Notices. Proposed collection; comment request

30,863 words·~140 min read·/register/2004/12/07/04-26853·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Outside Assessment of DOC Compliance Program ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L.104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before February 7, 2005. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork, Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via e-mail at *dHynek@doc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Pamela Woods, Trade Compliance Center, Room 3043, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone Number:

(202)482-1191. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract In 2003, the Department of Commerce's (DOC's) International Trade Administration

(ITA)conducted a bureau-wide Customer Satisfaction Survey covering all ITA program units, related to the citizen-centered objectives of the President's Management Agenda. The results were used to set a baseline for performance metric reporting and tracking and to better understand the customer base it serves. ITA's Market Access and Compliance

(MAC)program survey report identified gaps between a high level of customer awareness yet low customer use of fair trade and market access services. Findings also indicated that a substantial customer base is unaware of the specific services that the DOC Compliance Program offers. In response to the survey findings, MAC is undertaking a customer service analysis to find out in more specific terms and greater detail, what MAC's Trade Compliance Center's (TCC's) customers expectations are. This will enable the TCC to answer: “What Do Customers Want from the DOC's Compliance Program?” Information about the TCC can be found on its website at *http://www.export.gov/tcc.* The purpose of this outside assessment is to obtain customer and potential customer views regarding the DOC Compliance Program to determine: • If the TCC offers the right set of services to assist U.S. exporters to overcome foreign trade barriers. • If MAC is aware of exporter needs. • If the right MAC programs are in place to meet identified needs. • If MAC services are properly promoted to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. An enhanced customer satisfaction program or other service improvements might result from this data collection initiative. II. Method of Collection The Department of Commerce's

(DOC)International Trade Administration

(ITA)is making great strides in monitoring ITA's customer satisfaction and advancing a strategic approach to delivering value to its customers. The Trade Agreements Compliance unit has contracted with Charney Research to issue a questionnaire and host focus group interviews to gather strategic feedback from core and target TCC customers. These surveys will assess reactions to MAC's publicly available tools, informational outreach efforts, customer service regarding compliance casework, and new initiatives for exporters. Contractor will conduct two online focus groups with a total of about two dozen exporting businesses, first, to obtain “open ended” qualitative information on foreign trade barrier assistance needs, outreach demands or opportunities, and market access/compliance values from exporting customer base with program/service contact experiences. Subsequently, mass questionnaires yielding at least 250 survey responses will seek to collect “closed end” quantitative data about customer base identify among the exporting public, best means to deliver promotional campaigns to the private sector, ways to raise user awareness and interactive engagement, reactions to tools available, and perceptions of TCC program and services offered. Narrative experiences derived from focus group participants will be incorporated into survey questions to validate results and benchmark decision points for government officials. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0625-XXXX. *Form Number:* ITA-XXX. *Type of Review:* Regular Submission. *Affected Public:* U.S. Exporters and their Business Representatives, categorized as either active customers, prospective customers, or untapped customers. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 274. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 2 hours for focus group participants and 15 minutes for survey respondents. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 110.5. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* $7,300. IV. Request for Comments *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 1, 2004. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E4-3500 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-846 Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Twelfth New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce received two requests on October 28, 2004, to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating a new shipper review for the companies that requested such a review: Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd. (“Dixion”) and Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. (“Wally”), each of which is a producer and exporter of brake rotors from the PRC. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson or Tom Killiam, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3797 or

(202)482-5222, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received timely requests on October 28, 2004, from Dixion and Wally in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC, which has an April anniversary month. Dixion and Wally each identified itself as the producer of the brake rotors it exports. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), each of the exporters identified above has certified that it did not export brake rotors to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which did export brake rotors during the period of investigation (“POI”) ( *see* each company's October 28, 2004, submission). Each company has further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A), Dixion and Wally each provided the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Dixion and Wally each submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States and the volume and date of entry of that shipment. In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on our analysis of the information and documentation provided with the new shipper review requests, as well as our analysis of proprietary import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), we find that Dixion and Wally have each met the requirements for the Department to initiate a new shipper review (for more details, *see* New Shipper Initiation Checklists for Dixion and Wally). Therefore, we are initiating a new shipper review for Dixion and Wally. In cases involving non-market economies, it is the Department's normal practice to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide *de jure* and *de facto* evidence of an absence of government control over the company's export activities ( *see Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 57875 (October 7, 2003)). Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Dixion and Wally (including a complete separate rates section), allowing approximately 37 days for response. If the response from each respondent provides sufficient indication that each company is not subject to either *de jure* or *de facto* government control with respect to its exports of brake rotors, the review with respect to that company will proceed. If, on the other hand, the respondent does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, then it will be deemed to be affiliated with other companies that exported during the POI and that it did not establish entitlement to a separate rate, and the review of that respondent will be rescinded. Initiation of Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which the review is initiated. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the period of review (“POR”) for a new shipper review, initiated in the month following the semi-annual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately proceeding the semi-annual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for this new shipper review is: Antidumping duty new shipper review Period to be reviewed PRC: Brake Rotors, A-570-846: Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd. 04/01/04-09/30/04 Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. 04/01/04-09/30/04 We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Dixion and Wally. This action is in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Dixion and Wally has each certified that it both produces and exports the subject merchandise, the sale of which was the basis for its new shipper review request, we will apply the bonding privilege only to entries of subject merchandise for which they are both the producer and exporter. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d). Dated: November 24, 2004. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3478 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-824] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of initiation of antidumping duty changed circumstances review. SUMMARY: In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(b), Metal One Corporation (Metal One), filed a request for a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. In response to this request, the Department of Commerce is initiating a changed circumstances review on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan with respect to diffusion annealed nickel-plate. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George McMahon, Christopher Hargett, or James Terpstra, AD / CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-1167,

(202)482-4161, or

(202)482-3965, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 19, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published an antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan* , 58 FR 44163 (August 19, 1993). On October 13, 2004, Metal One requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order on diffusion annealed nickel-plate featuring totally unalloyed nickel plated coating measuring less than or equal to 8 microns, with both sides of the sheet having a coating of at least 0.2 microns through the initiation of a changed circumstances review. According to Metal One, revocation with respect to diffusion annealed nickel-plate is warranted because there is minimal alteration to the specifications of the products with respect to the decision by the Department in July 2002 with the following specifications:

(1)Widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches);

(2)thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and

(3)a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. In response to Metal One's request, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review with respect to the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. Scope of the Order The products subject to this order include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)— for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the scope of the order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from the scope of the order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan* , 58 FR 44163 (August 19, 1993). Also excluded from the scope of this order are imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches); thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 62 FR 66848 (December 22, 1997). Also excluded from the scope of this order are imports of subject merchandise meeting all of the following criteria:

(1)Widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches);

(2)thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and

(1)Carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 mm in thickness and 43.6 mm or 16.1 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum, 20% tin, 1% copper, 0.3% silicon, 0.15% nickel, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys; and

(2)carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 mm in thickness and 20 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9% to 11% tin, 9% to 11% lead, less than 1% zinc, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45% to 55% lead, 38% to 50% PTFE, 3% to 5% molybdenum disulfide and less than 2% other materials. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 64 FR 57032 (October 22, 1999). Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of doctor blades meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524 millimeters (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 millimeters (1.25 inches) and 50.80 millimeters (2.00 inches), a core hardness between 580 to 630 HV, a surface hardness between 900-990 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in percentage by weight: 0.90% to 1.05% carbon; 0.15% to 0.35% silicon; 0.30% to 0.50% manganese; less than or equal to 0.03% of phosphorous; less than or equal to 0.006% of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24%; and the remainder of iron. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 65 FR 53983 (September 6, 2000). Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 millimeters in thickness and 19.5 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7% chromium; less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 66 FR 8778 (February 2, 2001). Also excluded from the scope of the order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications:

(1)Carbon steel flat products measuring 0.975 millimeters in thickness and 8.8 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, maximum 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 13%-17% carbon, 13%-17% aromatic polyester, with a balance (approx. 66%-74%) of polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE); and

(2)carbon steel flat products measuring 1.02 millimeters in thickness and 10.7 millimeters in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, less than 0.35% iron, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45%-55% lead, 3%-5% molybdenum disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40%-52%) of polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE). *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 66 FR 15075 (March 15, 2001) Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 millimeters or 2.75 millimeters (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 millimeters or 99 millimeters (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 0.3% antimony, 2.5% silicon, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum. Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 millimeters (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 millimeters or 94 millimeters (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 2.5% silicon, 0.3% antimony, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 66 FR 20967 (April 26, 2001). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring a minimum of and including 1.10mm to a maximum of and including 4.90mm in overall thickness, a minimum of and including 76.00mm to a maximum of and including 250.00mm in overall width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 0.10%, manganese under 0.40%, phosphorous under 0.04%, sulfur under 0.05%, and silicon under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: under 2.51% copper, under 15.10% tin, and remainder aluminum as listed on the mill specification sheet. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 67 FR 7356 (February 19, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications:

(1)Diffusion annealed, non-alloy nickel-plated carbon products, with a substrate of cold-rolled battery grade sheet (“CRBG”) with both sides of the CRBG initially electrolytically plated with pure, unalloyed nickel and subsequently annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and iron substrate, with the nickel plated coating having a thickness of 0-5 microns per side with one side equaling at least 2 microns; and with the nickel carbon sheet having a thickness of from 0.004” (0.10mm) to 0.030” (0.762mm) and conforming to the following chemical specifications (%): C <= 0.08; Mn <= 0.45; P <= 0.02; S <= 0.02; Al <= 0.15; and Si <= 0.10; and the following physical specifications: Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32-55 KSI; Elongation = 18% minimum (aim 34%); Hardness = 85-150 Vickers; Grain Type = Equiaxed or Pancake; Grain Size

(ASTM)= 7-12; Delta r value = aim less than +/-0.2; Lankford value = <== 1.2.; and

(2)next generation diffusion-annealed nickel plate meeting the following specifications:

(a)nickel-graphite plated, diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated carbon products, with a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated carbon steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of mixture of natural nickel and graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only <== 0.05 micrometers, nickel-graphite layer only <= 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometers;

