation see memorandum from Christopher D. Riker to the File, Analysis for the Second Amended Final Results of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: COFCO , dated December 21, 2005.

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries based on the amended final results. For details on the assessment of antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, see Final Results .

These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

On August 3, 1995, the Department published an antidumping duty order on seamless line and pressure pipe from Germany. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Germany , 60 FR 39704 (August 3, 1995).

On August 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering seamless line and pressure pipe from Germany. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, the Department received a timely filed request for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless line and pressure pipe from Germany with respect to VMD, Mannesmann, Benteler Stahl, and Benteler Tube from US Steel, a domestic producer of the subject merchandise. On September 28, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of VMD, Mannesmann, Benteler Stahl and Benteler Tube, covering the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005).

On October 6, 2005, the Department released the antidumping duty questionnaire to VMD, Mannesmann, Benteler Stahl, and Benteler Tube. On December 13, 2005, the petitioner withdrew its request in a timely manner for an administrative review of the four named respondents. No other party requested a review.

The products covered by the order are seamless pipes produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters below, regardless of specification. For purposes of this order, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thickness are commonly referred to as tubes.

The seamless pipes subject to this antidumping duty order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The following information further defines the scope of this order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above.

Specifications, Characteristics and Uses : Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements.

Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent ASTM A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple-certify the pipes. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.

The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple-certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.

The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if used in a standard, line or pressure application. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order.

The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Pursuant to the Department's regulations, the Department will rescind an administrative review “if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review.” See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Since the petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review on December 13, 2005, which is within the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested a review with respect to these companies, the Department is rescinding this administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. The Department is issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On November 18, 2005, the Department received a timely request from IFP Corp., in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214, for a new shipper review of the AD order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada, which has a May anniversary month. 1 IFP Corp. is a U.S. corporation that purchases Canadian dimensional hemlock lumber for export to customers in the United States. IFP Corp. buys the subject merchandise at the mill from Terrace Lumber Company (Terrace), a newly-opened mill in British Columbia, Canada. IFP Corp. is the exporter (and importer), and Terrace is the producer. Terrace was incorporated in Canada on April 7, 2005.

As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii) (A) and (iii)(A), IFP Corp. certified that it did not export certain softwood lumber to the United States during the period of investigation (POI), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported certain softwood lumber during the POI. 2 Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214 (b)(2)(ii)(B), Terrace certified that it did not export certain softwood lumber to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), the company submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, the date of entry of that first shipment, the volume of that and subsequent shipments and, the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. In the context of this review, the Department intends to solicit and carefully examine information concerning the first party in the chain of distribution with knowledge of U.S. destination and IFP Corps.' role as the exporter of the shipment(s) under review. Our findings may result in the rescission of this review if we find the party requesting the review was not eligible to make the request.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on information on the record, we are initiating an AD new shipper review for IFP. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this new shipper review not later than 180 days after initiation of this review. We intend to issue final results of this review no later than 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results are issued. See 19 CFR 351.214(i).

We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from the above-listed company in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because IFP Corp., certified that it exports the subject merchandise produced by Terrace, the sale of which is the basis for these new shipper review request, we will permit the bonding privilege only with respect to entries of subject merchandise produced by Terrace and exported by IFP Corp.

Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(d) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(i).

On July 27, 1999, the Department published an antidumping duty order on SSSS in coils from Italy. See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy , 64 FR 40567 (July 27, 1999). On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS in coils from Italy. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 70 FR 38099 (July 1, 2005). On July 29, 2005, the Department received a timely request for an administrative review from petitioners of the antidumping duty order on SSSS in coils from Italy with respect to TKAST and its affiliates for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. On August 29, 2005, the Department published the initiation of an administrative review of SSSS in coils from Italy covering the period of July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation In Part , 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). This review covers imports of SSSS in coils from one producer/exporter, TKAST.

