Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 67451 

Docket Number: 05–042. Applicant: 

Georgia Institute of Technology, 711 

Marietta St., Atlanta, GA 30332. 

Instrument: Dual Beam SEM/FIB 

Electron Microscope System, Model 

Nova 200 Nanolab. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, The Netherlands. Intended 

Use: The instrument is intended to be 

used to improve understanding of 

molecular mechanisms and functional 

assemblies, initiate development of new 

materials, and facilitate advances in 

environmental analysis and detection. 

New research and creative concepts will 

include: (1) multifunctional scanning 

nanoprobes and quantum cascade laser–

based sensing systems,(2) stimulated 

surface chemistry using metal–

insulator-metal (MIM) devices 

containing nano–scale field emission 

arrays,(3) optically gated single 

molecule transistors,(4) shape–

preserving chemical conversion of 3–D 

bioclastic structures,(5) impedance 

mapping AFM cantilever arrays and (6) 

nanobelts as nanobiosensors, and 

nanocantilevers. Application accepted 

by Commissioner of Customs: 

September 15, 2005. 

Docket Number: 05–043. Applicant: 

Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 

Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114. 

Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 

JEM–1011. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., 

Japan. Intended Use: The instrument is 

intended to be used by the professional 

laboratory staff at Massachusetts 

General Hospital for the advancement of 

scientific knowledge relating to U.S. 

government funded medical research 

projects using electron microscopy, 

electron microtomy and 

ultracryomicrotomy techniques. 

Application accepted by Commissioner 

of Customs: September 12, 2005. 

Gerald A. Zerdy, 

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs 

Staff. 

[FR Doc. 05–22151 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing Code: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

University of California, San Diego, et 

al., Notice of Consolidated Decision on 

Applications for Duty–Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

This is a decision consolidated 

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 

301). Related records can be viewed 

between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in 

Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 

14th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. No instrument of equivalent 

scientific value to the foreign 

instruments described below, for such 

purposes as each is intended to be used, 

is being manufactured in the United 

States. 

Docket Number: 05–038. Applicant: 

University of California, San Diego. 

Instrument: Low–Temperature Ultra–

High Vacuum Scanning Tunneling 

Microscope. Manufacturer: Omicron 

NanoTechnology, GmbH, Germany. 

Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 

54366, September 14, 2005. Reasons: 

The foreign instrument provides: (1) a 

scanning tunneling microscope (STM) 

mounted inside a 4K liquid helium 

reservoir (8-hour time between liquid 

He refills), (2) operation at an 

equilibrium temperature of 4 K 

(including both tip and sample), (3) in–

situ sample manipulation and tip 

transfer capabilities, (4) low drift rates 

of 1.0 angstrom/hour (5) RMS vibration 

amplitudes of <0.005 angstrom in a 300 

Hz bandwidth and (6) sample surface 

facing downwards during STM imaging 

for easy dosing. Advice received from: 

A university research laboratory for 

advanced microstructures and devices. 

Docket Number: 05–039. Applicant: 

University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. 

Instrument: Automatic Fusion Machine, 

Model Autofluxer 4. Manufacturer: 

Breitlander, GmbH, Germany. Intended 

Use: See notice at 70 FR . Reasons: The 

foreign instrument provides dissolution 

of whole rock powder by a combination 

fusion/acid digestion for trace element 

analysis by ICP mass spectrometry. No 

apparatus of equivalent scientific value 

to the foreign apparatus, for such 

purposes as it is intended to be used, is 

being manufactured in the United 

States. This is a compatible accessory 

for an existing instrument purchased for 

the use of the applicant. The accessory 

is pertinent to the intended uses and we 

know of no domestic accessory which 

can be readily adapted for use with the 

existing instrument. 

Docket Number: 05–040. Applicant: 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

Golden, CO, 80401. Instrument: Dual 

Beam Focused Ion Beam Electron 

Microscope, Model Nova 200 NanoLab. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company, The 

Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 

70 FR 54366, September 14, 2005. 

Reasons: The foreign instrument is an 

electron microscope and is intended for 

research or scientific educational uses 

requiring it. We know of no instrument 

suited to these purposes, which was 

being manufactured in the United States 

at the time of order of the instrument. 

We know of no other instrument or 

apparatus being manufactured in the 

United States which is of equivalent 

scientific value to any of the foreign 

instruments. 

Gerald A. Zerdy, 

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs 

Staff. 