(b)nickel-graphite, diffusion annealed, nickel plated carbon products, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and the iron substrate; with an additional layer of natural nickel-graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-graphite, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometers; nickel-graphite layer <== 0.5 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometers;

(c)diffusion annealed nickel-graphite plated products, which are cold-rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having the bottom side of the base metal first electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the top side of the strip then plated with a nickel-graphite composition; with the strip then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel-graphite and the iron substrate on the bottom side; with the nickel-graphite and nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite layer <== 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometers;

(d)nickel-phosphorous plated diffusion annealed nickel plated carbon product, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and phosphorus electrolytically plated to the top side of a diffusion annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; another layer of the natural nickel-phosphorous then electrolytically plated on the top side of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-phosphorous, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-phosphorous, nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometers; nickel-phosphorous layer <== 0.1 micrometers; bottom side : nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometers;

(e)diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated products, electrolytically plated with natural nickel to the top side of a diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled strip initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of natural nickel then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin-nickel combination layer <== 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only <== 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometers; and

(f)tin mill products for battery containers, tin and nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel; then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; then an additional layer of natural tin electrolytically plated on the top side; and again annealed to create a diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; with the tin-nickel, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin layer <== 1 micrometer; tin layer alone <== 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <== 1.0 micrometer. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 67 FR 47768 (July 22, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications:

(1)Widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches);

(2)thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and

(1)Flat-rolled products (provided for in HTSUS subheading 7210.49.00), other than of high-strength steel, known as “ASE Iron Flash” and either:

(A)having a base layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy applied by hot-dipping and a surface layer of iron-zinc alloy applied by electrolytic process, the weight of the coating and plating not over 40 percent by weight of zinc; or

(B)two-layer-coated corrosion-resistant steel with a coating composed of

(a)a base coating layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy by hot-dip galvanizing process, and

(b)a surface coating layer of iron-zinc alloy by electro-galvanizing process, having an effective amount of zinc up to 40 percent by weight, and

(2)corrosion resistant continuously annealed flat-rolled products, continuous cast, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.06 percent by weight, manganese 0.20 or more but not over 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.023, silicon not over 0.03, aluminum 0.03 or more but not over 0.08, arsenic not over 0.02, copper not over 0.08 and nitrogen 0.003 or more but not over 0.008; and meeting the characteristics described below:

(A)Products with one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a two-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer and a surface coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, with total coating thickness for both layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with scanning electron microscope

(SEM)not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length;

(B)products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a four-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer; with an inner middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, an outer middle surface coating layer of hard nickel and a topmost nickel-phosphorus-plated layer; with combined coating thickness for the four layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length;

(C)products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, luster-agent-added nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; or

(D)products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, pure nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 68 FR 19970 (April 23, 2003). Merchandise Subject to This Review Metal One defines certain diffusion annealed nickel-plate as meeting the following specifications: Short description Diffusion annealed, non-alloy nickel-plated steel sheet (“cold rolled battery grade sheet” or “CRBG”) with an unalloyed nickel plated coating. Thickness of nickel-plated coating 0-8 microns with both sides having a coating of at least 0.2 microns. Thickness of CRBG 0.035 mm to 0.762 mm. Chemical Specifications: Carbon

(C)≤0.03 Manganese

(Mn)≤0.60 Phosphorus

(P)≤0.04 Sulfur

(S)≤0.04 Aluminum

(Al)≤0.15 Silicon

(Si)≤0.10 Mechanical Specifications: Tensile strength ≤70 KSI Maximum Yield 22-55 KSI Elongation 18% Minimum Hardness 85-150 Vickers Grain Type Equiaxed or Pancake Grain Size

(ASTM)7-12 Delta r value ±0.3 Lankford value ≥0.7 Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act ( *i.e.* , a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order (or the part of the order to be revoked) pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or if changed circumstances exist sufficient to warrant revocation. Section 351.222(g)(2) of the Department's regulations require the Secretary to conduct a changed circumstance review under section 351.216 of the Department's regulations if at any time the Secretary concludes from the available information that changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation may exist. Citing the Department's July 22, 2002, final results of changed circumstances review, Metal One states that producers of the domestic like product to which the part of the order to be revoked pertains previously have expressed a lack of interest in the application of the order to virtually identical products. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order* , 67 FR 47768 (July 22, 2002). In this case, the Department finds that the information submitted provides sufficient evidence of changed circumstances to warrant review, therefore, the Department is initiating this changed circumstances review. Given Metal One's assertion, we will consider whether there is interest in continuing the order with respect to the product identified by this review on the part of the U.S. industry. Public Comment Interested parties may submit comments which the Department will take into account in the preliminary results of this review. The due date for filing any such comments is no later than 20 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i). This notice will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which our preliminary results are based and a description of any action proposed based on those results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review. In accordance with section 751(b)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department will issue the final results of its antidumping duty changed circumstances review not later than 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act and section 351.216 of the Department's regulations. Dated: November 30, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3527 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review for this administrative review is November 1, 2002, through October 31, 2003. Three companies named in the initiation of this review made no exports or sales of the subject merchandise during the period of review and, consequently, we are rescinding the review for these companies. In addition, we are rescinding our review of a fourth company because the petitioners withdrew their request for a review of that company. We are also rescinding our review of a fifth company because its sale to the United States is not eligible for review. Therefore, this review covers twelve manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise. We preliminarily determine that nine of these companies have made sales in the United States at prices below normal value. Further, we preliminarily determine that the remaining three companies are not entitled to separate rates and have assigned them the rate for the PRC-wide entity. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleen Schoch or Brian Ledgerwood, China/NME Unit, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4551 or

(202)482-3836, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 3, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. See *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 68 FR 62279. On December 24, 2003, we published the *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* (68 FR 74550), in which we initiated the 2002-2003 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC. On July 15, 2004, we extended the deadline for the issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review by 120 days, until November 29, 2004 (69 FR 42418). We are conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The products subject to the antidumping duty order are all grades of garlic, whole or separated into constituent cloves, whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen, provisionally preserved, or packed in water or other neutral substance, but not prepared or preserved by the addition of other ingredients or heat processing. The differences between grades are based on color, size, sheathing, and level of decay. The scope of this order does not include the following:

(a)garlic that has been mechanically harvested and that is primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use; or

(b)garlic that has been specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed. The subject merchandise is used principally as a food product and for seasoning. The subject garlic is currently classifiable under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. In order to be excluded from the antidumping duty order, garlic entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above that is

(1)mechanically harvested and primarily, but not exclusively, destined for non-fresh use or

(2)specially prepared and cultivated prior to planting and then harvested and otherwise prepared for use as seed must be accompanied by declarations to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to that effect. Separate Rates The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy

(NME)country in all past antidumping investigations (see, *e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000), and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000)) and in prior segments of this proceeding. A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) ( *Silicon Carbide* ). For the reasons discussed in the section below entitled “The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available,” we have determined that Jinxiang Hongyu Freezing and Storing Co., Ltd. (Hongyu), Linyi Sanshan Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. (Linyi Sanshan), and Tancheng County Dexing Foods Co., Ltd. (Dexing Foods) do not qualify for a separate rate and are instead part of the PRC entity. Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. (Dong Yun), Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd. (FHTK), Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Company (Hongda), Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. (Jinan Yipin), Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. (Linshu Dading), Sunny Import & Export Limited (Sunny), Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd (Ziyang), Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. (Trans-High), and Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. (Harmoni), all provided the requested separate-rate information in their responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, consistent with &, 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996), we performed separate-rates analyses to determine whether each producer/exporter is independent from government control. 1. Absence of *De Jure* Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies;

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. With the exception of Hongyu, Lingi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods, each respondent has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control including the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” and the “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations.” The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of *de jure* control. See, *e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 30695 (June 7, 2001). We have no information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. 2. Absence of *De Facto* Control Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:

(1)whether the export prices are set by, or subject to, the approval of a governmental authority;

(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;

(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management;

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See *Silicon Carbide* at 22587. As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See *Silicon Carbide* at 22586-22587. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. FHTK and Harmoni reported that they are wholly owned by foreign entities; Sunny and Ziyang reported that they are limited-liability companies owned by private investors. Hongda, Dong Yun, Jinan Yipin, Linshu Dading, and Trans-High reported that they are limited-liability companies. Each has asserted the following:

(1)There is no government participation in setting export prices;

(2)sales managers and authorized employees have the authority to bind sales contracts;

(3)they do not have to notify any government authorities of management selections;

(4)there are no restrictions on the use of export revenue;

(5)each is responsible for financing its own losses. The questionnaire responses of FHTK, Hongda, Jinan Yipin, Trans-High, Dong Yun, Linshu Dading, Sunny, Ziyang, and Harmoni do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. During our analysis of the information on the record, we found no information indicating the existence of government control. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that FHTK, Hongda, Jinan Yipin, Trans-High, Dong Yun, Linshu Dading, Sunny, Ziyang, and Harmoni have met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review In response to our December 30, 2003, letter requesting quantity and value information, three companies responded that they had made no exports of the subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). These companies were Clipper Manufacturing Ltd. (Clipper), Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Co. (Shandong Heze), and Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company (Ever Rich). These individual responses are discussed in and attached to the *Questionnaire Response Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill* , dated November 29, 2004 ( *Questionnaire Response Memo* ). Each of the companies responded that they were not producers or exporters of the subject merchandise during the POR. We examined CBP data to confirm that none of them was listed as a manufacturer or exporter of the subject merchandise on entries during the POR. In addition, there is no information on the record to indicate that these companies had sales or exports of subject merchandise during the POR. As a result, we find that Clipper, Shandong Heze, and Ever Rich made no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR that are subject to the administrative review. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding our review with respect to these three companies. On January 13, 2004, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Xiangcheng Yisheng Foodstuffs Co. (Yisheng). Therefore, we are rescinding our review of Yisheng for this POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). We are also rescinding our review of H&T Trading Company (H&T). H&T requested a new shipper review and administrative review at the same time. In the course of our initial examination of the new shipper request, we discovered that H&T was a Hong Kong-based exporter that purchased the subject merchandise from a Chinese supplier, Jining Jinshan. Additional information demonstrated that Jining Jinshan had knowledge H&T would export the subject merchandise it purchased to the United States. Pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, the first party in the chain of distribution with knowledge of its U.S. destination is the appropriate party to review. See *Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, and Intent to Rescind Administrative Review in Part* , 68 FR 4758, 4759 (January 30, 2003). Because of this knowledge and the fact that the sale between Jining Jinshan and H&T was the first non-intra-NME sale in the chain of distribution, the transaction between Jining Jinshan and H&T is the appropriate basis for determining the export price. Therefore, review of H&T is not appropriate and the Department is now rescinding its initiation of the review of H&T. Further, the Department did not receive a request for an administrative review of Jining Jinshan prior to or during the anniversary month of the publication of the antidumping duty order. See 19 CFR 351.214(d). See *Memorandum from Mark Ross to Laurie Parkhill Regarding Intent to Rescind the Administrative Review with Respect to H&T Trading Company* (January 29, 2004). The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available All respondents were given the opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received questionnaire responses from FHTK, Hongda, Jinan Yipin, Trans-High, Dong Yun, Linshu Dading, Sunny, Ziyang, and Harmoni and we have calculated a separate rate for each of these companies. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from companies that have received their own rate based on the final results of a prior segment of this proceeding ( *e.g.* , Jinan Yipin). As discussed below, we have decided to treat Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods as part of the PRC-wide entity. Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority, or