On November 28, 2005, three of the five original petitioners withdrew their request for review (i.e., Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, and the United Steelworkers). On December 1, 2005, the Department informed petitioners' counsel that it would not rescind the review unless all five petitioners withdraw their request. See Memorandum to the File from Richard O. Weible, Office Director, Regarding “Phone Conversation with David Hartquist,” dated December 6, 2005. On December 6, 2005, all five of the petitioners withdrew their request that the Department conduct an administrative review of TKAST.

The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81, 1 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( e.g. , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” 6 The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” 7 steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 8

The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of the initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. It further states that the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary finds it reasonable to do so. As noted above, three of the five petitioners that requested this review timely withdrew their request for review. On December 1, 2005, the Department informed counsel to petitioners that the instant review cannot be rescinded unless all five petitioners withdraw their request. See Memorandum to the File from Richard O. Weible, Office Director, Regarding “Phone Conversation with David Hartquist,” dated December 6, 2005. By December 6, 2005, one week after the 90-day deadline, all five petitioners (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc., and the United Steelworkers), withdrew their request for review.

The Department finds it reasonable to extend the time limit by which a party may withdraw its request for review in the instant proceeding. The Department has not yet devoted considerable time and resources to this review, all five petitioners have withdrawn their request, and no other party requested the review. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS in coils from Italy covering the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of this notice.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's assumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return on destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversation to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

NMFS is the Federal agency responsible for management of Steller sea lions and northern fur seals under the ESA and the MMPA. NMFS currently administers grants and issues permits to various individuals and institutions to conduct research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals in lands and waters under U.S. jurisdiction.

The grant monies administered by NMFS have been designated by Congress and allocated within NMFS annual budgets for the purpose of facilitating research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. The agency has determined that the act of awarding grants is a federal action requiring NEPA compliance. Similarly, issuance of permits for research activities on marine mammals is a federal action requiring NEPA compliance. These permits are issued pursuant to the provisions of the ESA, the MMPA, and NMFS regulations implementing these statutes. This EIS would satisfy the NEPA compliance requirements for awarding grants and issuing permits for research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals.

The statutory requirements for permits to allow research on marine mammals and on threatened and endangered species are described in Section 104 of the MMPA and Section 10 of the ESA, respectively. Specifically, Section 104(c)(3)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS may issue a permit for scientific research purposes to an applicant, which submits with its permit application information indicating that the taking is required to further a bona fide scientific purpose. The MMPA defines bona fide scientific research as scientific research on marine mammals, the results of which: (1) likely would be accepted for publication in a refereed scientific journal; (2) are likely to contribute to the basic knowledge or marine mammal biology or ecology; or (3) are likely to identify, evaluate, or resolve conservation problems. Section 104 of the MMPA specifies additional conditions and requirements for permits including requiring permit applicants to demonstrate that the permit will be consistent with the purposes of the MMPA, which are specified in Section 2 of the statute.

For marine mammals listed as threatened or endangered, the provisions of Section 10 of the ESA apply to permit issuance in addition to the provisions of the MMPA. Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA states that NMFS may issue permits for otherwise prohibited acts for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species. Section 10(d) of the ESA further states that NMFS may grant exceptions under subsection 10(a)(1)(A) only if the agency finds that: (1) Such exceptions were applied for in good faith, (2) if granted and exercised will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species, and (3) will be consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the Act. The purposes of the ESA, which are stated in Section 2 of the statute, are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in section 2(a) of the ESA.

In addition to the requirements of section 10 of the ESA, NMFS must comply with section 7 of the ESA in issuing permits. According to Section 7 of the ESA, NMFS must insure that any action it authorizes (such as by permit), funds (such as by grants), or carries out, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

The purpose of issuing permits is to allow an exemption to the prohibitions on “takes” established under the ESA and MMPA. The ESA and the MMPA prohibit “takes” of threatened and endangered species, and of marine mammals, respectively. The ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Under the MMPA, “take” is defined as to “harass, hunt, capture, collect or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, collect or kill any marine mammal.” Many research activities, including aerial and vessel-based surveys, tagging and marking procedures, attachment of scientific instruments, and collection of tissue samples require approaching or capturing animals and may result in harassment or other acts prohibited under the ESA and MMPA except where allowed by permit.

