Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from India and Thailand, (Final), Invs. 751-TA-28-29

=== Initiation === 3876 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2004 / Notices exceeding 80 percent must be forwarded to the National Office, Attn: Director, B&I Division, for review and consideration prior to obligation of the guaranteed loan. The Administrator will provide a written response to the State Office confirming approval or disapproval of the request. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Kieferle, Processing Branch Chief, Business and Industry Division, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, Stop 3224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20250–3224, telephone (202) 720–7818. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866. Dated: January 15, 2004. John Rosso, Administrator. [FR Doc. 04–1633 Filed 1–26–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 040114016–4016–01] Service Annual Survey AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of determination. SUMMARY: In accordance with Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 182, 224, and 225, the Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) has determined that limited financial data (revenue, expenses, and the like) for selected service industries are needed to provide a sound statistical basis for the formation of policy by various governmental agencies and that these data also apply to a variety of public and business needs. To obtain the desired data, the Census Bureau announces the administration of the Service Annual Survey. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth A. Bramblett, Chief, Current Services Branch, Service Sector Statistics Division, on (301) 763–7089. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Census Bureau conducts surveys necessary to furnish current data on subjects covered by the major censuses authorized by Title 13, U.S.C. The Service Annual Survey (SAS) provides continuing and timely national statistical data each year. Data collected in this survey are within the general scope, type, and character of those inquiries covered in the economic census. The Census Bureau needs reports only from a limited sample of service sector firms in the United States. The SAS now covers all or some of the following nine sectors: Transportation and Warehousing; Information; Finance and Insurance; Real Estate and Rental and Leasing; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; Administration and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services; Health Care and Social Assistance; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation; and Other Services. The probability of a firm’s selection is based on its revenue size (estimated from payroll); that is, firms with a larger payroll will have a greater probability of being selected than those with smaller ones. We are mailing report forms to the firms covered by this survey and require their submission within thirty days after receipt. These data are not publicly available from nongovernment or other government sources. Based upon the foregoing, the Census Bureau is conducting the Service Annual Survey for the purpose of collecting these data. 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 35, the OMB approved the Service Annual Survey under OMB Control Number 0607–0422. Copies of the proposed forms are available upon written request to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233. Dated: January 21, 2004. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. 04–1636 Filed 1–26–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1315] Grant of Authority; Establishment of a Foreign-Trade Zone, Lubbock, TX Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign- Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign- Trade Zones Board adopts the following Order: Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; Whereas, the City of Lubbock, Texas (the Grantee), has made application to the Board (FTZ Docket 41–2003, filed 8/ 18/03), requesting the establishment of a foreign-trade zone at sites in Lubbock, Texas, adjacent to the Lubbock Customs port of entry; Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (68 FR 51550, 8/27/03); and, Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner’s report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 260, at the sites described in the application, subject to the Act and the Board’s regulations, including section 400.28, and subject to the standard 2,000-acre activation limit. Signed at Washington, DC, this 14 day of January, 2004. Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, Chairman and Executive Officer. Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. 04–1696 Filed 1–26–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–351–838, A–331–802, A–533–840, A–549– 822, A–570–893, A–552–802] Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger at (202) 482–4136 VerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Jan 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 3877Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2004 / Notices 1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. (Brazil and Ecuador), Michael Strollo at 202–482–0629 (India and Thailand); Alex Villanueva at (202) 482–3208 (People’s Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam); Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation of Investigations The Petitions On December 31, 2003, the Department of Commerce ‘‘the Department’’ received petitions filed in proper form by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, an ad hoc coalition representative of U.S. producers of frozen and canned warmwater shrimp and harvesters of wild-caught warmwater shrimp ‘‘the petitioner’’. The petitioner filed amendments to the petitions on January 12, 2004. In accordance with section 732(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), the petitioner alleges that imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People’s Republic of China (‘‘the PRC’’) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), are, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the PRC and Vietnam, are materially injuring, or are threatening to materially injure, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(G) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the antidumping investigations that it is requesting the Department to initiate. See infra, ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions.’’ Scope of Investigations The scope of these investigations include certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen or canned, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm- raised (produced by aquaculture), head- on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail- on or tail-off,1 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen or canned form. The frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of the investigations, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through either freezing or canning and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of the investigations. In addition, food preparations, which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of the investigations. Excluded from the scope are (1) breaded shrimp and prawns (1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (1605.20.05.10); and (5) dried shrimp and prawns. The products covered by this scope are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings; 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, 1605.20.10.30, and 1605.20.10.40. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written descriptions of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. As discussed in the preamble to the Department’s regulations (Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration’s Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that the Department’s industry support determination, which is to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a domestic like product. In investigations involving some processed agricultural products, the statue allows the Department also to include producers of the raw agricultural product with the definition of the industry. See 771(4)(E) of the Act. For a full discussion, see the January 20, 2004, Memorandum to Joseph Spetrini and Jeffrey May from James Doyle, Norbert Gannon, Alex Villanueva, and Christopher Riker entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Petitions on Certain Frozen and Canned VerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Jan 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 3878 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2004 / Notices 2 See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988) (‘‘the ITC does not look behind ITA’s determination, but accepts ITA’s determination as to which merchandise is in the class of merchandise sold at LTFV’’). Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Domestic Like Product Analysis and Calculation of Industry Support’’ (‘‘DLP and Industry Support Memo’’). The International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for determining whether ≥the domestic industry≥ has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to the law.2 Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. In this case, the domestic like product referred to in the petition is the single domestic like product defined in the ‘‘Scope of Investigations’’ section, above. At this time, the Department has no basis on the record to find the petition’s definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate. The Department, therefore, has adopted the domestic like product definition set forth in the petition. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see the DLP and Industry Support Memo. Moreover, the Department has determined that the petition contains adequate evidence of industry support; therefore, polling was unnecessary (see DLP and Industry Support Memo). Specifically, based on the analysis contained in the DLP and Industry Support Memo, the Department finds that producers supporting the petition represent over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product. Accordingly, the Department determines that this petition is filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. Export Price and Normal Value The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate these investigations. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. and foreign market prices, constructed value (‘‘CV’’), and factors of production are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific Initiation Checklists, as appropriate. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we will re-examine the information and revise the margin calculations. Regarding an investigation involving a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) country, the Department presumes, based on the extent of central government control in an NME, that a single dumping margin, should there be one, is appropriate for all NME exporters in the given country. In the course of these investigations, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of a country’s NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994). Brazil Export Price The anticipated period of investigation ‘‘POI’’ for Brazil is October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. The petitioner based export price (‘‘EP’’) on average unit values (‘‘AUVs’’) of headless, shell-on, frozen warmwater shrimp for the POI from official U.S. import statistics. As the AUVs used were net of international freight, insurance and import charges, no further deductions were made to derive U.S. prices. See the Initiation Checklist. Normal Value The petitioner based normal value (‘‘NV’’) on home market ex-factory price quotes from Brazilian producers of head-on, shell-on frozen warmwater shrimp which it obtained from market research. See the January 16, 2004, Memorandum to the File from David Goldberger and Jim Nunno entitled ‘‘Telephone Conversation with Foreign Market Researcher.’’ These prices were adjusted to reflect headless, shell-on frozen warmwater shrimp, comparable to that which is imported into the United States. The petitioner made currency conversions based on the average of the daily real/U.S. dollar exchange rates as posted on the Department’s Web site. See the Initiation Checklist. The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on comparisons of EP to NV, ranged from 32 percent to 349 percent. Ecuador Export Price The anticipated POI for Ecuador is October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. The petitioner based EP on AUVs of headless, shell-on, frozen warmwater shrimp for the POI from official U.S. import statistics. As the AUVs used were net of international freight, insurance and import charges, no further deductions were made to derive U.S. prices. See the Initiation Checklist. Normal Value During the course of the initiation, the petitioner placed on the record information which indicated that there is no viable home market for certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Ecuador because nearly all shrimp produced in Ecuador is produced for the export market. We confirmed this information based on our conversation with the market researcher. See the January 16, 2004, Memorandum to the File from David Goldberger and Jim Nunno entitled ‘‘Telephone Conversation with Foreign Market Researcher.’’ In selecting the third-country market, the petitioner chose Italy because: 1) it is the largest third-country market for scope merchandise outside of the United States during the POI; 2) the aggregate quantity of scope merchandise sold by Ecuadorian exporters to Italy accounted for more than five percent of the aggregate quantity of the scope merchandise sold in the United States; and 3) the product sold to the Italian market is comparable to the product which served as the basis for EP. After examining this evidence, we found the petitioner’s selection of Italy as the comparison market to be reasonable. The petitioner based NV on prices published by the Torino, Italy Chamber of Commerce for the same count sizes upon which it based EP. These prices were adjusted to reflect headless, shell- on shrimp, comparable to that which is imported into the United States. The petitioner further adjusted these prices VerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Jan 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 3879Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2004 / Notices by deducting importer and wholesaler mark-ups, import charges and international freight. Finally, the petitioner made currency conversions based on the average of the daily euro/ U.S. dollar exchange rates as posted on the Department’s Web site. See the Initiation Checklist. The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on comparisons of EP to NV, ranged from 85 percent to 166 percent. India Export Price The anticipated POI for India is October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. The petitioner based EP on AUVs of headless, shell-on, frozen warmwater shrimp for the POI from official U.S. import statistics. Although the AUVs used were net of international freight, insurance and import charges, the petitioner made a deduction for import charges, as well as foreign inland freight, to derive U.S. prices. We adjusted the petitioner’s EP calculation by not deducting an amount for foreign inland freight and U.S. import expenses because the petitioner either provided inadequate support to deduct these expenses from EP in the petition, or the starting price did not include them. See the Initiation Checklist. Normal Value The petitioner claims that the home market is not viable for purposes of calculating normal value. Section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Department may determine that home market sales are inappropriate as a basis for determining normal value if the particular market situation would not permit a proper comparison. In the petition, the petitioner placed on the record information which indicated that virtually all of the frozen and canned warmwater shrimp sold in the home market is of non-export quality. We confirmed this information based on our conversations with the market researcher. See the January 16, 2004, Memorandum to the File from Alice Gibbons and Jim Nunno entitled ‘‘Telephone Conversations with Foreign Market Researcher.’’ Because the home market does not constitute a valid basis for calculating normal value, the petitioner provided sales of warmwater shrimp to India’s largest export market, Japan. According to the petitioner, this is consistent with the Department’s prior practice. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 31411, 31418 (June 9, 1998). Although we have accepted the petitioner’s claim for purposes of initiating this case, we will continue to examine the issue of home market viability as this case progresses. In selecting the third-country market, the petitioner chose Japan because: 1) it is the largest third-country market for scope merchandise outside of the United States during the POI; 2) the aggregate quantity of scope merchandise sold by Indian exporters to Japan accounted for more than five percent of the aggregate quantity of the scope merchandise sold in the United States; and 3) the product sold to the Japanese market is comparable to the product which served as the basis for EP. After examining this evidence, we found the petitioner’s selection of Japan as the comparison market to be reasonable. The petitioner based NV on publicly listed price quotations from the Tokyo Central Wholesale Market for the same count sizes upon which it based EP. These prices were adjusted to reflect headless, shell-on and frozen warmwater shrimp, comparable to that which is imported into the United States. The petitioner further adjusted NV by deducting import charges. We revised the petitioner’s calculation of the average yen/U.S. dollar exchange rate by calculating a simple average of the daily rates as posted on the Department’s Web site rather than monthly averages as posted on the Federal Reserve’s Web site. In addition, as noted in the EP section above, we adjusted the petitioner’s calculation by not deducting an amount for foreign inland freight expenses. Because the proposed foreign inland freight adjustment to NV is based on the identical information as the proposed adjustment to EP, we similarly find that the petitioner provided inadequate support to substantiate this adjustment. Therefore, we have also not deducted foreign inland freight expenses from NV. See the Initiation Checklist. Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the petitioner provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Indian producers in the relevant foreign market were made at prices below the cost of production (‘‘COP’’) and, accordingly, requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-COP investigation in connection with this investigation. The Statement of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’), submitted to the Congress in connection with the interpretation and application of the URAA, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or producers. SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 833 (1994). The SAA, at 833, states that ‘‘Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.’’ Further, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains the requirement that the Department have ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or suspect’’ that below-cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question are at below-cost prices. Id. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (‘‘COM’’); selling, general, and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’); financial expenses; and packing expenses. Here, the petitioner calculated the COM based on its own production experience, adjusted for known differences between costs to produce frozen and canned warmwater shrimp in the United States and in India using publically available information. Specifically, for fresh shrimp, the petitioner used consumption rates published by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The petitioner used the U.S. producers’ own consumption rates for other raw materials, direct labor and energy. To adjust the U.S. producers’ costs associated with fresh shrimp, the petitioner relied upon market research. To adjust the U.S. producers’ costs associated with sodium tripolyphosphate and packing materials, the petitioner relied upon Indian import statistics as published by the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry. To adjust the U.S. producers’ costs associated with labor, the petitioner relied upon Government of India Labor Bureau statistics. To adjust the U.S. producers’ costs associated with utilities, the petitioner relied upon Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (‘‘OECD’’) statistics. The petitioner relied upon its own overhead costs, except for depreciation, which was based on the 2002 financial statements of two Indian seafood processors. To calculate SG&A and financial expense, the petitioner relied upon the 2002 financial statements of two Indian seafood processors. Based on a comparison of the Japanese market prices for frozen and canned warmwater shrimp to the COP calculated in the petition, we find VerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Jan 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 3880 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2004 / Notices 3 The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and remains in effect for purposes of the initiation and this investigation. Therefore, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with 773(c) of the Act. 4 As noted in the India section of this notice, the Indian home market for warmwater shrimp is not viable. However, this situation does not lessen India’s ability to be properly designated as the appropriate primary surrogate country for the PRC and Vietnam. Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, an appropriate surrogate country is a market economy country that is (A) at a level of comparable economic development to the NME country, and (B) a significant producer of comparable merchandise. India is economically comparable to both the PRC and Vietnam, and India is the second largest producer of shrimp in the world after the PRC. See Petition at Volume I, page 8. It follows that India is an appropriate surrogate for purposes of this initiation and these investigations. reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country- wide cost investigation relating to third- country sales to Japan. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner also based NV for sales in the United States on CV. The petitioner calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A, and financial expense figures used to compute the Japanese third-country market costs. The petitioner did not include any amount for profit. Therefore, CV is equivalent to COP. Based on the changes noted above, the recalculated dumping margins for certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from India range from 82.30 percent to 110.90 percent. People’s Republic of China Export Price The anticipated POI for the PRC is April 1, 2003, through September 30, 2003. The petitioner based EP on AUVs of headless, shell-on, frozen warmwater shrimp for the POI from official U.S. import statistics. As the AUVs used were net of international freight, insurance and import charges, no further deductions for these expenses were made to derive U.S. prices. See the Initiation Checklist. Normal Value The PRC is an NME country and no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department. See the Initiation Checklist. In accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country has at one time been considered an NME shall remain in effect until revoked. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 27530, 27531 (May 20, 2003) (‘‘Saccharin’’).3 Accordingly, the petitioner provided a dumping margin calculation using the Department’s NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C). The petitioner based NV on factors of production. The petitioner asserted that it did not have specific, reliable information on the factors of production incurred for subject merchandise in the PRC. Therefore, the petitioner relied upon an average of factors of production ratios used in the United States for the NV calculation. Specifically, the petition used production factors provided by several U.S. warmwater shrimp processors. See the petitioner’s January 12 submission at Attachment A. The petitioner argues that because these companies are significant producers of the domestic like product, their experience is an appropriate model for estimating the costs of PRC manufacturers. The model accounts for the amount of each manufacturing input required to produce one pound of frozen warmwater shrimp. The main factor is raw warmwater shrimp; however, other factors of production included in the NV calculation are: tripolyphosphate, labor, electricity, water, overhead and packing materials. See the Initiation Checklist. The petitioner selected India as the surrogate country. The petitioner argued that, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, India is an appropriate surrogate because it is a market-economy country that is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.4 Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe that its use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation. See the Initiation Checklist. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner valued factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate country data. To value certain raw materials, the petitioner used official Indian government import statistics, excluding those values from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries and excluding imports into India from Indonesia, Korea and Thailand, in light of the prevalence of export subsidies in those countries. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrovanadium from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 71137, 71139 (Nov. 29, 2002). For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the POI (i.e., April 2003 - September 2003), the petitioner used information from the wholesale price indices (‘‘WPI’’) in India as published in the International Financial Statistics by the International Monetary Fund to determine the appropriate adjustments for inflation. In addition, the petitioner made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI. To value raw warmwater shrimp, the major input, the petitioner used a market researcher to determined the cost of shrimp in India. See the January 16, 2004, Memorandum to the File from John LaRose and Jim Nunno entitled ‘‘Telephone Conversation with Foreign Market Researcher.’’ The research was conducted in Mumbai, India and completed in December 2003. Sodium tripolyphosphate and packing materials were valued by the petitioner using Indian import statistics, as reported in the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India. The price information from the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India represents cumulative import values for the period April 2002 to March 2003. To value water, the petitioner calculated a surrogate value based on price data in India as reported by the Second Water Utilities Data Book, Asian and Pacific Region, published by the Asian Development Bank. Electricity in India was valued by the petitioner using the OECD Energy Prices and Taxes data. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department calculates and publishes the surrogate values for labor to be used in NME cases. Therefore, to value labor, the petitioner relied on published wage rates and a labor rate of $0.83 per hour. The petitioner calculated surrogate financial ratios (depreciation, SG&A and profit) using the 2001 financial statements of two Indian seafood processors that process marine products. To calculate a single surrogate ratio for overhead, depreciation, SG&A, and profit, the petitioner calculated a simple average for the two Indian seafood processors. In its calculation of the surrogate profit and financial expenses, the petitioner included a zero value expense when averaging the experiences of the two Indian seafood processors. However, it is the Department’s practice not to average a zero expense into the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From Australia, Greece, Ireland, Japan, South Africa and the People’s Republic of VerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Jan 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 3881Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2004 / Notices 5 The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and remains in effect for purposes of the initiation and this investigation. Therefore, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with 773(c) of the Act. China, 68 FR 51551 (Aug. 27, 2003) (‘‘EMD’’). Therefore, the Department has recalculated the surrogate financial ratios. See the Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. In addition, the petitioner included U.S. producer costs in the normal value calculation of non- depreciation overhead because they were unable to identify those unique costs in the Indian surrogate company financial statements. However, section 773(c)(4) of the Act states that ‘‘{t}he administering authority, in valuing factors of production under paragraph (1), shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economies that are (A) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the non market economy, and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.’’ Therefore, U.S. prices or costs are not appropriate for use as surrogate values. See, e.g., Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany, Japan, the Peoples Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore, 67 FR 61591 (Oct. 1, 2002) and accompanying Initiation Checklist at page 19 (‘‘PVA’’). The ultimate goal of the Department’s margin calculations is to achieve the greatest accuracy possible. The Department has found no evidence on the record showing that non-depreciation overhead is not included in the overhead figures of the Indian surrogate company financial statements. Therefore, to be conservative, the Department has determined that the U.S. producer costs for non-depreciation overhead should not be included in the normal value calculation. See the Initiation Checklist. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated recalculated dumping margins for certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from the PRC range from 112.81 percent to 263.68 percent. Thailand Export Price The anticipated POI for Thailand is October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. The petitioner based EP on AUVs of frozen, cooked and peeled shrimp for the POI from official U.S. import statistics. Although the AUVs used were net of international freight, insurance and import charges, the petitioner made a deduction for import charges, as well as foreign inland freight, to derive U.S. prices. We adjusted the petitioner’s EP calculation by not deducting amounts for foreign inland freight and U.S. import expenses because the petitioner either provided inadequate support for these expenses in the petition, or the starting price did not include them. See the Initiation Checklist. Normal Value In the petition, the petitioner placed on the record information which indicated that there is no viable home market for certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Thailand because the Thai market purchases only fresh (i.e., live, unchilled or else chilled, unprocessed) or traditional household industry-produced dried shrimp. We confirmed this information based on our conversation with the market researcher. See the January 16, 2004, Memorandum to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood and Jim Nunno entitled ‘‘Telephone Conversation with Foreign Market Researcher.’’ In selecting the third-country market, the petitioner chose Japan because: 1) it is the largest third-country market for scope merchandise outside of the United States during the POI; 2) the aggregate quantity of scope merchandise sold by Thai exporters to Japan accounted for more than five percent of the aggregate quantity of the scope merchandise sold in the United States; and 3) the product sold to the Japanese market is comparable to the product which served as the basis for EP. After examining this evidence, we found the petitioner’s selection of Japan as the comparison market to be reasonable. The petitioner based NV on AUVs of Thai exports of frozen, cooked shrimp to Japan during the POI. We revised the petitioner’s calculation of the average yen/U.S. dollar exchange rate by calculating a simple average of the daily rates as posted on the Department’s Web site rather than monthly averages as posted on the Federal Reserve’s Web site. In addition, as noted in the EP section above, we adjusted the petitioner’s calculation by not deducting an amount for foreign inland freight expenses. Because the proposed foreign inland freight adjustment to NV is based on the identical information as the proposed adjustment to EP, we similarly find that the petitioner provided inadequate support to substantiate this adjustment. Therefore, we have also not deducted foreign inland freight expenses from NV. See the Initiation Checklist. Based on the changes noted above, the recalculated dumping margin for certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Thailand is 57.64 percent. Vietnam Export Price The anticipated POI for the PRC is April 1, 2003, through September 30, 2003. The petitioner based EP on AUVs of headless, shell-on, frozen warmwater shrimp for the POI from official U.S. import statistics. As the AUVs used were net of international