(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Furthermore, under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has the responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested information but also to provide a “full explanation and suggested alternative forms.” Because Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods did not respond to the questionnaire, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(B)of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate. See, *e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/ Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the final determination from the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. On December 30, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods. We confirmed that the questionnaires we sent to Hongyu and Linyi Sanshan were delivered and accepted on January 6, 2004. We also confirmed that a representative of Dexing Foods picked up its questionnaire from the main Commerce building. See *Questionnaire Response Memo* . Because they did not provide responses to the Department's questionnaire, the Department is unable to determine whether Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods are eligible for a separate rate. Thus, Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods have not rebutted the presumption of government control and are presumed to be part of the PRC entity. The PRC entity (including Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods) failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in this administrative review, thus making the use of an adverse inference appropriate. Therefore, in accordance with the Department's practice, as adverse facts available, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC entity the rate of 376.67 percent. Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, a figure which it applies as facts available. To corroborate information, the Department examines whether it is both reliable and relevant. Throughout the history of this proceeding, the highest rate ever determined is 376.67 percent; it is currently the PRC-wide rate and was calculated based on information contained in the petition. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 49058, 49059 (September 26, 1994). The information contained in the petition was corroborated, to the extent practicable, for the preliminary results of the first administrative review. See *Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review* , 61 FR 68229, 68230 (December 27, 1996). Further, it was corroborated in subsequent reviews to the extent that the Department referred to the history of corroboration and found that the Department received no information that warranted revisiting the issue. See *Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review* , 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002). Similarly, no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department stated in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) ( *TRBs* ), that it will “consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.” See *TRBs* , 61 FR at 57392. See also *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin in the case as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an extremely high margin). The rate we are using for this review is the rate currently applicable to Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, Dexing Foods, and all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. Further, there is no information on the administrative record of the current review that indicates the application of this rate would be inappropriate or that the margin is not relevant. Therefore, for all sales of subject merchandise exported by Hongyu, Linyi Sanshan, and Dexing Foods we have applied, as adverse facts available, the 376.67 percent margin from a prior administrative review of this order and have satisfied the corroboration requirements under section 776(c) of the Act. See *Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 18439, 18441 (April 9, 2001) (employing a petition rate used as adverse facts available in a previous segment as adverse facts available in the current review). Export Price For FHTK, Hongda, Trans-High, Dong Yun, Linshu Dading, Sunny, and Ziyang we based the U.S. price on export price (EP), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation and constructed export price

(CEP)was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. For FHTK, we made no adjustments to the gross unit price. For Hongda, we deducted foreign inland freight, international freight, and marine insurance from the gross unit price, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Trans-High, we deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the gross unit price, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Dong Yun, we deducted foreign inland freight from production facility to port of exit, brokerage and handling expenses, international freight, and marine insurance expenses. For Linshu Dading, we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. import duties, and U.S. inland freight expenses from the gross unit price, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Sunny, we made deductions, where appropriate, of foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, import duties, U.S. warehousing expenses, demurrage charges, and U.S. inland freight expenses from the gross unit price, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Ziyang, we deducted foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the gross unit price, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. As all foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing, foreign brokerage and handling, and marine insurance expenses (where applicable) were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values (see “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). Where applicable, we used the reported expense for international freight because the respondents used market-economy freight carriers and paid in a market-economy currency. See “Memorandum to the File” regarding the factors valuation for the preliminary results of the administrative review (November 29, 2004) ( *FOP Memorandum* ). Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP methodology when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after importation of the merchandise into the United States. We calculated the CEP for Jinan Yipin and Harmoni because the sales were made by their U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We based CEP on packed, delivered, or ex-warehouse prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. For Jinan Yipin, we made adjustments to the gross unit price for foreign inland freight from processing facility to port of exit, international ocean freight, U.S. inland freight from port to customer, other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. import duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses, credit expenses, billing adjustments, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. For Harmoni, we made deductions, where appropriate, from the gross unit price to account for movement expenses, foreign inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse, foreign brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including credit expenses, commissions, inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Because some movement expenses were provided by NME companies, we valued those charges based on surrogate values in India. See *FOP Memorandum* . For a more detailed explanation of the company-specific adjustments that we made in the calculation of the dumping margins for these preliminary results, see the company-specific preliminary results analysis memoranda, dated November 29, 2004, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099. Normal Value 1. Surrogate Country When investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal value, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall use, to the extent practicable, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Factor Valuations” section below. The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Morocco, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See *Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill from Ron Lorentzen* regarding the request for a list of surrogate countries (June 18, 2004). In addition to being among the countries comparable to the PRC in economic development, India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. We have used India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, have calculated normal value using Indian prices to value the PRC producers' factors of production, when available and appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information. See *Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill Re: Selection of Surrogate Country* (November 29, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of an administrative review and a new shipper review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production until 20 days following the date of publication of these preliminary results. 2. Methodology The Department's general policy, consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, is to calculate normal value using each of the factors of production

(FOPs)that a respondent consumes in the production of a unit of the subject merchandise. There are circumstances, however, in which the Department will modify its standard FOP methodology, choosing to apply a surrogate value to an intermediate input instead of the individual FOPs used to produce that intermediate input. In some cases, a respondent may report factors used to produce an intermediate input that accounts for an insignificant share of total output. When the potential increase in accuracy to the overall calculation that results from valuing each of the factors of production is outweighed by the resources, time, and effort such an analysis would place on all parties to the proceeding, the Department has valued the intermediate input directly using a surrogate value. See, *e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coumarin From the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 66895-01 (December 28, 1994). Also, there are circumstances in which valuing the FOPs used to yield an intermediate product would lead to an inaccurate result because the Department would not be able to account for a significant element of cost adequately in the overall factors buildup. In this situation, the Department would also value the intermediate input directly. For example, in a recent case, the Department determined that, if it were to value the respondent's factors used in extracting iron ore, an input to wire rod, it would not account sufficiently for the associated capital costs, given that the surrogate company it used for valuing overhead did not have mining operation. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Ukraine* , 67 FR 55785 (August 30, 2002), and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001). In other cases, after careful consideration of the record, the Department has determined that valuing the intermediate input for the production of subject merchandise will lead to a more accurate result than valuing the individual FOPs. See *Certain Frozen Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* 68 FR 498, 449 (January 31, 2003), and *Certain Frozen Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 68 FR 37116 (June 16, 2003). In this review, we determine that it is appropriate to apply a modified FOP methodology with respect to certain respondents. We conducted a full analysis of the information put on the record by the interested parties and conducted independent research into standard garlic-growing procedures in the PRC. See *Memorandum from Steve Williams to the File Re: Research on Chinese Production and Costs* (November 29, 2004) ( *Research Memo* ). Based on the information discussed in this memo, as well as all the information currently on the record, the divergent usage rates provided by certain respondents do not appear to be realistic or credible. More specifically, the Department has determined that the FOPs pertaining to the usage of pesticides, herbicides, and/or seed by certain respondents were extremely questionable and, in some instances, not credible. Two internet-published articles regarding garlic production in the PRC, *Garlic Production Technology Regulations* , produced by the Kuming Tong Safe Science and Technology Company, and *Environmentally Safe Garlic Production Technology Regulations* , produced by Hebei Standards, provided objective ranges for the common commercial usage of these particular factors. See *Research Memo* at Attachments 1 and 2. In addition, the Department observed major discrepancies among the FOPs reported by different respondents. The Department also found large differences in the water-usage factors reported by certain respondents located in the same area, but it could not find reliable third-party data with which to compare the factors. It is the Department's position that, if FOPs reported to the Department appear highly improbable and lack credibility, it has an obligation to address the resultant inadequacy in its calculations. In light of the above, the Department finds that the FOP methodology is insufficient to provide an accurate result for certain respondents, based on the unreliability of their reported FOP usage rates. In order to calculate a more accurate margin for these companies, the Department has chosen to apply the intermediate-product FOP methodology to those respondents with questionable FOPs. The respondents affected are Trans-High, Ziyang, Dong Yun, FHTK, and Hongda. For a complete explanation of the Department's analysis, see *Memorandum from Edward Yang to Barbara E. Tillman Re: Modification of Factors-of-Production Methodology* (November 29, 2004). The Department is re-opening the record of this segment to the interested parties for 21 days after the publication of these preliminary results in order to obtain additional independent third-party information regarding the disparate usage rates which these five respondents have provided. The Department will fully consider any additional information before completing the final results of this administrative review. With respect to the remaining respondents, we find that the standard FOP analysis remains appropriate. See *Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Sixth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 54635 (September 9, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (concerning the application of a modified analysis only to certain respondents, as appropriate). 3. Factors of Production Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the normal value using a FOP methodology if