Because some of the proposed research may result in adverse effects on threatened and endangered Steller sea lions and depleted northern fur seals, NMFS has decided to prepare an EIS to evaluate the cumulative impacts of continuing to fund and permit research activities on these species. This EIS will assess the likely environmental and socioeconomic effects of funding and permitting research under a range of alternatives and will address compliance of the alternatives with the ESA, MMPA, and other applicable laws.

This notice initiates a public scoping period that will help determine the structure of each alternative considered in the EIS. The final scope and structure of the alternatives will reflect the combined input from the public, research institutions, affected state and federal agencies, and NMFS administrative and research offices. Based on comments received on Environmental Assessments prepared in 2002 and 2005 for permitting research on Steller sea lions, the following issues that NMFS is seeking public comments on have been identified and may be incorporated into the analysis of alternatives in the EIS:

(1) Types of research methods and protocols permitted. For example, are there critical research needs for these species other than those identified in the Recovery or Conservation Plans? If so, what are they and how are they likely to benefit the species? Of the research, information, and monitoring needs identified in the Recovery and Conservation Plans, what are the most appropriate methods to conduct the study or obtain the information? What criteria for developing and incorporating new research techniques should be used?

(2) Level of research effort. For example, how much of a specific research activity (e.g., aerial survey, tagging, biopsy sampling, etc.) is enough for management and conservation needs? Can there be too much? If so, how should NMFS set limits? Are the current methods to assess and document numbers of different “takes” that occur as a result of permitted research appropriate? Should there be different standards or more restrictions placed on research conducted on certain age, sex, or life-history stages or on the geographic or temporal distribution of research effort? If so, what should those limitations be?

(3) Coordination of research. For example, assuming permits are issued to multiple individuals, what are the most appropriate mechanisms for ensuring research is coordinated to maximize information and reduce adverse impacts? Alternatively, should NMFS consider limiting the number of permits to increase coordination and cooperation? If so, how should this be accomplished? Should researchers operating under different permits (but studying the same or related questions such as aerial survey for population census or biopsy for population genetics) be required to use the same or similar methods to ensure the information collected is comparable and useful for NMFS conservation of the species? If so, what methods are most appropriate (e.g., for aerial surveys; capture and restraint; tissue sampling; marking; etc.)? If not, how should NMFS compare or use the data from various permit holders in its management decisions?

(4) Effects of research. NMFS will be assessing possible effects of the various research methods using all appropriate available information. Anyone having relevant information they believe NMFS should consider in its analysis should provide a complete citation or reference for retrieving the information. In addition, NMFS is seeking recommendations for study designs that could detect or predict the effects of research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals.

(5) Qualification of researchers. For example, to ensure the study is conducted successfully and with the minimum of adverse impacts, how much prior experience should a permit applicant, principal investigator, or anyone else operating under a permit have with the specific methods for which they seek a permit?

(6) Criteria for allowing modifications or amendments to existing grants and permits; for denying permit amendments; and for suspending or revoking permits. In addition to the existing statutory and regulatory criteria for permit issuance and denial, should there be restrictions on the number or type of permit modifications or amendments issued over the life of a permit? With respect to environmental impacts, under what conditions should a permit be modified, revoked or suspended by NMFS?