freight, insurance and import charges, no further deductions for these expenses were made to derive U.S. prices. See the Initiation Checklist. Normal Value Vietnam is an NME country and no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department. In accordance with section 771(18) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country has at one time been considered an NME shall remain in effect until revoked. See the Initiation Checklist. See, e.g., Saccharin, 68 FR at 27531.5 Accordingly, the petitioner provided a dumping margin calculation using the Department’s NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C). The petitioner based NV on factors of production. The petitioner asserted that it did not have specific, reliable information on the factors of production incurred for subject merchandise in Vietnam. Therefore, the petitioner relied upon an average of factors of production ratios used in the United States for the NV calculation. Specifically, the petition used production factors provided by several U.S. warmwater shrimp processors. The petitioner argues that, because these companies are significant producers of the domestic like product, their experience is an appropriate model for estimating the costs of Vietnamese manufacturers. The model accounts for the amount of each manufacturing input required to produce one pound of frozen warmwater shrimp. The main factor is raw warmwater shrimp, however, other factors of production included in the NV calculation are: tripolyphosphate, labor, electricity, water, overhead and packing materials. See the Initiation Checklist. The petitioner selected India as the surrogate country. The petitioner argued that, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, India is an appropriate surrogate because it is a market-economy country VerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Jan 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 3882 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2004 / Notices 6 As noted in the India section of this notice, the Indian home market for warmwater shrimp is not viable. However, this situation does not lessen India’s ability to be properly designated as the appropriate primary surrogate country for the PRC and Vietnam. Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, an appropriate surrogate country is a market economy country that is (A) at a level of comparable economic development to the NME country, and (B) a significant producer of comparable merchandise. India is economically comparable to both the PRC and Vietnam, and India is the second largest producer of shrimp in the world after the PRC. See Petition at Volume I, page 8. It follows that India is an appropriate surrogate for purposes of this initiation and these investigations. that is at a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.6 Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe that the petitioner’s use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation. See the Initiation Checklist. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner valued factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate country data. To value certain raw materials, the petitioner used official Indian government import statistics, excluding those values from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries and excluding imports into India from Indonesia, Korea and Thailand, in light of the prevalence of export subsidies in those countries. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrovanadium from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 71137, 71139 (Nov. 29, 2002). For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the POI (i.e., April 2003 - September 2003), the petitioner used information from the WPI in India as published in the International Financial Statistics by the International Monetary Fund to determine the appropriate adjustments for inflation. In addition, the petitioner made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the average rupee/ U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI. To value raw warmwater shrimp, the major input, the petitioner used a market researcher to determine the cost of shrimp in India. The research was conducted in Mumbai, India and completed in December 2003. See the January 16, 2004, Memorandum to the File from Paul Walker and Jim Nunno entitled ‘‘Telephone Conversation with Foreign Market Researcher.’’ Sodium tripolyphosphate and packing materials were valued by the petitioner using Indian import statistics, as reported in the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India. The price information from the Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India represents cumulative import values for the period April 2002 to March 2003. To value water, the petitioner calculated a surrogate value based on price data in India as reported by the Second Water Utilities Data Book, Asian and Pacific Region, published by the Asian Development Bank. Electricity in India was valued by the petitioner using the OECD Energy Prices and Taxes data. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department calculates and publishes the surrogate values for labor to be used in NME cases. Therefore, to value labor, the petitioner relied on published wage rates and a labor rate of $0.63 per hour. The petitioner calculated surrogate financial ratios (depreciation, SG&A and profit) using the 2001 financial statements of two Indian seafood processors that process marine products. To calculate a single surrogate ratio for overhead, depreciation, SG&A, and profit, the petitioner calculated a simple average for the two Indian seafood processors. In its calculation of the surrogate profit and financial expenses, the petitioner included a zero value expense when averaging the experiences of the two Indian seafood processors. However, it is the Department’s practice not to average a zero expense into the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios. See EMD. Therefore, the Department has recalculated the surrogate financial ratios. See the Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. In addition, the petitioner included U.S. producer costs in the normal value calculation of non-depreciation overhead because they were unable to identify those unique costs in the Indian surrogate company financial statements. However, section 773(c)(4) of the Act states that ‘‘{t}he administering authority, in valuing factors of production under paragraph (1), shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economies that are (A) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the non market economy, and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.’’ Therefore, U.S. prices or costs are not appropriate for use as surrogate values. See, e.g., PVA. The ultimate goal of the Department’s margin calculations is to achieve the greatest accuracy possible. The Department has found no evidence on the record showing that non- depreciation overhead is not included in the overhead figures of the Indian surrogate company financial statements. Therefore, to be conservative, the Department has determined that the U.S. producer costs for non-depreciation overhead should not be included in the normal value calculation. See the Initiation Checklist. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated recalculated dumping margins for certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Vietnam range from 25.76 percent to 93.13 percent. Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the PRC and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation With regard to Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the PRC, and Vietnam, the petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. The petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is evident in the declining trends in market share, net operating profits, net sales volumes and revenues, and production employment. These factors apply to both the firms that produce frozen and canned warmwater shrimp, and the harvesters and growers of the raw agricultural product, wild-caught and farm-raised warmwater shrimp. The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including information from U.S. import statistics, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a commodity news reporting agency, industry surveys, and press reports from a variety of sources. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. See the Initiation Checklists. Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon our examination of the petitions on certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp, we have found that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil, VerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Jan 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 3883Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2004 / Notices Ecuador, India, Thailand, the PRC, and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this deadline is extended pursuant to section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of each petition has been provided to the representatives of the governments of Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the PRC, and Vietnam. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of each petition to each exporter named in the petitions, as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiations as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than February 17, 2004, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the PRC and Vietnam are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: January 20, 2004. James Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 04–1698 Filed 1–26–04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427–818] Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Schepker or Carol Henninger at (202) 482–1756 or (202) 482–3003, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement Office 5, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium from France for the period July 13, 2001 to January 31, 2003 (the POR). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Eurodif, S.A. (Eurodif), Compagnie Ge´ne´rale Des Matie´res Nucle´aires (COGEMA) and COGEMA, Inc. (collectively, COGEMA/Eurodif or the respondent), have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the constructed export price (CEP) and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 13, 2002, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium from France. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium from France, 67 FR 6680 (February 13, 2002). On February 3, 2003, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request the first administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 68 FR 5272 (February 3, 2003). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), COGEMA/Eurodif, a French producer of subject merchandise, requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium from France on February 3, 2003. On February 28, 2003, United States Enrichment Corporation and USEC, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of subject merchandise, also requested an administrative review. On March 25, 2003, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review, covering the period July 13, 2001, through January 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 14394 (March 25, 2003). On April 4, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to COGEMA/Eurodif. We received timely responses to all sections of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated supplemental questionnaires. Based on a timely allegation filed by the petitioner on June 20, 2003, we initiated a major input investigation with regard to the respondent’s purchases of electricity from an affiliated party. On October 27, 2003, the Department published a notice extending the time limit for the preliminary results. See Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 61184 (October 27, 2003). The time limit for the preliminary results was subsequently further extended to January 20, 2004. See Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 69994 (December 16, 2003). Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) with a U235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down- blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U3O8) with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO2) and/or VerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Jan 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling (Revised) === 55918 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices Commission on or before February 23, 2006. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on February 27, 2006, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. Written submissions.—Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is February 21, 2006. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is March 13, 2006; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before March 13, 2006. On April 4, 2006, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before April 6, 2006, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: September 19, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–18988 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 751–TA–28–29] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns From India and Thailand AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Revised schedule for the subject investigations. EFFECTIVE DATE : September 16, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Jim McClure (202–205–3191), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On May 5, 2005, the Commission published notice (70 FR 23884) of its institution of and schedule for investigations to be conducted pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)) (the Act) to review its determinations in investigation Nos. 731–TA–1066–1067 (Final). In that notice, the Commission found good cause existed to waive rule 207.45(c), concerning the time for completion of changed circumstances review investigations, and established a completion deadline of October 31, 2005. The Commission has now found that good cause exists to extend further the completion date for these review investigations, and has set a deadline for completion of these reviews of November 21, 2005. The Commission’s new schedule for the investigations is as follows: The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 5, 2005; the Commission will make its final release of information on October 25, 2005; and final party comments are due on October 28, 2005. For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: September 16, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–18989 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–550] In the Matter of Certain Modified Vaccinia Ankara (‘‘MVA’’) Viruses and Vaccines and Pharmaceutical Compositions Based Thereon; Notice of Investigation AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:21 Sep 22, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Institution === 23884 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 86 / Thursday, May 5, 2005 / Notices Bahar, J.D., Technology Licensing Specialist, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852–3804. Telephone: (301) 435–2950; Facsimile: (301) 402– 0220; E-mail: baharm@od.nih.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The above-mentioned patent applications describe the human protein Brother of Regulator of Imprinted Sites (‘‘BORIS’’), and a method of detecting cancer by monitoring BORIS expression or by detecting anti-BORIS antibodies. Dr. Victor V. Lobanenkov and colleagues at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases discovered BORIS and its potential application as a cancer diagnostic. BORIS is a paralog of CCCTC-binding factor (‘‘CTCF’’), a transcription factor that also functions in chromatin insulation. The amino acid sequences of BORIS and CTCF contain eleven conserved zinc fingers each of which binds to DNA. BORIS protein can be detected in cancer cells, and importantly, it is one of a few cancer- testis antigens that are immunogenic in humans. BORIS resides in 20q13.2, a region that is commonly amplified in many human cancers. Normally, BORIS mRNA can be detected in testis, but not in other human tissues. However, BORIS mRNA is detectable in over one hundred cancer cell lines representing most of the major forms of human tumors and is also detectable in primary breast cancer tumor samples, but not in controls. BORIS protein is mis- expressed in cancer cell lines, and antibodies against BORIS have been detected in serum from patients with gliomas, lung, breast, or prostate cancers but not in serum from controls. The correlation between cancer and BORIS expression indicates that detection of aberrantly expressed BORIS and/or anti-BORIS antibodies could serve as a method of screening or diagnosing cancer. In patients already known to have cancer, expression of BORIS could be monitored to measure a patient’s response to a particular therapeutic regimen. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within sixty (60) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. Dated: April 27, 2005. Steven M. Ferguson, Director, Division of Technology Development and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health. [FR Doc. 05–8967 Filed 5–4–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140–01–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 751–TA–28–29] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns From India and Thailand AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Institution and scheduling of review investigations concerning the Commission’s affirmative determinations in investigations Nos. 731–TA–1066–1067 (Final), Certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted investigations pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)) (the Act) to review its determinations in investigations Nos. 731–TA–1066–1067 (Final). The purpose of the investigations is to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States. Certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand are provided for in subheadings 0306.13.00 and 1605.20.10 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, C, D, and E (19 CFR part 207). DATES : Effective May 5, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Jim McClure (202–205–3191), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—On December 17, 2004, the Department of Commerce determined that imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673) (69 FR 76916, 76918, December 23, 2004); and on January 6, 2005 the Commission determined, pursuant to section 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)(1)), that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of such LTFV merchandise. Accordingly, Commerce ordered that antidumping duties be imposed on such imports (70 FR 5143, February 1, 2005). On January 6, 2005, when the Commission conducted its vote in these investigations, it stated that it was concerned about the possible impact of the December 26, 2004, tsunami on the shrimp industries of India and Thailand. The tsunami occurred prior to the closing of the record in these investigations on December 27, 2004. At the time the record closed, however, factual information as to any impact of the tsunami on the ability of producers in India or Thailand to produce and export shrimp was not available. On February 8, 2005, the Commission published a Federal Register notice (70 FR 6728) inviting comments from the public on whether changed circumstances exist sufficient to warrant the institution of changed circumstances reviews of the Commission’s affirmative determinations concerning certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand. The Commission received 23 submissions in response to its Federal Register notice soliciting comments. Commenters that supported institution of changed circumstances reviews include Seafood Exporters Association of India, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India, the Department of Foreign Trade of the Royal Thai VerDate jul<14>2003 13:10 May 04, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM 05MYN1 23885Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 86 / Thursday, May 5, 2005 / Notices Government, Sen. John Ensign, and Rep. William M. Thomas. Commenters that opposed institution of a changed circumstances review are the Ad Hoc Shrimp Action Committee, Versaggi Shrimp Corp., and Indian Ridge Shrimp Co., who were petitioners in the original investigations, Sen. Trent Lott, Sen. Mary Landrieu, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Sen. Richard Shelby, Sen. David Vitter, Rep. Walter B. Jones, Rep. Charlie Melancon, the governors of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, and Joseph Francis, a commercial fisherman from Ruston, Washington. The Alabama House of Representatives submitted a resolution it passed opposing institution of a review. The U.S. Department of State submitted a factual report on the impact of the tsunami on the Thai shrimp industry. On April 25, 2005, after reviewing the comments it received in response to that request, the Commission determined that it had received information which showed changed circumstances sufficient to warrant instituting review investigations and that there was good cause for instituting such review investigations within two years after publication of the orders. The Commission has further determined, pursuant to section 201.4(b) of the Commission rules, that there is good and sufficient reason in these proceedings to waive the provisions of section 207.45(c) of the Commission rules stating that changed circumstances review investigations be completed within 120 days of publication of the notice of institution and, instead, has set a deadline for completion of these reviews of October 31, 2005. Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on August 31, 2005, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission’s rules. Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on September 14, 2005, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before September 8, 2005. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on September 12, 2005, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing. Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is September 7, 2005. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is September 21, 2005; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations on or before September 21, 2005. On October 11, 2005, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before October 14, 2005, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.45 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: April 29, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–8970 Filed 5–4–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate jul<14>2003 13:10 May 04, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM 05MYN1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Determination === 71557Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Notices 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Persons wishing further information concerning this meeting, or who wish to submit written Statements, may contact Kevin Brandt, Superintendent, C&O Canal National Historic Park, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection six weeks after the meeting at park headquarters, Hagerstown, Maryland. Dated: October 31, 2005. Kevin D. Brandt, Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. [FR Doc. 05–23383 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–52–M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Schedule of Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee Meetings AGENCY : National Park Service, Department of the Interior. ACTION : Notice of upcoming scheduled meetings. SUMMARY : This notice announces a schedule of upcoming meetings for the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee. DATES : The meetings are scheduled for: December 6, 2005, February 8, 2006, April 4, 2006, June 7, 2006, August 8, 2006, October 4, 2006 and December 5, 2006. Time: All scheduled meetings will begin at 6 p.m. ADDRESSES : All scheduled meetings will be held at Sylvan Lake Park, 845 Lake Markham Rd., Sanford, FL 32771. Sylvan Lake Park is located off Interstate 4 at Exit 51 (SR 46). Take SR 46 West to Lake Markham Rd. Turn left on Lake Markham Rd and continue one mile to Sylvan Lake Park on the left. Call (407) 322–6567 or visit http:// www.seminolecountyfl.gov/lls/parks/ parkInfo.asp?id=20 for additional information on this facility. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Jamie Fosburgh, Rivers Program Manager, Northeast Region—Boston, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, telephone number (617) 223–5191. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The scheduled meetings will be open to the public. Each scheduled meeting will result in decisions and steps that advance the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee towards its objective of developing a comprehensive General Management Plan for the Wekiva Wild and Scenic River. Any member of the public may file with the Committee a written statement concerning any issues relating to the development of the General Management Plan for the Wekiva Wild and Scenic River. The statement should be addressed to the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee, National Park Service, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109. The Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee was established by Public Law 106–299 to assist in the development of the comprehensive management plan for the Wekiva River System and provide advice to the Secretary in carrying out management responsibilities of the Secretary under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274). Dated: November 2, 2005. Jamie Fosburgh, Rivers Program Manager. [FR Doc. 05–23384 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–52–M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Extension of Comment Period for Draft National Park Service Management Policies AGENCY : National Park Service, Interior. ACTION : Notice of extension of comment period. SUMMARY : The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing to update the policies that guide the management of the National Park System. Original notice of availability of the draft updated ‘‘Management Policies’’ was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2005 [70 FR 60852, October 19, 2005]. That notice stated that comments would be accepted through January 19, 2006. This notice extends the comment period an additional 30 days, through February 18, 2006. DATES : Written comments will be accepted until February 18, 2006. ADDRESSES : The draft ‘‘Management Policies’’ document is available on the Internet at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/ waso. Hard copies may be reviewed in the Department of the Interior library (at the C Street entrance of the Main Interior Building, Washington, DC); at NPS regional offices in Philadelphia, PA; Oakland, CA; Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; Omaha, NE; and Anchorage, AK; and at most units of the National Park System around the country. A limited number of single hard copies of the draft may be obtained by calling 202–208–7456. Comments can be submitted in the following ways: 1. Via the Web page at http:// parkplanning.nps.gov/waso. This is the preferred way. 2. Via e-mail to waso_policy@nps.gov. Or, 3. Via surface mail to Bernard Fagan, National Park Service, Office of Policy, Room 7252, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Bernard Fagan at (202) 208–7456, or via e-mail at waso_policy@nps.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The policies that guide the management of the National Park System are compiled in a book called ‘‘Management Policies,’’ last published in 2001. Park superintendents, planners, and other NPS employees use ‘‘Management Policies’’ as a reference source when making decisions that will affect units of the National Park System. The NPS has completed a comprehensive revision of the book and is now providing an additional 30 days for public review and comment on the draft. All those who are concerned about the future of the National Park System are urged to read the draft in its entirety and offer ideas on how it can be improved. All comments will be reviewed and appropriate suggestions will be incorporated into the revised final version of ‘‘Management Policies.’’ The final document will be available for public review via the Internet and in printed form. A notice of availability of the final document, and an explanation of how comments were addressed, will appear in the Federal Register. Dated: November 9, 2005. Loran G. Fraser, Chief, Office of Policy, National Park Service. [FR Doc. E5–6616 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–52–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 751–TA–28–29] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns From India and Thailand Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:13 Nov 28, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM 29NON1 71558 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 29, 2005 / Notices States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675d(b)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders covering certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States. Certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand are provided for in subheadings 0306.13.00 and 1605.20.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Background On December 17, 2004, the Department of Commerce determined that imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673) (69 FR 76916, 76918, December 23, 2004); and on January 6, 2005 the Commission determined, pursuant to section 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)(1)), that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of such LTFV merchandise. Accordingly, Commerce ordered that antidumping duties be imposed on such imports (70 FR 5143, February 1, 2005). On January 6, 2005, when the Commission conducted its vote in the original investigations, it stated that it was concerned about the possible impact of the December 26, 2004, tsunami on the shrimp industries of India and Thailand. The tsunami occurred prior to the closing of the record in the original investigations on December 27, 2004. At the time the record closed, however, factual information as to any impact of the tsunami on the ability of producers in India or Thailand to produce and export shrimp was not available. On February 8, 2005, the Commission published a Federal Register notice (70 FR 6728) inviting comments from the public on whether changed circumstances exist sufficient to warrant the institution of changed circumstances reviews of the Commission’s affirmative determinations concerning certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from India and Thailand. The Commission instituted the subject investigations (investigation Nos. 751–TA–28–29), effective May 5, 2005, after having reviewed the comments it received in response to that request, and having determined that it had received information which showed changed circumstances sufficient to warrant instituting review investigations and that there was good cause for instituting such review investigations within two years after publication of the orders. Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of May 5, 2005 (70 FR 23884). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on September 14, 2005, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on November 21, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3813 (November 2005), entitled Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from India and Thailand: Investigation Nos. 751–TA– 28–29. Issued: November 21, 2005. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5–6593 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 3, 2005, American Radiolabeled Chemicals, Inc., 101 Arc Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63146, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in Schedules I and II: Drug Schedule Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (2010). I Dimethyltryptamine (7435) ........... I Dihydromorphine (9145) ............... I Amphetamine (1100) .................... II Methamphetamine (1105) ............ II Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315). II Phencyclidine (7471) .................... II Phenylacetone (8501) .................. II Cocaine (9041) ............................. II Codeine (9050) ............................. II Oxycodone (9143) ........................ II Drug Schedule Hydromorphone (9150) ................ II Benzoylecgonine (9180) ............... II Ecgonine (9180) ........................... II Meperidine (9230) ........................ II Metazocine (9240) ........................ II Morphine (9300) ........................... II Thebaine (9333) ........................... II Oxymorphone (9652) ................... II The company plans to manufacture in bulk, small quantities of the listed controlled substances as radiolabeled compounds. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative, Liaison and Policy Section (ODL); or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than January 30, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E5–6609 Filed 11–28–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 6, 2005, Chemic Laboratories, Inc., 480 Neponset Street, Building 7C, Canton, Massachusetts 02021, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II. The company plans to manufacture small quantities of a cocaine derivative for distribution to its customers for the purpose of research. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:13 Nov 28, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM 29NON1