(1)the merchandise is exported from an NME country and

(2)the information does not permit the calculation of normal value using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Factors of production include the following elements:

(1)hours of labor required,

(2)quantities of raw materials employed,

(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and

(4)representative capital costs. Except as discussed above, we used FOPs reported by the respondents for materials, energy, labor, and packing. We valued all the input factors using publicly available, published information, as discussed in the “Surrogate Country” and “Factor Valuations” sections of this notice. 4. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated normal value based on FOPs reported by the respondents for the POR. To calculate normal value, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available surrogate values in India with the exception of the surrogate value for ocean freight, which we obtained from an international freight company. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. We calculated these freight costs based on the shortest reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory and Indian surrogate values. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision in *Sigma Corporation v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We converted prices reported in Indian rupees

(Rs)to US dollars

(USDs)using the average exchange rate obtained from the official Import Administration Web site ( *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/india.txt* ). For a detailed description of all the surrogate values we used, see the FOP Memorandum. For those Indian rupee values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices for India published in the International Monetary Fund's *International Financial Statistics* . Surrogate-value data or sources to obtain such data were obtained from the petitioners, the respondents, and the Department's research. Except as specified below, we valued raw material inputs using the weighted-average unit import values derived from the *World Trade Atlas* , provided by the Global Trade Information Services, Inc. The source of these values contemporaneous with the POR, was the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry. We valued garlic seed based on pricing data from the *NHRDF News Letter* , published by India's National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation. We valued diesel fuel based on data from the International Energy Agency's *Energy Prices & Taxes: Quarterly Statistics* (Third Quarter, 2003). We valued electricity based on data from the International Energy Agency's *Energy Prices & Taxes: Quarterly Statistics* (First Quarter, 2003). We valued water using the water tariff rate reported on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web site. See *http://www.mcgm.gov.in/Stat%20&%20Fig/Revenue.htm.* The respondents reported packing inputs consisting of plastic nets/mesh bags, paper cartons, plastic packing bands, tape, wood used for producing pallets, nails used for producing pallets, plastic jars, plastic jar lids, nitrogen gas, antiseptic, metal clips, bubble wrap, labels, glue, and cardboard. All of these inputs were valued using import data from the *World Trade Atlas* that covered the POR. For labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the most recent PRC regression-based wage rate that appears on the website for Import Administration ( *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/corrected00wages/corrected00wages.htm* ). The source of the wage-rate data for the Import Administration's Web site is the International Labor Organization's *Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002* (Geneva, 2002), chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. For land, we used the value published in the Punjab State Development Report. We valued cold storage using the surrogate electricity value if the cold-storage facility was located at the production facility. If the respondent's cold storage was located off-site, we used a value based on a rate from “Local traders to import generator fitted containers,” an article from Dawn Wire Service (May 19, 1995). The respondents claimed an adjustment for revenue earned on the sale of garlic sprouts. We find that sprouts are a by-product of garlic and deducted an offset amount from normal value. As a surrogate value for the sale of sprouts in the PRC, we used an average of Indian wholesale prices for green onions published by the Azadpur Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee in its February 17, 2003, March 21, 2003, April 25, 2003, and May 30, 2003, *Azadpur Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bulletins* . We valued the truck rate based on an average of truck rates that were published in the Indian publication *Chemical Weekly* during the POR. We valued foreign brokerage and handling charges based on a value calculated for the LTFV investigation of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. For ocean freight, we used the value provided by Linshu Dading from Maersk Sealand ( *www.maersksealand.com* ) in its November 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003, new shipper review and this administrative review for the movement of containers from the PRC to the east and west coasts of the United States. We used these quotes to calculate a surrogate freight rate for each coast. For marine insurance, we relied on rate quotes from RJG Consultants ( *www.rjgconsultants.com* ) dating from the POR for the movement of refrigerated containers from the PRC to the east and west coasts of the United States. As discussed in the *FOP Memorandum* , the respondents and the petitioners submitted the publicly available financial information of six companies. We concluded that the financial information of Parry Agro Industries Limited (“Parry Agro”), a tea producer in India, was most representative of the financial experiences of the respondent companies for which we applied the FOP methodology because it produced and processed a product that was not highly processed or preserved prior to its sale. Thus, to value factory overhead, and selling, general and administrative expenses we used rates based on data taken from the 2003/2004 financial statements of Parry Agro. Parry Agro's 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 financial statements did not report a profit. Thus, for purposes of these preliminary results we are applying the profit ratio that was reported on its 2001/2002 financial statements. We also concluded that the financial information of Mahabaleshwar Honey Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. (“MHPC”), a non-integrated Indian honey processor, was most representative of the financial experiences of the respondents for which we applied the intermediate-product FOP methodology because it is the only company on record which we know with certainty processes an intermediate product. Thus, to value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used rates based on data taken from the 2003-2004 financial statements of MHPC. See the *FOP Memorandum* for a more complete discussion of the Department's analysis. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2002, through October 31, 2003: Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-average percentage margin Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd. *36.75* Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd. 101.51 Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd. 90.27 Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Company 33.52 Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. 58.26 Sunny Import & Export Limited 27.24 Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd. 61.43 Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd. 26.18 Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd. 41.28 PRC-wide rate* 376.67 * Includes Jinxiang Hongyu Freezing and Storing Co., Ltd., Linyi Sanshan Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd., and Tancheng County Dexing Foods Co., Ltd. Case briefs or other written comments in at least six copies must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than 30 days after new factual information is submitted for the record. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs are due no later than five days after the submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this review in the **Federal Register** . Requests should contain the following information:

(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing three days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Extension of Time for the Final Results of Administrative Review The issues in these preliminary results of review present a number of complex factual and legal questions pertaining to the Department's methods of calculating the antidumping duties in this case. Therefore, it is not practicable to complete the review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Consequently, we are extending the time limit for the completion of the final results of this review, including our analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, until May 30, 2005. See section 751(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1). Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review. With respect to CEP sales for which entered values were reported, for these preliminary results we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each applicable importer. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct the CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the applicable importer's/customer's entries during the review period. With respect to sales for which entered values were not reported, for these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins for each exporter's importer/customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that importer/customer. For assessment amounts calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)for subject merchandise exported by the respondents, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the final results of review;

(2)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 376.67 percent;

(3)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(3) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: November 29, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3477 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-806] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by United States Steel Corporation, a domestic interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Romania. The period of review

(POR)is November 1, 2002, through October 31, 2003. We preliminarily find that sales have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on the subject merchandise that was exported by Ispat Sidex S.A. (Ispat Sidex) and its subsidiary, Sidex Trading S.R.L. (Sidex Trading), and entered during the POR. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle at

(202)482-0650 or David Layton at

(202)482-0371, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 29, 2001, the Department published an antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Romania. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania* , 66 FR 59566 (November 29, 2001) ( *Amended Determination and Order* ). On November 3, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 68 FR 62279 (November 3, 2003). On November 28, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the petitioner requested a review of Ispat Sidex, a producer/exporter of hot-rolled steel from Romania. On December 24, 2003, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Romania covering the period November 1, 2002, through October 31, 2003. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review* , 68 FR 74550 (December 24, 2003). On July 12, 2004, the Department published a notice extending the deadline for the issuance of the preliminary results by 120 days until no later than November 29, 2004. *See Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 41785 (July 12, 2004). We are conducting this review under Section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The petitioner requested an administrative review of Ispat Sidex. Sidex Trading is Ispat Sidex's subsidiary trading company. Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading submitted a consolidated response for this review. We consider Sidex Trading to be part of Ispat Sidex and are thus treating these two companies as a single entity. See Memorandum to File: Treatment of Ispat Sidex S.A. and its subsidiary, Sidex Trading S.R.L., as a single entity (November 29, 2004). Romania's designation as a non-market-economy

(NME)country remained in effect until January 1, 2003. 1 Since the first two months of the POR fell before Romania's graduation to market-economy status and the last ten months of this POR came after its graduation, in its antidumping questionnaire to Ispat Sidex, dated January 26, 2004, the Department determined that it would treat Romania as an NME country from November 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002, and a market-economy

(ME)country from January 1, 2003, through October 31, 2003. Ispat Sidex stated in its February 23, 2004, response to the Department's ME Section A questionnaire that it made no sales of subject merchandise during the 10-month ME period. In a separate February 23, 2004, submission, Ispat Sidex provided documentation to support its claim that it sold no subject merchandise during the ME portion of the POR. The Department corroborated this claim using exporter-specific CBP import data. *See* Decision Memorandum to Gary Taverman (March 9, 2004) available in the Department's Central Records Unit, room B099, of the main Commerce building (CRU). Therefore, in the section of this notice entitled *Preliminary Results of the Review* , we have calculated a weighted-average dumping margin reflecting the margin we calculated for the NME portion of the POR because we found no sales of subject merchandise during the ME portion of the POR. This weighted-average figure thus represents the margin of dumping for the entire POR. 1 *In Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 12672, 12673 (March 17, 2003), the Department reviewed the non-market-economy status of Romania and determined to reclassify Romania as a market economy for purposes of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, pursuant to section 771(18)(A) of the Act, effective January 1, 2003. See Memorandum from Lawrence Norton, Import Policy Analyst, to Joseph Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania-Non-Market Economy Status Review (March 10, 2003). Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight length, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included within the scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized steels (commonly referred to as interstitial-free

(IF)steels), high strength low alloy

(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which:

(i)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

(ii)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

(iii)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or are specifically excluded from the scope: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM)specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute

(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at the following subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Separate Rates A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. As stated above, since Romania was classified as an NME country until January 1, 2003, we are treating Romania as an NME country for the first two months of the POR, from November 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002. It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of *de jure* absence of government control over export activities includes the following: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *De facto* absence of government control over exports is based on four factors: 1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of losses; 3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587, and *Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. We have determined, according to the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* , that evidence on the record demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports by Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading. With respect to *de jure* control, Ispat Sidex is part of the LNM Group, a private joint-stock company organized under the Romanian Commercial Companies Law No. 31/1990, as amended. Ispat Sidex was privatized on November 16, 2001, when LNM Holdings N.V. finalized its purchase of the majority share capital of Ispat Sidex. During the POR, Ispat Sidex was publicly traded on the Romanian stock exchange. Ispat Sidex has provided the Department with a list of its major stockholders that, in addition to LNM Holdings N.V., includes Moldova Financial Investments Company and several individual shareholders with holdings of less than one percent of Ispat Sidex's total shares. Sidex Trading is a limited-liability trading company organized under the Romanian Commercial Companies Law, Law No. 31/1990, as amended. Ispat Sidex has placed on the record documents to demonstrate the absence of *de jure* control including its list of shareholders, business license (“Certificat de Inregistrare”), and translations of relevant Romanian commercial laws, including the Romanian Commercial Companies Law, Law No. 31/1990, the Trade Registry Law, Law No. 26/1990, and various government ordinances related to the company's privatization and tax status. We analyzed these laws and found that they establish the absence of *de jure* control during the POR. These Romanian laws provide Ispat Sidex with the right to establish business organizations for the purpose of conducting any lawful commercial activity, including the export of subject merchandise, provided that the company registers with the government. The activities of Ispat Sidex are limited only by its own articles of incorporation and by-laws, which establish the scope of Ispat Sidex's business activities. Ispat Sidex's by-laws allow the company to engage in a broad range of activities related to the sale of hot-rolled steel, including exporting. There are no business or export licenses required or granted by the government, and the company's business license does not indicate the existence of any special entitlements. See pages A-NME-8 to A-NME-9 of Ispat Sidex's February 23, 2004, submission. With respect to *de facto* control, according to its questionnaire response, the management of Ispat Sidex controls Ispat Sidex, making all decisions concerning budget, sales and pricing subject to review by the company's “council of administration” (Ispat Sidex's board of directors). Sidex Trading is a subsidiary of Ispat Sidex and is controlled by its president who is appointed by the Ispat Sidex council of administration. Ispat Sidex has indicated that neither it nor Sidex Trading has any relationship with national, provincial, or local governments, including ministries or offices of those governments. Ispat Sidex reported the following: 1) It sets prices for merchandise sold to the United States based on negotiations with customers and these prices are not subject to review by any government organization; 2) it does not coordinate with other exporters or producers to set the price or determine to which market companies sell subject merchandise; 3) the export sales manager of Sidex Trading and Ispat Sidex's export manager have the authority to make export sales; 4) during its two-year term the Ispat Sidex council of administration approves the hiring of key officials, approves the disposition of assets over a certain level, and proposes the general budget; 5) the general assembly of shareholders elects the general director of Ispat Sidex, who in turn appoints the executive directors from the ranks of Ispat Sidex employees; 6) Ispat Sidex's executive directors have broad management responsibilities which include the approval and execution of contracts, payments to suppliers, and other normal business operations; 7) Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading control how their export revenues are used without restrictions from outside the companies; 8) Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading hold the bank accounts in which their export revenues are deposited in their respective names; 9) Ispat Sidex's council of administration and Sidex Trading's president have access to their respective export revenue accounts; 10) Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading calculate their profits in accordance with international accounting standards and do not report export profits separately in their respective accounting records; 11) the Ispat Sidex general assembly of shareholders meets annually to review the previous year's results and vote on the following year's budget; 12) Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading can deposit their foreign currency earnings from sales of subject merchandise freely in their respective accounts and there are no requirements that the two companies sell any of their foreign currency earnings to the Romanian government. Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that there was an absence of *de facto* government control over the export functions of Ispat Sidex and Sidex Trading. Export Price Because Ispat Sidex sold the subject merchandise through its subsidiary, Sidex Trading, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States and constructed export price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we have used export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated export price based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers. From this price, we deducted amounts for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We valued these deductions using surrogate values. We selected Egypt as the primary surrogate country for the reasons explained in the “Normal Value” section of this notice. For the deductions of foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling, we used Egyptian surrogate values because these services were provided by Romanian companies and paid in Romanian lei. For certain U.S. sales for which it was appropriate, we also deducted international freight, U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Normal Value As discussed above, the Department is treating Romania as an NME country for the period November 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002. Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Because information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value, we calculated NV based on a factors-of-production methodology in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and

(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). Because we are using surrogate country factors-of-production prices to determine NV, section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that we use values from a market-economy (surrogate) country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Romania and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We have determined that the Philippines, Ecuador, Egypt, Algeria, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic are market-economy countries at a comparable level of economic development to that of Romania. *See* March 10, 2004, memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Gary Taverman which is available in the CRU. In addition, we have found that Egypt is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, i.e., hot-rolled steel. *See* Memorandum to File from Paul Stolz, dated November 29, 2004, which is on file in the CRU. We have chosen Egypt as the primary surrogate country. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), we selected, where possible, publicly available values from Egypt which were average non-export values, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Where we did not have reliable Egyptian values we used values for inputs from the Philippines, which also produces comparable products to the subject merchandise. Because some of the data were not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the data to the POR using the wholesale price index

(WPI)published by the International Monetary Fund. Also, where we have relied upon import values, we have excluded imports from South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. The Department has found that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and that the existence of these subsidies provides sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices from these countries are distorted. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 2004) as discussed in accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. Our practice of excluding subsidized prices has been upheld in *China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. United States and the Timken Company* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), *aff'd* , 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Material Inputs and Surrogate Values To the extent non-aberrational and contemporaneous data were available, we valued material inputs and packing material using imports statistics from the Egyptian import statistical data for 2002 from the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), the Egyptian government's official statistical agency. For certain material inputs and packing material, we used import data for 2002 from *UN Commodity Trade Statistics for 2002* (U.N. Comtrade) or the *World Trade Atlas* (WTA). Where a material input was purchased in a market-economy currency from a market-economy supplier, we valued all of the input at the actual purchase price in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). Consistent with *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Rescind in Part* , 69 FR 54108 (September 7, 2004), to value limestone we used Filipino import statistics for 2001 from the WTA. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see the November 29, 2004, memorandum, Factors of Production Valuation for Preliminary Results (Valuation Memorandum), available in the CRU. To value electricity we used the 2001 electricity rates for Egypt reported on the website of the International Trade Administration under “Trade Information Center.” *See www.web.ita.doc.gov/ticwebsite/neweb.nsf/.* We based the value of natural gas on publically available Egyptian pricing data from an article dated July 18, 2002, published at *http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=3846.* These data reflect market prices for natural gas in Egypt and were used in our most recent final results for seamless steel pipe from Romania. *See Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 68 FR 54418 (September 17, 2003), and corresponding Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 2. We adjusted the value for natural gas for inflation. For injected coal powder, we used Egyptian import data from CAPMAS for 2002. For labor, we used the Romanian regression-based wage rate at Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003. *See* www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per-capita gross domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the *Year Book of Labour Statistics 2002* , International Labour Office (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. We valued by-products using Egyptian import data for 2002 from CAPMAS and import data from U.N. Comtrade. We based our calculation of depreciation, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit from the financial statements of Alexandria National Iron and Steel Works Company (AISC), an Egyptian producer of products identical to the subject merchandise. We were unable to calculate a specific non-depreciation overhead based on the AISC financial statements because the statements did not itemize expenses associated with non-depreciation overhead. Therefore, to estimate AISC's amount of non-depreciation overhead expense, we have calculated a company-specific non-depreciation overhead rate (non-depreciation overhead amounts/cost of sales) from the financial statements of Ispat Annaba SPA, an Algerian producer of products identical to the subject merchandise. We selected the non-depreciation overhead rate from the Algerian company because it was the best available information on the record for the preliminary results. We will consider alternative surrogate non-depreciation overhead rates for the final results of this review. For these preliminary results, we multiplied AISC's total cost of goods sold by the non-depreciation overhead rate from Ispat Annaba (5.02 percent) to derive a value for AISC's non-depreciation overhead. We added the derived AISC non-depreciation overhead value to AISC's reported depreciation expense to obtain a value for total factory overhead. We subtracted this factory overhead amount from AISC's cost of goods sold to obtain a value for total material, labor, and energy expenses, and then we divided the total factory overhead by total material, labor, and energy expenses to calculate the factory overhead ratio we used in our calculation of normal value. To value truck freight rates, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for inflation) provided by a trucking company located in Egypt. For rail transportation, we used rail rates in Egypt, information also used in *Titanium Sponge from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 66169 (November 24, 1999), which we obtained from a 1999 letter from the Egyptian International House. We adjusted these rail rates for inflation. For barge transportation, we valued barge rates using an average of Egyptian rates from an Egyptian freight forwarder for steel coil and coal in bulk from Alexandria to Hulwan, Egypt, as adjusted for inflation. For brokerage and handling, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for inflation) provided by a trucking and shipping company located in Alexandria, Egypt. For additional analysis regarding the surrogate values we have applied, *see* the Valuation Memorandum available in the CRU. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists for the period November 1, 2002, through October 31, 2003: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Ispat Sidex 33.47 Within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, the Department will disclose its calculations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held approximately 37 days after the publication of this notice. Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. Parties are also requested to submit such arguments, and public versions thereof, with an electronic version on a diskette. Duty Absorption On January 23, 2004, United States Steel Corporation requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that, if requested, the Department will determine during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. In this case, Ispat Sidex sold to the United States through an importer that is affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. Because this review was initiated two years after the publication of the antidumping duty order, we will make a duty-absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding. Accordingly, we have requested that Ispat Sidex provide information on duty absorption by December 6, 2004. Based on Ispat Sidex's response, we will make a preliminary determination on duty absorption and provide parties with an opportunity to comment prior to the completion of the final results of this review. Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review. Ispat Sidex reported all of its sales during the POR as export-price sales. Ispat Sidex provided entered values for only a portion of these reported sales. With respect to export-price sales for which entered values were reported, for these preliminary results we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each applicable importer. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct the CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the applicable importer's/customer's entries during the review period. With respect to export-price sales for which entered values were not reported, for these preliminary results we divided the total dumping margins for each exporter's importer/customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that importer/customer. For assessment amounts calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results for all shipments of hot-rolled steel from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)for Ispat Sidex, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of review;

