56444 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 

the orders (57 FR 57420 (December 4, 

1992)). Moreover, as a result of a 

changed circumstances review, the 

Department revoked the orders in part 

with respect to certain stainless steel 

camping ware: (1) made of single–ply 

stainless steel having a thickness no 

greater than 6.0 millimeters; and (2) 

consisting of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 quart 

saucepans without handles and with 

lids that also serve as fry pans (62 FR 

3662 (January 24, 1997)). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Top–of-the–Stove Stainless 

Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic 

of Korea and Taiwan (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Barbara E. 

Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated September 27, 2005, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the orders were to be 

revoked. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in these 

reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in room 

B–099 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on cooking 

ware from Korea and Taiwan would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

weighted–average percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

Korea.

Bum Koo Industrial Co., 

Ltd. ............................ *31.23 

Dae Sung Industrial 

Co., Ltd. .................... 6.11 

Hai Dong Stainless Industries, Co. .............. 12.14 

Kyung Dong Industrial 

Co., Ltd. .................... 8.36 

Namil Metal Co. Ltd. ..... 0.75 

All Others ...................... 8.10 

Taiwan.

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

Golden Lion Metal Industry Co., Ltd. ......... 15.08 

Lyi Mean Industrial Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 26.10 

Song Far Industry Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 25.90 

All Others ...................... 22.61 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.305. Timely notification of the 

return or destruction of APO materials 

or conversion to judicial protective 

orders is hereby requested. Failure to 

comply with the regulations and terms 

of an APO is a violation which is subject 

to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–19275 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Notice of Availability (NOA) for the 

Record of Decision (ROD) for Activities 

Associated With Future Programs at 

the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground 

(DPG), Utah 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD. 

ACTION: Record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

announces the availability of its Record 

of Decision (ROD) for Activities 

Associated with Future Programs at the 

U.S. Army DPG. The ROD describes the 

Army’s decisions with respect to the 

Proposed Action (implementation of 

DPG’s planned mission for a 7-year time 

frame) and alternatives considered in 

the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) and its rationale for the decision. 

Based on the EIS and other relevant 

factors, the Army has decided to 

implement its Proposed Action. The 

Proposed Action is the alternative that 

best fulfills DPG’s statutory mission and 

responsibilities, giving consideration to 

economic, environmental, technical, 

and other factors. DPG will continue to 

implement its existing mitigation 

measures as well as measures described 

in the ROD to mitigate potential 

environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts caused by the Proposed Action. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the 

ROD may be submitted to: U.S. Army 

Dugway Proving Ground, ATTN: CSTE–

DTC–DP–PA (Paula Nicholson), 

Dugway, UT 84022–5000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Paula Nicholson at (435) 831–3409 or by 

e-mail at nicholsn@dpg.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EIS 

was prepared to address the planned 

mission at DPG, the reasonable 

alternatives to the planned mission, and 

potential environmental impacts of 

DPG’s future operations. 

DPG is one of the few Army 

installations large and remote enough to 

permit comprehensive and realistic 

testing of biological and chemical 

defense systems, munitions and smokes, 

obscurants, and illuminants with a 

commitment to environmental 

protection and personal and public 

safety. Both DoD and non-DOD 

customers are posing challenges for DPG 

to support greater numbers of test and 

training events related to new enemy 

threats, next generation materiel, 

advanced conventional weapon 

systems, environmental concern, and 

demilitarization technologies. 

The Proposed Action described and 

evaluated in the EIS is the 

implementation of DPG’s planned 

mission. It includes continuation of 

existing DPG activities (including, but 

not limited to, chemical and biological 

defense testing, other testing programs, 

training, real property management, and 

environmental management) with future 

increases in most testing and training 

operating areas. Additionally, the 

Proposed Action includes 

diversification of DPG’s operations and 

implementation of a Summary 

Development Plan identifying real 

property planning recommendations for 

DPG. The Proposed Action will enable 

DPG to effectively respond to the 

challenges of a growing and diversified 

mission. 

In making its decision, the Army 

considered the results of the analysis in 

the EIS, including the evaluation of the 

other alternatives. The EIS considered 

the following two alternatives to the 

Proposed Action and the No Action 

Alternative: (1) Decreased mission with 

a major reduction in operations at DPG 

and (2) a maximum expanded mission 

with major increases in most operating 

areas compared to current operations. 