The exact number and structure of the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIS will be determined based on information gathered during scoping. To provide a framework for public comments, the range of potential alternatives currently includes the Proposed Action and several other action alternatives, as well as a No Action alternative. The Proposed Action alternative would result in issuance of permits to qualified individuals and institutions to conduct those research activities determined critical or essential to NMFS' conservation and recovery of Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. To minimize the cumulative impacts of research on these species, no permits would be issued for lower priority research activities until the highest priority tasks identified for species conservation and recovery were completed or unless there was sufficient information to determine that the cumulative impacts of allowing additional takes for research would not adversely impact, disadvantage, or jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The Proposed Action could thus be viewed as a minimum take alternative, allowing the least amount of research practicable to meet NMFS' needs for recovery and conservation of the species.

In addition to the Proposed Action, NMFS will consider other alternatives for issuing permits for research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. One alternative to the Proposed Action is to issue all permits requested regardless of their relative potential contribution to conservation and recovery of the species, provided they meet all permit issuance criteria and would not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in significant adverse effects on depleted species. In contrast to the Proposed Action, this could be viewed as the maximum allowable take alternative.

Another alternative to the Proposed Action is the No Action alternative, which CEQ regulations require be included for consideration. The No Action alternative would only allow conduct of that research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals already allowed under existing permits, which are valid through 2010. No new permits would be issued to replace the expiring permits, nor would existing permits be amended to allow modifications in research activities, sample sizes, or objectives.

A fourth alternative considered is the Status Quo. As with the No Action alternative, the Status Quo alternative would allow conduct of research on Steller sea lions and northern fur seals already identified under existing permits, and no permits would be amended to change research activities, sample sizes, or objectives. However, under the Status Quo Alternative, new permits would be issued to replace existing permits as they expire such that the current level of research and types of research activities would continue. Since the Status Quo would not allow issuance of permits for any research activities, objectives, or sample sizes not currently permitted, it would preclude adaptive changes in the research program that may be responsive to changes in the population status or threats to the recovery of the species.

The Status Quo and two other alternatives considered by NMFS may be eliminated from detailed study because they would not allow conduct of research identified by NMFS as necessary for conservation of the species. The other two alternatives that may be eliminated from further study are: (1) imposing a research permit moratorium (i.e., suspending or revoking existing permits and not issuing new ones) and (2) suspending all intrusive research activities (i.e., stopping biopsy sampling, instrument attachment, and other activities that could result in physical injury). In addition to preventing collection of information about Steller sea lions and northern fur seals needed for NMFS conservation and recovery efforts for these species, a research permit moratorium would hinder NMFS ability to monitor the status of these populations, which is important in making informed management decisions. Suspending permits for intrusive research would impede collection of information on Steller sea lion and northern fur seal habitat use and population structure which is needed for NMFS' conservation and recovery efforts for these species.

The EIS will assess the direct and indirect effects of the alternative approaches to funding and permitting Steller sea lion and northern fur seal research. The EIS will assess the effects on these species as well as other components of the marine ecosystem and human environment. The EIS will assess the contribution of research activities to the cumulative effects on these resources, including effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events and activities that are external to the research activities. The EIS will also assess the potential beneficial impacts of the research as it relates to conservation of Steller sea lions and northern fur seals. Anyone having relevant information they believe NMFS should consider in its analysis should provide a description of that information along with complete citations for supporting documents.

For additional information about Steller seal lions, northern fur seals, the permit process, and related information for these species, please visit our website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/steller.htm .

Public scoping meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations:

1. January 18, 2006, 1 - 4 p.m., Silver Spring Metro Center, Building 4, Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD;

2. January 20, 2006, 4 - 7 p.m., Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 9, Seattle, WA; and

3. January 23, 2006, 5 - 8 p.m., Hilton Anchorage, 501 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK.

Comments will be accepted at these meetings as well as during the scoping period, and can be mailed to NMFS by February 13, 2006 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

NMFS will consider all comments received during the comment period. All hardcopy submissions must be unbound, on paper no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches (216 by 279 mm), and suitable for copying and electronic scanning. NMFS requests that you include in your comments:

(1) Your name and address;

(2) Whether or not you would like to receive a copy of the Draft EIS; and

(3) Any background documents to support your comments as you feel necessary.