(2)for all other Romanian exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the Romania-wide rate, 88.62 percent, from the *Amended Determination and Order* ;

(3)for non-Romanian exporters of subject merchandise from Romania, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Romanian supplier of that exporter. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 29, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3526 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-504] Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China; Extension of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is extending the time limit for its final results in the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China. Based on adequate responses from the domestic interested parties and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting an expedited sunset review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping order would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. As a result of this extension, the Department intends to issue final results of this expedited sunset review on or about December 10, 2004. EFFECTIVE DATES: December 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4340. *Extension of Final Results:* In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B), the Department may extend the period of time for making its determination by not more than 90 days, if it determines that the review is extraordinarily complicated. As set forth in 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order, as is the case in this proceeding. Therefore, the Department has determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, that the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China is extraordinarily complicated and requires additional time to complete its analysis. The Department's final results of review in this case were scheduled for November 30, 2004. The Department will extend the deadline in this proceeding and, as a result, intends to issue the final results on or about December 10, 2004 in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B). Dated: November 30, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3479 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-814] Pure Magnesium From Canada; Notice of NAFTA Binational Panel's Final Decision, Amended Final Results of Full Sunset Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 19, 2004, the NAFTA Secretariat published in the **Federal Register** a notice of completion of panel review of the final remand redetermination made by the U.S. Department of Commerce concerning the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Canada. *See North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel Reviews; Completion of Panel Review* , 69 FR 67703 (November 19, 2004). As there is now a final and conclusive decision in this case, we are amending the final results of the full sunset review and revoking the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Canada. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 2000. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is pure magnesium. Pure unwrought magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Granular and secondary magnesium are excluded from the scope of this order. Pure magnesium is currently classified under subheading 8104.11.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”). The HTS item number is provided for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Background On August 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Canada pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 64 FR 41915 (August 2, 1999). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department conducted a full sunset review. As a result of this review, on July 5, 2000, the Department, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act, determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Canada is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. *See Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of Full Sunset Review* , 65 FR 41436 (July 5, 2000). Subsequent to the Department's *Final Results* , respondents filed a complaint before the NAFTA Panel challenging these results. On October 23, 2002, Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. (“NHCI”) requested that the Department continue the suspension of liquidation for subject entries made on or after the effective date of the sunset review, pursuant to 516A(g)(5)(C) of the Act. The Department granted this request on January 28, 2003, and suspended liquidation effective August 1, 2000. *See* Letter from John Brinkmann to Gregory S. McCue (January 28, 2003). On March 27, 2002, the NAFTA Panel issued an Order and Opinion. *See Pure Magnesium from Canada* , Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-00-1904-06, (“ *First Remand Order* ”). In the *First Remand Order* , the Panel instructed the Department to reconsider

(1)the claim that “good cause” existed to consider “other price, cost market, or economic factors” in determining the likelihood that dumping would continue or recur; and

(2)its decision to report the investigation rate as the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order were revoked. *Id.* at 34. The Department responded to the *First Remand Order* on May 28, 2002, when the Department released final results of determination pursuant to NAFTA Panel remand of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Canada (“ *First Remand”* ). On October 15, 2002, the NAFTA Panel issued its second remand redetermination in the Canadian magnesium antidumping order sunset case, remanding to the Department its redetermination in the *First Remand. See Decision of the Panel Concerning the Remand Determination by the Department of Commerce, Pure Magnesium From Canada* , File USA-CDA-00-1904-07 (Oct. 15, 2002), at 3, (“ *Second Remand Order* ”). In the *Second Remand Order* , the Panel ordered the Department:

(1)To consider other factors, such as the exchange rate, market share, below cost sales, and zero margins, in its determination of likelihood of dumping;

(2)to reconsider the normal preference for reporting the investigation rate; and

(3)to determine whether it was an appropriate case in which to supplement the record. *Second Remand Order* at 11-12. The Panel concluded that the parties had waived the right to raise the issue, for which they wanted to supplement the record, because the issue had not been raised before; nevertheless, the Panel instructed the Department to obtain the views of the parties and make a determination on reopening the record for this additional information. *Id.* at 10-12. On January 28, 2003, the Department filed its second redetermination on remand with the NAFTA Secretariat (“ *Second Remand* ”). The Department decided that the other factors set forth by the parties were insufficient to warrant a negative likelihood determination, and it also determined it properly reported the investigation rate. *Second Remand* at 7-14, 15-16. The Department obtained the views of the parties and decided, based on 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4), not to reopen the record. *Id.* at 6. On April 28, 2003, the NAFTA Panel remanded an affirmative determination by the Department with instructions to revoke the antidumping order on pure magnesium from Canada. *Pure Magnesium from Canada* , Decision of the Panel Concerning the Results of the Second Redetermination by the Department of Commerce, USA-CDA-00-1904-06 (April 28, 2003) (“ *Third Panel Order* ”). In its third decision, the Panel, disregarding its previous conclusion that the issue had been waived, rejected the Department's application of the deadline in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4), even though the Panel did not find that the Department acted inconsistently with the rule. *Third Panel Order* , at 5. The Panel reviewed the Department's likelihood determination at length, evaluating the Department's factual conclusions in light of six findings of fact extrapolated by the Panel. *Third Panel Order* at 12-20. Based on its own factual findings and the non-record evidence that one company, NHCI, had switched its production focus from pure to alloy magnesium, the Panel concluded dumping would not recur if the order were revoked. *Id.* at 20-21. The Panel subsequently amended its order to require the Department to take action not inconsistent with its decision within 15 days. Order of the Panel (June 24, 2003). The Department issued notice that the panel decisions were not in harmony with the Department's original determination and continued suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise, pending any ECC proceedings. *Pure Magnesium from Canada: NAFTA Panel Decision* , 68 FR 42004 (July 16, 2003). The Panel entered a Notice of Final Panel Action on August 25, 2003. On September 24, 2003, pursuant to Article 1904.13 and Annex 1904.13 of the NAFTA, and Rules 37 through 39 of the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Extraordinary Challenge Committees (“ECC”), the Government of the United States timely requested formation of an ECC to review issues raised by the Panel's decisions. On October 5, 2004, the ECC found that the Panel manifestly exceeded its powers by failing to apply the correct standard of review and that such action materially affected the Panel's decision; however, it also found that the Panel's action did not threaten the integrity of the binational panel review process, and affirmed the Panel's decision. *Pure Magnesium from Canada* , Decision and Order of the Extraordinary Challenge Committee, No. ECC-2003-1904-01USA (October 5, 2004) at 11. On November 19, 2004, the NAFTA Secretariat published in the **Federal Register** its Notice of Completion of Panel Review of the final remand determination made by the U.S. International Trade Administration. *See North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel Reviews; Completion of Panel Review* , 69 FR 67703 (November 19, 2004). Therefore, because there is a final Panel decision in this case, the Department is amending the final sunset review and revoking the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Canada. Effective Date of Revocation The Department is revoking the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from Canada effective August 1, 2000, the effective date of the original full sunset review, pursuant to 516A(g)(5)(C). Pursuant to sections 751(d)(3) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(ii), the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after August 1, 2000 and liquidate without regard to antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 1, 2004. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3528 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-830] Stainless Steel Bar From Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. The period of review is March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004. This review covers imports of stainless steel bar from one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have not been made at less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of stainless steel bar from BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, and BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH in accordance with the final results of review. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Smith, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1276. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published an antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany,* 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002). On October 10, 2003, the Department published an amended antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar from France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom,* 68 FR 58660 (October 10, 2003). On June 14, 2004, the Department published the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from Germany. *See Notice of Final Results of Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany,* 69 FR 32982 (June 14, 2004) (“ *SSBar First Review* ”). On March 1, 2004, the Department published its *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 69 FR 9584 (March 1, 2004). On March 30, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Department received a timely request for review from BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH, BGH Edelstahl Lugau GmbH, and BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (collectively “BGH”), four affiliated German producers of the subject merchandise. On March 31, Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals Division of Crucible Materials Corp., and Electralloy Corp. requested the Department conduct an administrative review of BGH. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on April 28, 2004. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 69 FR 23170 (April 28, 2004). The period of review (“POR”) is March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004. An antidumping duty questionnaire was sent to BGH on May 18, 2004. We received timely responses from BGH on June 24 and July 2, 2004. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to BGH on September 14, 2004. We received a response from BGH on October 12, 2004. On June 7, 2004, BGH requested that it be relieved from the requirement to report affiliated party resales because sales of the foreign like product to affiliated parties during the POR constituted less than five percent of total sales of the foreign like product. On June 16, 2004, we granted BGH's request in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(d). *See* Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, “Reporting of BGH's Home Market Sales by an Affiliated Party,” dated June 16, 2004, which is in the Department's Central Records Unit, located in Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The stainless steel bar subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of stainless steel bar by BGH to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared the export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Normal Value” section of this notice. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by BGH covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared BGH's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (For further details, *see* the “Normal Value” section of this notice.) We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making product comparisons, consistent with the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany,* 67 FR 3159 (January 23, 2002) and *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany,* 67 FR 10382 (March 7, 2002) (collectively “ *LTFV Final* ”), we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by BGH in the following order: general type of finish; grade; remelting process; type of final finishing operation; shape; and size. Export Price We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed ex-works or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified the correct starting price by accounting for billing adjustments and early payment discounts. We also made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included foreign inland freight, international freight, U.S. other transportation expense, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), and U.S. inland freight. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , whether the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared BGH's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2) of the Department's regulations. Because BGH's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test The Department's practice with respect to the use of home market sales to affiliated parties for NV is to determine whether such sales are at arm's-length prices. BGH made sales in the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade,* 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, we only included in our margin analysis those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's length. C. Cost of Production Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (“COP”) in the last completed review for BGH ( *see SSBar First Review* ), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we requested that BGH respond to section D, the cost of production/constructed value section of the questionnaire. We conducted the COP analysis described below. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of BGH's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses (“G&A”), interest expenses, and home market packing costs. We relied on the COP information provided by BGH, except in the following instances. BGH calculated its G&A expense ratio by dividing the total company-wide G&A expenses, which included BGH's operating companies' and parent companies' G&A expenses, by the total company-wide cost of manufacture (“COM”), which included BGH's operating companies' COM and its parent companies' COM using its parent companies' cost of goods sold. Consistent with the *LTFV Final* and *SSBar First Review,* we recalculated BGH's G&A ratio by excluding its parent companies' cost of goods sold from the calculation of the G&A expense ratio. We also recalculated BGH's interest expense ratio by including all of BGH's consolidated exchange gains and losses on foreign currency in the calculation of the interest expense ratio. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 68 FR 47543 (August 11, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 19. For further explanation about these adjustments, *see* Memorandum from Case Analyst to File, “Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for BGH Group, Inc.,” dated December 1, 2004, located in the Department's CRU. 2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sales prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, commissions, discounts, rebates, interest revenue and indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act, whether such sales were made