[FR Doc. 05–22150 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–803) 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., Axes & 

Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & 

Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) orders 

on Heavy Forged Hand Tools (i.e., Axes 

& Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers & 

Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) 

(‘‘HFHTs’’) from the People’s Republic 

of China pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). On the basis of notices of intent 

to participate and adequate substantive 

responses filed on behalf of the 

domestic interested parties and lack of 

response from respondent interested 

parties, the Department conducted an 

expedited sunset review of the AD 

orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations. As a result of 

this sunset review, the Department finds 

that revocation of the AD orders would 

likely lead to continuation or recurrence 

of dumping at the levels indicated in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maureen Flannery, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3020. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2005, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the AD 

67452 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Notices 

1Ames is the successor company to WoodingsVerona Tool Works, the petitioner in the original 

investigation. Council Tool is a U.S. producer of 

heavy forged hand tools, such as axes and adzes, 

bars and wedges, hammers and sledges, and picks 

and mattocks. For letters submitted by Ames and 

Council Tool, see the ‘‘Background’’ section of the 

accompanying ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum 

for the Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Heavy Forged Hand 

Tools (i.e., Axes & Adzes, Bars & Wedges, Hammers 

& Sledges, and Picks & Mattocks) from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results,’’ from Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated October 31, 2005 (‘‘Decision Memo’’). 

2See ‘‘Final Scope Ruling: Antidumping Duty 

Order on Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ from James C. Doyle, 

Office Director, Office 9, Import Administration, to 

Gary Taverman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, dated October 14, 2005. 

orders on HFHTs pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Fiveyear (Sunset) Reviews, 70 FR 38101 

(July 1, 2005). The Department received 

notices of intent to participate from the 

following domestic parties within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i): Ames True Temper 

(‘‘Ames’’) and Council Tool Company 

(‘‘Council Tool’’).1 These two parties 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.102(b), as domestic manufacturers 

and producers of the domestic like 

product. The Department received a 

substantive response from Ames and 

Council Tool (collectively ‘‘the domestic 

interested parties’’) within the 30-day 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did 

not receive a substantive response from 

any of the respondent interested parties 

to these proceedings. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of these AD orders. 

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by these orders 

are HFHTs comprising the following 

classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) 

hammers and sledges with heads over 

1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges); 

(2) bars over 18 inches in length, track 

tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3) 

picks and mattocks (picks/mattocks); 

and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing 

tools (axes/adzes). 

HFHTs include heads for drilling 

hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks 

and mattocks, which may or may not be 

painted, which may or may not be 

finished, or which may or may not be 

imported with handles; assorted bar 

products and track tools including 

wrecking bars, digging bars, and 

tampers; and steel woodsplitting 

wedges. HFHTs are manufactured 

through a hot forge operation in which 

steel is sheared to required length, 

heated to forging temperature, and 

formed to final shape on forging 

equipment using dies specific to the 

desired product shape and size. 

Depending on the product, finishing 

operations may include shot blasting, 

grinding, polishing and painting, and 

the insertion of handles for handled 

products. HFHTs are currently provided 

for under the following Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 

8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. 

Specifically excluded from these 

investigations are hammers and sledges 

with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in 

weight and under, hoes and rakes, and 

bars 18 inches in length and under. 

The Department has issued seven 

conclusive scope rulings regarding the 

merchandise covered by these orders: 

(1) On August 16, 1993, the Department 

found the ‘‘Max Multi–Purpose Axe,’’

imported by the Forrest Tool Company, 

to be within the scope of the axes/adzes 

order; (2) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found ‘‘18–inch’’ and ‘‘24–

inch’’ pry bars, produced without dies, 

imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. 

and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be 

within the scope of the bars/wedges 

order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found the ‘‘Pulaski’’ tool, 

produced without dies by TMC, to be 

within the scope of the axes/adzes 

order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found the ‘‘skinning axe,’’

imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be 

within the scope of the axes/adzes 

order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the 

Department found the ‘‘Scrapek 

MUTT,’’ imported by Olympia 

Industrial, Inc., under HTSUS 

8205.59.5510, to be within the scope of 

the axes/adzes order; (6) on May 23, 

2005, the Department found 8 inch by 

8 inch and 10 inch by 10 inch cast 

tampers, imported by Olympia 

Industrial, Inc. to be outside the scope 

of the orders; and (7) on October 14, 

2005, the Department found the ‘‘Mean 

Green Splitting Machine’’ imported by 

Avalanche Industries to be within the 

scope of the bars/wedges order.2

In addition, on September 22, 2005, 

the Court of International Trade 

sustained the Department’s finding that 

cast picks are outside the scope of the 

picks/mattocks order. See Tianjin 

Machinery Import & Export Corporation 

v. United States and Ames True 

Temper, Slip Op. 05–127, Court No. 03–

00732 (September 22, 2005). 

These reviews cover imports from all 

manufacturers and exporters of axes and 

adzes, bars and wedges, hammers and 

sledges, and picks and mattocks from 

the PRC. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the Decision 

Memorandum, which is hereby adopted 

by this notice (see footnote 1). The 

issues discussed in the accompanying 

Decision Memorandum include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

dumping margin likely to prevail if the 

AD orders were 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 

the Central Records Unit, room B–099, 

of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Sunset Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the AD orders on HFHTs 

would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the rates listed 

below: 

PRC–Wide Margin (percent) 

Axes/Adzes ................... 15.02 percent 

Picks/Mattocks .............. 50.81 percent 

Bars/Wedges ................ 31.76 percent 

Hammers/Sledges ........ 45.42 percent 

Notification regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–22146 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S