These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tammy Adams or Andrew Wright, 301-713-2289 (voice) or 301-427-2583 (fax), at least 5 days before the scheduled meeting date.

The purpose of the Groundfish Stock Assessment Process Review Workshop is for participants in the Council's 2005 stock assessment process to consider the procedures used in 2005 to assess and update groundfish stock abundance and develop recommendations for improving the process for future assessments. No management actions will be decided in this workshop. Any recommendations developed at the workshop will be submitted for consideration by the Council at its March meeting in Seattle, WA.

Although non-emergency issues not identified in the workshop agenda may come before the workshop participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this workshop. Formal action at the workshop will be restricted to those issues specifically listed 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 workshop participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the workshop date.

February 28, 2005: “Review of 2005 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and “Preseason Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis for 2006 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” will be available to the public from the Council office and posted on the Council website at http://www.pcouncil.org .

March 21, 2006: “Preseason Report II-Analysis of Proposed Regulatory Options for 2006 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and public hearing schedule will be mailed to the public and posted on the Council website at http://www.pcouncil.org . The report will include a description of the adopted salmon management options and a summary of their biological and economic impacts.

April 21, 2006: Council adopted ocean salmon fishing management measures will be posted on the Council website at http://www.pcouncil.org .

May 1, 2006: Federal regulations will be implemented and “Preseason Report III-Analysis of Council-Adopted Ocean Salmon Management Measures for 2006 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” will be available from the Council office and posted on the Council web site at http://www.pcouncil.org .

January 17-20, 2006: The Salmon Technical Team (STT) will meet at the Council office in a public work session to draft “Review of 2005 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and to consider any other estimation or methodology issues pertinent to the 2006 ocean salmon fisheries.

February 7-10, 2006: The STT will meet at the Council office in a public work session to draft “Preseason Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis for 2006 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and to consider any other estimation or methodology issues pertinent to the 2006 ocean salmon fisheries.

March 5-10, 2006: The Council and advisory entities will meet at the Seattle Marriott Hotel, Sea Tac, 3201 S. 176th Street, Seattle, WA 98188 Phone: 206-241-2000, to adopt the 2006 salmon management options for public review.

March 27-28, 2006: Public hearings will be held to receive comments on the proposed ocean salmon fishery management options adopted by the Council. All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. at the following locations:

March 27, 2006: Chateau Westport, Beach Room, 710 W Hancock, Westport, WA 98595, telephone 360-268-9101.

March 27, 2006: Red Lion Hotel, South Umpqua Room, 1313 N Bayshore Drive, Coos Bay, OR 97420, telephone 541-267-4141.

March 28, 2006: Flamingo Hotel, Flamingo Ballroom, 2777 Fourth Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95405, telephone 707-545-8530.

April 3-7, 2006: Council and advisory entities meet at the Doubletree Hotel Sacramento, 2001 Point West Way, Sacramento, CA 95815, Phone: 916-929-8855, to adopt 2006 management measures for implementation by NMFS.

April 4, 2006: Testimony on the management options is taken during the Council meeting at the Doubletree Hotel Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.

Although non emergency issues not contained in the STT meeting agendas may come before the STT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STT action during these meetings. STT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issues arising after publication of this document requiring emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 (voice), or 503-820-2299 (fax) at least five days prior to the meeting date.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing pursuant to paragraph 5(A) of the Memorandum of Understanding agreement between the governments of the Republic of Belarus and the United States.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. See 69 FR 57270 (September 24, 2004).

In the letter to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection published below, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is directed to implement staged entry limits for Belarus for shipments in excess of 2005 agreement limits.