(1)within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and

(2)at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that in such instances the below cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1). D. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa,* 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 1 including selling functions, 2 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each sale. 1 The marketing process in the United States and comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. 2 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: Sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 3 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. 3 Where NV is based on Constructed Value (“CV”), we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practical, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. BGH reported 4 channels of distribution in the home market. Channels 1 and 2 were made-to-order sales to distributors and end-users, respectively. Channels 3 and 4 were sales from inventory to distributors and end-users, respectively. We examined the selling functions reported by BGH for each of these channels and found that made-to-order sales in channels 1 and 2 were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, inventory maintenance, and warranty service. We also found that because channel 3 sales were made from inventory, they differed from channel 1 and 2 made-to-order sales with respect to inventory services, but that they were otherwise similar to channels 1 and 2 with respect to sales process, freight services, and warranty service. While inventory maintenance function for channel 3 sales was distinguishable from channels 1 and 2, this selling function difference was not significant in that sales reported in channel 3 were made in large lot sizes similar to those in channels 1 and 2, indicating that inventory handling on these sales was minimal. As such, we find that this selling function difference alone was not sufficient to distinguish channel 3 sales from channels 1 and 2. Therefore, we found that channels of distribution 1, 2 and 3 were sufficiently similar to constitute a distinct level of trade (LOTH 1). BGH included in distribution channel 4 any sale with a length of under 3 meters or having “other revenue” reported on the invoice. BGH considered these channel 4 sales to be a separate LOT because of service center selling functions provided for bar sold through this channel. “Other revenue” is a separate charge appearing on the invoice for special services performed by the inventory warehouse, such as cutting, grinding, special finishing and additional testing. Because BGH claims that “other revenue” is sometimes not listed separately on the invoice when service center functions have been performed, but instead is included as part of the selling price, BGH used length of the bars sold as an alternate indicator of when service center functions were performed. Specifically, BGH claims that because the minimum production length for rolled or forged bars is 3 meters, any sale from inventory having a length of less than 3 meters, whether or not “other revenue” is included on the invoice, must undergo sawing in the company's warehouse/service center. We agree with BGH that the “other revenue” charged on certain sales is indicative of service center functions and that these sales are distinct from LOTH 1 with respect to sales process and inventory maintenance, and as such constitute a separate level of trade, LOTH 2. However, we disagree with BGH that any sale with a reported length of less than 3 meters, and for which no “other revenue” has been reported separately on the invoice, has been subject to service center functions. First, while BGH may, as claimed, have standard production lengths of greater than 3 meters in length, BGH has not supported this position on the record. Second, BGH's methodology for identifying sales of less than 3 meters does not reflect the length of each bar sold. In order to obtain bar length, BGH applied a formula to the total weight of all bars for each sales transaction and used this total length to establish whether a sale was above or below 3 meters in length. Therefore, if one sale was comprised of 5 bars of 2 meters each, the reported length would be 10 meters. While this methodology may understate the actual length of each bar sold, we find it to be an imprecise methodology for establishing bar length. Third, using the home market sales database provided by BGH, we compared sales transactions on specific invoices and found instances where, for transactions on the same invoice of the same bar above and below 3 meters, the same invoice price was charged, indicating that “other revenue” had not been added to the invoice price for bars less than 3 meters. Therefore, for distribution channel 4 sales with no “other revenue” separately reported on the invoice, we preliminarily determine that these sales are similar to LOTH 1 sales with respect to sales process, freight service and warranty service. BGH reported EP sales through two channels of distribution, made-to-order sales to distributors (channel 1) and warehouse inventory sales to distributors (channel 3). We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities associated with sales through these channels and found them to be similar with respect to sales process, freight services, and warranty service. Therefore, we determine that the two EP channels of distribution constitute a single LOT (LOTU 1). The EP LOT differed considerably from LOTH 2 with respect to sales process and warehousing/inventory maintenance. However, the EP LOT is similar to LOTH 1 with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance and warranty service. Consequently, we matched the EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market (LOTH 1). Where no matches at the same LOT were possible, we matched to sales in LOTH 2 and we made a LOT adjustment. *See* section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on the ex-works or delivered price to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's length. We identified the correct starting price by accounting for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, other discounts, and rebates. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for inland freight and inland insurance. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or on U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset). Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. In addition, where appropriate, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales (credit expenses less interest revenue), and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses and commissions). Where payment dates were unreported, we recalculated the credit expenses using the last date of new information received in place of actual date of payment. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. Finally, where appropriate, we made an adjustment for differences in LOT under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(b)-(e). Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily find that the following dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004. Manufacturer/exporter Margin BGH 0.01 *de minimis* Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the entered value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* and the entered value is available, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the POR. Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* , and the entered value is not available, we calculated a per unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Cash Deposit Rates The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel bar from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);

(2)for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the *LTFV Final* investigation, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 16.96 percent, the “all others” rate established in the *LTFV Final.* Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 1, 2004. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3529 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-351-829] Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel From Brazil; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel (“hot-rolled steel”) from Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,* 69 FR 24118 (May 3, 2004). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATES: December 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary Sadler, Esq., Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 3, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on hot-rolled steel from Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See* Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 69 FR 24118 (May 3, 2004). The Department received notices of intent to participate and substantive responses from Nucor Corp. (“Nucor”); Ispat Inland, Inc., and its division Ispat Inland Flat Products (“Ispat Inland”); International Steel Group, Inc. (“International Steel Group”); Gallatin Steel Co. (“Gallatin Steel”); IPSCO Steel Inc. (“IPSCO”); Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“Steel Dynamics”); and United States Steel Corp. (“United States Steel”) (collectively, “domestic interested parties”) within the applicable deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the *Sunset Regulations.* *See* Notice of Gallatin Steel, IPSCO and Steel Dynamics, May 13, 2004; Notice of Nucor, May 6, 2004; Notice of United States Steel, May 18, 2004; Notice of International Steel Group, May 18, 2004; Notice of Ispat Inland, May 14, 2004. All domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status, under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. producers of the domestic like product. See Domestic Response of the Domestic Interested Parties (June 2, 2004). Ispat Inland, Gallatin Steel, IPSCO, Steel Dynamics and United States Steel were petitioners in the investigation and have been involved in this proceeding since its inception. *Id.* at 3. According to the domestic interested parties in this review, International Steel Group formed in 2002 and is the successor to the original petitioners that no longer exist: LTV Steel Company, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and Weirton Steel Corporation. *Id.* As a result of the lack of respondent participation in this sunset review, 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 (120-day) sunset review of this order. Scope of Review For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.,* flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of these investigations. Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels, high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of HTSUS definitions, are products in which:

(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

(2)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

(3)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.012 percent of boron, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this agreement: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including *e.g.* , ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506). • SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni 0.10-0.14% 0.90% Max 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.30-0.50% 0.20-0.40% 0.20% Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000—88,000 psi. • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni 0.10-0.16% 0.70-0.90% 0.025% Max 0.006% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.30-0.50% 0.25% Max 0.20% Max Mo 0.21% Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni 0.10-0.14% 1.30-1.80% 0.025% Max 0.005% Max 0.30-0.50% 0.50-0.70% 0.20-0.40% 0.20% Max V(wt.) Cb 0.10% Max 0.08% Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni 0.15% Max 1.40% Max 0.025% Max 0.010% Max 0.50% Max 1.00% Max 0.50% Max 0.20% Max Nb Ca Al 0.005% Min Treated 0.01-0.07% Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses ≤ 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses ≤0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. • Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either

(i)tensile strength between 540 N/mm 2 and 640 N/mm 2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or

(ii)a tensile strength between 590 N/mm 2 and 690 N/mm 2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 25 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above. • Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium. • Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum copper content of 0.20%. The merchandise subject to this agreement is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 29, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the accompanying Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies, the net subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked, and the nature of the subsidy. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review 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,* under the heading “December 2004.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the CVD order on hot-rolled steel from Brazil would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the rates listed below: Producers/Exporters Net countervailable subsidy (percent) Usinas Siderugicas de Minas Gerais and Companhia Siderugica Paulista (“USIMINAS/ COSIPA”) 9.67 Companhia Siderugica Nacional (“CSN”) 6.35 All Others 7.81 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 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 29, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E4-3480 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [ C-475-819 ] Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative review. SUMMARY: On July 30, 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002. Based on information received since the preliminary results and our analysis of the comments received, we have revised the net subsidy rates for Pasta Zara S.p.A./Pasta Zara 2 S.p.A. and Pastificio Corticella S.p.A./Pastificio Combattenti S.p.A. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melani Miller Harig or Andrew Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-0116 and

(202)482-1276, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On July 24, 1996, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a countervailing duty order on certain pasta (“pasta” or “subject merchandise”) from Italy. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta From Italy* , 61 FR 38544 (July 24, 1996). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review of the order covers the following producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested: Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. (“Pagani”), Pastificio Corticella S.p.A./Pastificio Combattenti S.p.A. (collectively, “Corticella/Combattenti”), Pasta Zara S.p.A./Pasta Zara 2 S.p.A. (“Pasta Zara 2”) 1 (collectively “Pasta Zara/Pasta Zara 2”), Pasta Lensi S.r.l. (“Lensi”), 2 and Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A./Pastificio Di Nola S.p.A.. 1 During the first part of the period of review (calendar year 2002) (“POR”), Pasta Zara 2 was named Societa per Azioni Pasta Giulia S.p.A; on September 9, 2002, the company changed its name to Pasta Zara 2. 2 Lensi is the successor-in-interest to IAPC Italia S.r.l. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 68 FR 41553 (July 14, 2003). Based on withdrawal of the request for review, we rescinded this administrative review for Pastificio Antonio Pallante S.r.l. ( *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 45676 (July 30, 2004) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”).) Since the publication of the *Preliminary Results* , case briefs were submitted on August 30, 2004 by Pasta Zara/Pasta Zara 2 and Corticella/Combattenti. The Department did not conduct a hearing in this review because none was requested. Scope of the Review Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this review are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.L. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order. *See Memorandum from Eric B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner* , dated August 4, 2004, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room B-099 of the main Department building. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.9095 and 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Scope Rulings The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:

(1)On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See Memorandum from Edward Easton to Richard Moreland* , dated August 25, 1997, which is on file in the CRU.