The No Action Alternative represents 

the status quo and assumes that existing 

DPG operations would continue at 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Notices 56445 

approximately their current rates into 

the foreseeable future. All comments 

provided during the formal public 

review and comment periods were also 

considered, as well as national security 

and mission requirements. 

The consideration of future programs 

ensures that the general type and 

intensity of most of DPG’s future 

activities were addressed. A range of 

factors such as future technology 

developments, available budgets, and 

changing defense threats often alter test 

plans. The Proposed Action within the 

Future Programs EIS includes only 

those activities that are reasonably 

foreseeable and for which DPG is the 

proponent or can make a decision about 

the activity. Specific program 

designations and equipment/materials 

to be tested may change between the 

time that the EIS was prepared and the 

actual test date. Accordingly, the EIS 

identifies the general characteristics of 

reasonably foreseeable test programs, 

rather than providing definitive and 

specific test information. 

DPG will continue to implement its 

existing mitigation measures, as well as 

measures described in the ROD, to 

mitigate potential environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts caused by the 

Proposed Action. DPG and the Army are 

committed to protecting human health, 

sustaining their environments, and 

maintaining regulatory compliance. 

Copies of the ROD and the Final EIS 

are available for review purposes only 

(no extra copies of the documents will 

be available at these locations) at the 

following libraries: Whitmore Library, 

2197 East 7000 South (Ft. Union Blvd.), 

Salt Lake City; University of Utah, J. 

Willard Marriott Library, 15th East and 

South Campus Drive, Salt Lake City; 

Dugway Public Library, 5124 Kister 

Avenue, Dugway; Tooele City Public 

Library, 128 W. Vine Street, Tooele. 

Dated: September 22, 2005. 

Daphne Kamely, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Army, (Environment, Safety and 

Occupational Health), OASA(I&E). 

[FR Doc. 05–19246 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Transfer of Jurisdiction of a Portion of 

Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to the 

Department of Agriculture for the 

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On 02 September 2005, in 

accordance with PL 104–106, Title 

XXIX, Subtitle A, entitled ‘‘Illinois Land 

Conservation Act of 1995’’, the 

Department of the Army signed a 

Secretariat Memorandum to transfer 

approximately 2,640 Acres of land at 

Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois 

to the Department of Agriculture for use 

by the Forest Service as the Midewin 

National Tallgrass Prairie. The purpose 

of this notice is to effect that transfer 

pursuant to the provisions of Section 

2912(e)(2) of PL 104–106. 

This is a partial transfer of the entire 

acreage contemplated by the statute. 

Additional transfers will be made in the 

future. A map entitled ‘‘2004 USDA 

Assignment Parcel Locator Map’’ and 

legal descriptions of the MFG area 

revised 18 January 2005 and of the LAP 

area revised 11 August 2005 of the 

property which is the subject of the 

partial transfer are on file with the U.S. 

Army Engineer District, Corps of 

Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky and the 

Office of the Regional Forester, USDA, 

Forest Service. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Albert J. Edwardo, 502–315–6969. 

ADDRESSES: Documents are on file at 

locations: 

1. U.S. Army Engineer District, 

Louisville, Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 

59, Louisville, Kentucky 40201–0059. 

2. Office of the Regional Forester, 

USDA, Forest Service, 626 East 

Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800, 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. 

Michael G. Barter, 

Chief, Real Estate Division. 

[FR Doc. 05–19217 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–92–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Inland Waterways Users Board 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: In Accordance with 10(a)(2) 

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463), announcement is 

made of the forthcoming meeting. 

Name of Committee: Inland 

Waterways Users Board (Board). 

Date: October 13, 2005. 

Location: Heathman Lodge, 7801 NE 

Greenwood Drive, Vancouver, 

Washington 98662, (1–360–254–3100). 

Time: Registration will begin at 8:30 

a.m. and the meeting is scheduled to 

adjourn at 12 p.m. 

Agenda: The Board will hear briefings 

on the status of both the funding for 

inland navigation projects and studies, 

and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

The Board will also consider its 

priorities for the next fiscal year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Norman T. Edwards, Headquarters, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, CEMP–POD, 

441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20314–1000; Ph: 202–761–1934. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is open to the public. Any 

interested person may attend, appear 

before, or file statement with the 

committee at the time and in the 

manner permitted by the committee. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–19270 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Leader, Information 

Management Case Services Team, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer invites comments on the 

submission for OMB review as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before October 

27, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395–6974. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its