CITA has previously established a policy of only allowing entry of shipments in excess of quota limits once a new quota year has begun, and there is an agreement with the exporting country that allows overshipments to be charged to the subsequent year's quotas. In a Federal Register Notice published on June 25, 2004, CITA announced that it had come to CITA's attention that some textile and apparel products may be shipped in excess of agreed quota limits in 2004 with the expectation that those shipments will be allowed entry upon the expiration of the limits, and CITA noted that shipments exported in excess of agreed limits are a violation of the terms of those agreements. (69 FR 35586) In that Notice, CITA expressly reserved the right to deny entry to goods that have been shipped in excess of agreed limits or to stage entry for goods exported in excess of agreed limits. In the absence of an arrangement with Belarus to allow the entry in 2006 of overshipments of the 2005 textile agreement limits, to be charged to 2006 quota limits, and until such time as such an arrangement is agreed upon, shipments in excess of the 2005 limits for imports of textile products from Belarus will be subject to delayed and staged entry.

For all shipments exported in 2005 that exceed the applicable 2005 agreed quota limits from Belarus, entry will not be permitted until February 1, 2006. From February 1 through February 28, 2006, entry will be permitted to goods in an amount equal to 5 percent of the applicable 2005 base quota limit. For each succeeding month, beginning on the first day of the month and extending through the last day of the month, entry will be permitted to goods in an amount equal to 5 percent of the applicable base 2005 quota limit, until all shipments in excess of the quota limits have been entered.

The 5 percent staged entry limits described above are published in the following letter to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Comments on the SURTASS LFA Draft SEIS should be addressed to Mr. J.S. Johnson, Program Manager, 4100 Fairfax Drive, Suite 730, Arlington, VA 22203. Comments can also be sent via e-mail to eisteam@mindspring.com . All comments will be addressed in the Final SEIS.

An electronic copy of the Draft SEIS, as well as further information on SURTASS LFA, is available on the Internet at http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com .

Comments on the USWTR Draft EIS should be addressed to Mr. Keith Jenkins, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, (Code EV21KJ), 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, VA 23508-1278; Fax 757-322-4894. All comments will be addressed in the Final EIS.

An electronic copy of the Draft EIS, as well as further information on USWTR, is available on the Internet at http://projects.earthtech.com/uswtr.

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 IC Clearance Official, 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: New.

Title: Evaluation of Reading Comprehension Interventions.

Frequency: Semi-Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The Evaluation of Reading Comprehension Interventions addresses the questions of whether reading comprehension interventions can improve student reading achievement in content subject areas and what interventions are most effective.

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 2912. 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 Kim.Rudolph@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 electronically mailed to the e-mail address IC_DocketMgr@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.

We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed priorities and requirements. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities and eligibility requirements, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority or requirement that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities and requirements. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed priorities and requirements in room 4W229, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities and requirements. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

PIRC projects help implement successful and effective parental involvement policies, programs, and activities that lead to improvements in student academic achievement and strengthen partnerships among parents, teachers, principals, administrators, and other school personnel in meeting the education needs of children. Section 5563(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), describes project requirements for the recipients of PIRC grants, including requirements to serve both rural and urban areas; to use at least one-half of the funds awarded to a project to serve areas with high concentrations of low-income children; and to use at least 30 percent of the funds awarded to a project to establish, expand, or operate early childhood parent education programs.

In this notice, we are proposing four separate priorities. We are also proposing eligibility requirements that define the nonprofit organizations that may apply and clarify the types of entities that may serve as the applicant and fiscal agent if the application is submitted by a consortium that includes a nonprofit organization and one or more local educational agencies (LEAs).

The first and second proposed priorities, addressing the geographic distribution of awards and statewide impact, respectively, would help ensure that, to the extent possible, PIRC project services would be widely available.

Proposed Priority 1, Geographic Distribution of Awards, is designed to help ensure that there will be a high-quality PIRC in most or all States. The highest-ranking application from a State would receive priority for an award, provided that the application is of sufficient quality that the proposed project will likely succeed in meeting the purposes of the PIRC program, in implementing effective activities, and in achieving intended results. Additionally, we are proposing that to meet this proposed priority an applicant must provide services in a single State only.