(2)On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling finding that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See Letter from Susan H. Kuhbach to Barbara P. Sidari* , dated July 30, 1998, which is available in the CRU.

(3)On October 23, 1997, the petitioners filed an application requesting that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention investigation of Barilla S.r.L. (“Barilla”), an Italian producer and exporter of pasta. The Department initiated the investigation on December 8, 1997. *See Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry on Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy* , 62 FR 65673 (December 15, 1997). On October 5, 1998, the Department issued its final determination that, pursuant to section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”), circumvention of the antidumping order on pasta from Italy was occurring by reason of exports of bulk pasta from Italy produced by Barilla which subsequently were repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or less for sale in the United States. *See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 63 FR 54672 (October 13, 1998).

(4)On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. *See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to Richard Moreland* , dated May 24, 1999, which is available in the CRU.

(5)On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pagani's importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b). *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 65 FR 26179 (May 5, 2000). On September 19, 2003, we published an affirmative finding of the anti-circumvention inquiry. *See Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Pasta from Italy: Affirmative Final Determinations of Circumvention of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 68 FR 54888 (September 19, 2003). Period of Review The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised by the interested parties to this administrative review in the case briefs are addressed in the November 29, 2004 “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/* under the heading “Italy.” The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Changes to the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments submitted in the case briefs, we have made changes in our calculation of the net subsidy rates for Pasta Zara/Pasta Zara 2 and Corticella/Combattenti. These changes are discussed in the relevant section of the *Decision Memorandum* . Final Results of Review In accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter covered by this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002, we determine the net subsidy rates for producers/exporters under review to be those specified in the chart shown below: Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. 0.06 percent (de minimis) Pastificio Corticella S.p.A./Pastificio Combattenti S.p.A. 0.09 percent (de minimis) Pasta Zara S.p.A./Pasta Zara 2 S.p.A./Societa per Azioni Pasta Giulia S.p.A 0.30 percent (de minimis) Pasta Lensi S.r.l. 0.00 percent (de minimis) Pastificio Carmine Russo S.p.A./Pastificio Di Nola S.p.A. 0.16 percent (de minimis) The calculations will be disclosed to the interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Because the countervailing duty rates for all of the above-noted companies are less than 0.5 percent and, consequently, *de minimis* , we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) to liquidate entries during the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 without regard to countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to Customs within 15 days of publication of these final results of this review. For all other companies that were not reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded from the order), the Department has directed Customs to assess countervailing duties on all entries between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002 at the rates in effect at the time of entry. The Department will also instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the above-noted companies at the above-noted rates on the f.o.b. value of all shipments of the subject merchandise from the producers/exporters under review that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.L., which are excluded from the order), we will instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 29, 2004. James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Corticella/Combattenti and *Sgravi* Benefits *Comment 2:* Benefit for Pasta Zara/Pasta Zara 2's First Law 908/55 Fondo di Rotazione Iniziative Economiche (Revolving Fund for Economic Initiatives) (“FRIE”) Loan *Comment 3:* Benefit for Pasta Zara 2's Second Law 908/55 FRIE Loan [FR Doc. E4-3476 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free Trade Agreement, Article 1904 NAFTA Panel Reviews; Notice of Panel Decision AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of panel decision. SUMMARY: On December 1, 2004, the binational panel issued its decision in the review of the final results of the affirmative countervailing duty re-determination on remand made by the International Trade Administration

(ITA)respecting Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2002-1904-03) affirmed in part and remanded in part the re-determination of the Department of Commerce. The Department will return the determination on remand no later than January 24, 2005. A copy of the complete panel decision is available from the NAFTA Secretariat. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from the other country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). *Panel Decision:* On December 1, 2004, the Binational Panel remanded the Department of Commerce's final countervailing duty determination on remand. The following issues were remanded to the Department:

(1)The Department is directed to reinstate the C$3.46 profit figure in computing the log-seller profit in Alberta.

(2)The Department is directed to include in the Quebec benchmarks the volume of logs for which the Syndicate data does not indicate prices, or to explain why it should not do so, or why it cannot do so.

(3)The Department is directed to adjust the Quebec benchmarks by deducting log-seller profit from both the import and Syndicate prices.

(4)The Department is directed to consider the conversion factor to be used to convert Syndicate prices in Quebec to cubic meters where the data is reported in other forms.

(5)The Department is directed to include Balsam Fir and Larch in the Ontario SPF benchmark.

(6)The Department is directed to correct the clerical error in the import statistics for Ontario which grossly inflated the benchmark.

(7)The Department is directed to examine the issue of log-seller profit in Ontario. If the Department determines that it is appropriate to use a surrogate profit figure from some other province, it is directed to explain its choice.

(8)The Department is directed to redetermine the net benefit for Ontario.

(9)The Department is directed to recalculate the British Columbia benchmark taking into account actual market conditions in that province. In so doing, the Department must perform separate benefit calculations for the Coast and for the Interior using data available for each region.

(10)The Department is directed to apply recalculated profit figures for Alberta and Quebec in calculating British Columbia stumpage benefits.

(11)The Department is directed to eliminate the import data in the surrogate benchmarks for Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

(12)If the Department's benchmark calculations result in a higher benefit for Quebec or Ontario, the Department is directed to exclude additional sales that might erroneously be attributed to Bois Omega. The Investigating Authority is directed to complete its remand determination by January 24, 2005. Dated: December 2, 2004. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E4-3512 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. 2004-P-050] Changes to Patent Fees Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: If enacted in its present form, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Consolidated Appropriations Act), will revise patent fees in general, including maintenance fees, and will provide for a search fee and examination fee that are separate from the filing fee, during fiscal years 2005 and 2006. This notice provides advance notice to the public of the changes to patent fees in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. In particular, with respect to maintenance fees, this notice advises the public to remain vigilant as to the effective date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and to consider paying maintenance fees early or taking other appropriate steps to ensure that their patents remain in force. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at

(571)272-7701 or by electronic mail message over the Internet at *PatentPractice@USPTO.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Consolidated Appropriations Act) would, upon enactment, revise certain patent application and maintenance fees; provide separate fees for a basic filing fee, a search fee, and an examination fee; and require an additional fee for any patent application whose specification and drawings exceed 100 sheets of paper (application size fee). The new patent fees become effective on the date the President signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The fees will remain in effect during the remainder of fiscal year 2005 and during fiscal year 2006. The USPTO expects the Consolidated Appropriations Act to be signed by the President in December. The patent maintenance fee changes apply to any maintenance fee payment made on or after the date of enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, regardless of the filing or issue date of the patent for which the fee is submitted. The revised maintenance fees take effect on the date the Consolidated Appropriations Act is signed by the President. For example, if the President signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act at noon on December 8, 2004, any maintenance fee paid at any time on December 8, 2004, or thereafter, would be subject to the revised maintenance fee amounts set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, regardless of whether the President signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act before or after the payment is made. For this reason, persons paying the second and third maintenance fees may want to consider:

(1)Authorizing payment of any deficiency from a deposit account; or

(2)paying the maintenance fee with sufficient time remaining in the payment window to allow for a timely payment of any fee deficiency due to the enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. This is especially important if paying via the USPTO's Internet Web site since there may be some delay in updating maintenance fee information on the USPTO's Office of Finance On-Line Shopping Web page and maintenance fees must be timely paid in the appropriate amount to avoid expiration of a patent. The new basic filing fee (or national fee), search fee, examination fee, and application size fee will apply to national patent applications filed on or after the date of enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and to international patent applications in which the basic national fee is paid on or after the date of enactment. The filing fee (or national fee), search fee, and examination fee are due on filing. If the filing fee (or national fee) is paid on filing, but the search fee and/or examination fee is missing, the USPTO will issue a notice requiring that any missing search fee and examination fee (but no surcharge until further notice) be paid within a specified period of time in order to avoid abandonment. Thus, if at least the full basic filing fee in effect on the date of enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act is paid on or after the date of enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the USPTO will issue a notice requiring any balance of the search fee and the examination fee (but no surcharge). Since the changes to the patent fees take effect on the date the Consolidated Appropriations Act is signed by the President, there will be applications filed on or after the effective date that may not include the revised fees set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. For example, if the President signs the Consolidated Appropriations Act at noon on December 8, 2004, any application filed (before or after noon) on December 8, 2004, or thereafter, would be subject to the basic filing fee, search fee, examination fee and the revised patent application fees set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The remaining patent application fee changes, including the excess claims fees, extension of time fees, and appeal fees, apply to any fee payment made on or after the date of enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, regardless of the filing date of the application for which the fee is submitted. The USPTO will post additional information on its Internet Web site ( *http://www.uspto.gov* ) as soon as possible after enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. USPTO customers should monitor the USPTO's Internet Web site frequently for current patent fee information. Payments from foreign countries must be payable and immediately negotiable in the United States for the full amount of the fee required. Dated: December 2, 2004. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 04-26853 Filed 12-3-04; 9:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 24

Traces to 24 documents

U.S. Code

CFR