Under the ESEA, each State establishes its own policies, standards, and requirements in a number of areas, including standards for adequate yearly progress under section 1111 of Title I of the ESEA, procedures for parental involvement and communication under section 1118 of Title I of the ESEA, and requirements related to supplemental educational services and other educational options available to parents under section 1116 of that title. It is important that there is a high-quality federally funded PIRC in most or all States to help ensure that PIRC services addressing these subject areas are tailored to the particular standards, policies, and requirements of the State in which the PIRC project operates.

Furthermore, the proposed priority would help ensure that PIRC grants would be distributed in all geographic regions of the United States, consistent with section 5562(b) of the ESEA.

Use of this priority would permit the Department to fund additional applications of exceptional quality from any State, even though only the highest-ranking application from a State could qualify for this priority.

Proposed Priority 2, Statewide Impact of PIRC Services, encourages projects that propose broad statewide services. Currently, some PIRCs operate on a statewide basis while others focus activities and services only on specific local communities. The Department believes that it is important that each PIRC provide statewide services.

This priority would help to ensure that parents from across a State, whether in urban or rural areas, would have access to information and essential services. A grantee could provide statewide services through a variety of approaches, including the Internet.

We believe that having PIRC projects with identifiable statewide responsibilities would help to facilitate the development of more effective relationships between PIRC projects and State educational agency officials, especially those responsible for the implementation of Title I of the ESEA.

Proposed Priority 2 would not restrict a project to providing services exclusively on a statewide basis. PIRC projects would continue to have the flexibility to include other activities that are tailored to meet the needs of particular communities, geographic regions, or LEAs in their State. Finally, the priority would not require that a project provide all services to all communities in the State, because such an approach would be impractical based on the resources that are likely to be available for PIRC grants.

Proposed Priority 3, Understanding State and Local Report Cards and Opportunities for Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services, builds on our experience in using a similar priority for the most recent PIRC program competition held in FY 2003. Through this priority, we would focus specifically on helping parents (particularly parents of children attending schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Title I of the ESEA) to understand the information contained in State and local report cards so that they can make informed decisions about the public school choice and supplemental educational services options that may be available to them to help their children achieve academically.

State and local school report cards are critical tools for promoting accountability for LEAs and schools and for helping parents see where schools and districts are succeeding and where there is still work to do. The more parents know about the academic achievement of their children and their schools, the more likely they are to be involved in their local schools and the public school system. Further, when parents are equipped with information on academic results, they can also make better decisions regarding the options for public school choice and supplemental educational services that are available to them.

(Guidance on report cards under Title I of the ESEA is available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/reportcardsguidance.doc ; guidance on supplemental educational services is available at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc ; and guidance on public school choice is available at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.doc .)

Proposed Priority 4, Technical Assistance in the Implementation of LEA and School Parental Involvement Policy under section 1118 of the ESEA helps to focus attention on the needs of school districts and schools that continue to face challenges in implementing effective policies and activities for parental involvement-especially for those activities that afford parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children and to contribute to their children's academic growth and improvement.

Research on effective parental involvement provides substantial evidence that families have a major influence on their children's achievement in school and through life. When schools, families, and community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in school, stay in school longer, and like school more.

Title I of the ESEA requires that parents be afforded substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children. Specifically, section 1118 of the ESEA provides the framework for parental involvement policies, plans, and activities at the local level. For example, section 1118 requires that every school district and every school receiving Title I funds have a written parental involvement policy; that LEAs and schools develop the written parental involvement policy jointly with parents of children participating in Title I programs; and that LEAs work in cooperation with their Title I schools to build the capacity of parents and school staff for strong parental involvement, which in turn should improve academic achievement.

We are also proposing to clarify the PIRC eligibility requirements. The history of the PIRC program has focused on the involvement of nonprofit organizations as applicants for awards under the PIRC program. Section 5563(b)(1) of the ESEA generally provides that any nonprofit organization that submits an application for a PIRC project must focus on parents in its governance or organizational interest. The references to the inclusion of parents and representation of the interests of parents in section 5563(b)(1) of the ESEA do not further define the types of parents to be included or represented. Other provisions in section 5563, as well as sections 5561, 5562 and 5564 of the ESEA, clarify that the parents whose interests are of concern to the PIRC program are parents of pre-school and school-aged children, including those parents who are educationally or economically disadvantaged.

The proposed eligibility requirements would define the term “nonprofit organization” for purposes of the PIRC program to clarify that in order to be an eligible applicant for a PIRC project, a nonprofit organization must, at a minimum, be one that either represents the interests of parents of pre-school and school-aged children, including parents who are educationally or economically disadvantaged or includes parents of pre-school and school-aged children, including parents who are educationally or economically disadvantaged, on the organization's board of directors.

Faith-based and community organizations that meet the standards in the proposed definition would continue to be eligible applicants for the PIRC program.

Additionally, section 5563(a) of the ESEA permits the submission of an application from a consortium that includes a nonprofit organization and one or more LEAs. In the case of an application from a consortium, we propose to require that a nonprofit organization serve as the applicant and fiscal agent. Under the proposed clarification, State and local governments, including LEAs, intermediate school districts, and schools, therefore, would not be eligible to submit an application on behalf of a consortium or serve as the fiscal agent of a PIRC grant.

We will announce the final priorities and eligibility requirements in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities and eligibility requirements after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding additional priorities or establishing additional requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

This proposed priority supports an application that meets the following three conditions:

(1) The application is the highest-ranking application proposing to implement a PIRC project in a State, based on the selection criteria and competitive preference priorities used for this competition.

(2) The application's PIRC project proposes to provide services only in that State.

(3) The application is of sufficient quality to show that the proposed project is likely to succeed in meeting the purposes of the PIRC program, in implementing effective activities, and in achieving intended results.

For the purpose of selecting applications under this priority, we use the definition of the term “State” in 34 CFR 77.1(c).

This proposed priority supports applications that would implement broad statewide strategies to provide parents from across the State, particularly parents who are educationally or economically disadvantaged, with services that enhance their ability to participate effectively in their child's education, including their ability to communicate effectively with public school personnel in the school that their child attends.

This priority supports applications that would implement activities that effectively assist parents in understanding State and local report cards under Title I of the ESEA and, in cases where their child attends a school identified as in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Title I, in understanding their options for public school choice or supplemental educational services.

This priority supports applications that would provide technical assistance in the implementation of LEA and school parental involvement policies under Title I of the ESEA in order to improve student academic achievement and school performance.

We propose to define the term “nonprofit organization” for purposes of the PIRC program as an organization that:

(1) Is owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity, as set forth in 34 CFR part 77; and

(2) Is an organization that:

(a) Represents the interests of parents of pre-school and school-age children (including parents who are educationally or economically disadvantaged); or

(b) Is governed by a board of directors whose membership includes such parents.

We also propose that for an application submitted by a consortium that includes a nonprofit organization and one or more LEAs, that the nonprofit organization must serve as the applicant and fiscal agent for the consortium. State and local governments, including LEAs, intermediate school districts, and schools, would not be eligible to submit an application on behalf of a consortium or serve as the fiscal agent of a PIRC grant.

This notice of proposed priorities and eligibility requirements has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed priorities and eligibility requirements are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed priorities and eligibility requirements, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities and requirements justify the costs.

We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

Summary of potential costs and benefits: The potential cost associated with these proposed priorities and eligibility requirements is minimal while the benefits are significant. Applicants may anticipate costs with completing the application process in terms of staff and partner time, copying, and mailing or delivery. The use of E-Application technology would reduce mailing and copying costs significantly.

The benefit of the proposed priorities and requirements is that they will help applicants prepare higher-quality proposals that are better focused on critical information needs for parents.

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

You may also view this document in text at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/programs/pirc/applicant.html .