Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2005-05-06 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice of Intent To Rescind Administrative Review

13,268 words·~60 min read·/register/2005/05/06/05-9116

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

BILLING CODE 3510-33-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-848 Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In March 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received three requests to conduct new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
We have determined that each of these requests meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for the initiation of a new shipper review. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton at
(202)482-1386 or Kristina Boughton at
(202)482-8173; AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received timely requests from Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd., (“Shanghai Sunbeauty”) (March 18, 2005), Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-Manufactures Co., Ltd., (“Jiangsu JOM”) (March 18, 2005), and Qingdao Wentai Trading Co., Ltd., (“Qingdao Wentai”) (March 21, 2005) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214 (c), for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC, which has a March semiannual anniversary month. Jiangsu JOM identified itself as the producer and exporter of freshwater crawfish tail meat. Shanghai Sunbeauty identified itself as the exporter and Wuwei Xinhua Food Co., Ltd., (“Wuwei Xinhua”) as the producer of subject merchandise. Qingdao Wentai identified itself as the exporter and Nanxian Shunxiang Aquatic Food Products Co., Ltd., as the producer of subject merchandise. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), and (iii)(A), Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai certified that they did not export freshwater crawfish tail meat to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that each company has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported freshwater crawfish tail meat to the United States during the POI. Furthermore, Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai have also certified that their 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), Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai submitted documentation establishing the date on which the subject merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United States, the volume of that first shipment and any subsequent shipments, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted Customs database queries to confirm that each company's shipment had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry date in the Customs database by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Initiation of Reviews In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we are initiating new shipper reviews for Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai. See Memoranda to the File through James C. Doyle, “New Shipper Initiation Checklist,” all dated April 29, 2005. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which this review was initiated, and the final results of this review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the period of review (“POR”) for a new shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper reviews of Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai will be September 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005. It is the Department's usual practice in cases involving non-market economies to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue questionnaires to Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai, including a separate rates section. The reviews will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai are not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to their exports of freshwater crawfish tail meat. However, if the exporter does not demonstrate the company's eligibility for a separate rate, then the company will be deemed not separate from the PRC-wide entity, which exported during the POI and its new shipper review will be rescinded. *See,* 19 CFR 251.214(2)(iii)(A), *see also Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Rescission of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 53669 (September 2, 2004) and *Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 64 FR 61581 (November 12, 1999). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e), we will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a single entry bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for certain entries of the merchandise exported by either Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, or Qingdao Wentai. We will apply the bonding option under 19 CFR 351.107(b)(1)(i) only to entries from these three exporters for which the respective producers under review are the suppliers. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in these new shipper reviews should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d). Dated: April 29, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2214 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-201-827 Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Mexico: Notice of Intent To Rescind Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Intent To Rescind Administrative Review. SUMMARY: On September 22, 2004, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty review with respect to Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. (“TAMSA”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). We have preliminarily determined that the review of TAMSA should be rescinded. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Terpstra or George McMahon, 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)482-3965 or
(202)482-1167, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (“SLP”) from Mexico, for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004 (69 FR 46496). On August 31, 2004, we received a request from the petitioner 1 to review TAMSA. On September 22, 2004, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to TAMSA. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). On November 23, 2004, TAMSA submitted a letter certifying that neither TAMSA, nor its U.S. affiliate, Tenaris Global Services USA (“Tenaris”), directly or indirectly, exported or sold for consumption in the United States any subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”). 1 The petitioner is United States Steel Corporation. Scope of the Order The products covered are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.36 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this investigation. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this review. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are: A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”), if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. C. Products produced to the A-335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications. D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application, *i.e.* , line and riser pipe that is
(1)used in a deepwater application, which means for use in water depths of 1,500 feet or more;
(2)intended for use in and is actually used for a specific deepwater project;
(3)rated for a specified minimum yield strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and
(4)not identified or certified through the use of a monogram, stencil, or otherwise marked with an API specification ( *e.g.* , “API 5L”). With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, the Department will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-335 specification is being used in an A-106 application, it will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally the Department will require only the importer of record to certify to the end-use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, the Department may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Intent To Rescind Fourth Administrative Review TAMSA submitted a letter on November 23, 2004, certifying that neither TAMSA, nor its U.S. affiliate, Tenaris, directly or indirectly, exported or sold for consumption in the United States any subject merchandise during the POR. The petitioner did not comment on TAMSA's no-shipment claim. We conducted an internal customs data query on December 9, 2004. The data query indicated TAMSA and its U.S. affiliate, Tenaris, had customs entries/shipments during the POR, some of which entered under the HTSUS numbers for subject merchandise. Subsequent to our analysis of the internal customs data, we requested an external customs data query. *See* Memorandum dated February 24, 2005, entitled “Request for U.S. Entry Documents—Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Mexico from Mexico, Customs Case Number A-201-827.” We reviewed the customs entry documents which included bills of lading, entry summaries, entry/immediate delivery forms, invoices, and mills certificates. Based on the product specifications and the information contained in the documents, which confirmed that AD/CVD duties were not assessed on the shipments, we were able to confirm that TAMSA had no entries, exports, or sales to the United States of subject mrchandise during the POR. Based on our analysis of the shipment data, we are treating TAMSA as a non-shipper for the purpose of this review. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine to rescind this review. *See e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 12209 (March 8, 2000); *Persulfates From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 18963 (April 10, 2000). Public Comment An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this preliminary notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this preliminary notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in such briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final notice, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of this preliminary notice. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d). Dated: May 2, 2005. Barbara Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2221 Filed 5-5-05; 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 Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 22, 2004, the Department published its notice of initiation of an antidumping administrative review on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). The Department subsequently received a timely withdrawal request from one of the exporters that requested a review: Shangyu City Garden Candle Factory (“Garden Candle”). On March 30, 2005, the Department published a notice of rescission, in part, of antidumping duty administrative review for Garden Candle. *See Petroleum Wax Candles from the PRC: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 16217 (March 30, 2005). The Department is not rescinding its review of Shanghai R&R Import/Export Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai R&R”), another exporter that requested review. The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than May 3, 2005. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results in the administrative review of petroleum wax candles from the PRC within the originally anticipated time limit ( *i.e.* , by May 3, 2005), because we are currently analyzing factors of production information that has required numerous supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results no later than August 11, 2005, in accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The deadline for the final results of this administrative review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with Section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: April 29, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2215 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-489-807) Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. This review covers four producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. This is the sixth period of review (POR), covering April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. We have preliminarily determined that one of the respondents, Habas Tibbi ve Sinai Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas), has made sales below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to the following companies because these companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR: Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas), Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas), Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan), Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik), Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal), Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik San A.S. (collectively “Ekinciler”), Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. (Iskenderun), Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir), Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan), Kardemir--Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk), Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman), Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum), Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A.S. (Metas), Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet), Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan), Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri A.S. (Sivas), Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali), and Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel). Finally, we have preliminarily determined to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument:
(1)a statement of the issue; and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-0656 or
(202)482-0498, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 1, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity To Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey (69 FR 17129). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on April 30, 2004, the Department received requests from both Colakoglu and ICDAS to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. As part of its request, ICDAS also requested that the Department revoke the dumping order with regard to it, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on April 30, 2004, the petitioners, Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation, also requested an administrative review for the following 23 producers/exporters of rebar: Cebitas; Cemtas; Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu); Demirsan; Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Yazici), and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Diler”); Ege Celik; Ege Metal; Ekinciler; Habas; ICDAS; Iskenderun; Izmir; Kaptan; Kardemir; Kroman; Kurum; Metas; Nurmet; Nursan; Sivas; Tosyali; and Ucel. In May 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review for each of these companies and issued questionnaires to them. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 30282 (May 27, 2004). In May and June 2004, the following companies informed the Department that they had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR: Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, and Tosyali. We reviewed CBP data and confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these companies. We also confirmed with CBP data that Ege Metal, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and Ucel did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. In July 2004 Colakoglu requested that the Department modify its reporting requirements with respect to its home market sales. Specifically, Colakoglu requested that it be excused from reporting home market sales and cost data for coiled rebar. In its request, Colakoglu stated that it sold only straight-length rebar in the U.S. market and noted that this was produced in a separate facility from coiled rebar. The Department granted Colakoglu's request on July 6, 2004. In August 2004 we received responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire (i.e., the sections regarding sales to the home market and the United States) and section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding cost of production
(COP)and constructed value (CV)) from Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS. On November 4, 2004, the Department postponed the preliminary results of this review until no later than May 2, 2005. *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 65151 (Nov. 10, 2004). From November 2004 through March 2005, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the participating respondents. We received responses to these questionnaires between December 2004 and March 2005. We verified the sales and cost information submitted by ICDAS in February and March 2005. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes
(i)plain round rebar,
(ii)rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, and
(iii)all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS) under item numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, and Tosyali informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with CBP. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to these companies. *See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004) *(2002-2003 Rebar Review* ) and *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part* , 68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sep. 9, 2003) ( *2001-2002 Rebar Review* ). We have also confirmed with CBP that Ege Metal, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and Ucel did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are also preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Ege Metal, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and Ucel. Notice of Intent To Revoke, in Part As noted above, on April 30, 2004, ICDAS submitted a letter to the Department requesting revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). ICDAS's request was accompanied by a certification that it has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current POR and will not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future. ICDAS further certified that it sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. The company also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, ICDAS sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751(a) of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. Section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations explains that the Secretary may revoke an antidumping duty order in part if the Secretary concludes, *inter alia* , that one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years. *See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands* , 65 FR 742, 743 (Jan. 6, 2000). We preliminarily determine that the request from ICDAS meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). With regard to the criteria of subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations show that ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV during the current review period. See the dumping margins below. In addition, ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews in which it was involved (i.e., ICDAS's dumping margin was zero or *de minimis* ). *See 2002-2003 Rebar Review* and *2001-2002 Rebar Review* . Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by ICDAS, we preliminarily determine that ICDAS sold the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by ICDAS to support its request for revocation. See the memorandum to the file from Irina Itkin entitled “Analysis of Commercial Quantities for ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S.'s Request for Revocation,” dated May 2, 2005. Thus, we preliminarily find that ICDAS had zero or *de minimis* dumping margins for its last three administrative reviews and sold in commercial quantities in each of these years. Also, we preliminarily determine that application of the antidumping duty order to ICDAS is no longer warranted for the following reasons:
(1)the company had zero or de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years;
(2)the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and
(3)the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that ICDAS qualifies for revocation of the order on rebar pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke this order in part for ICDAS and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), terminate the suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2004, and instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such entries. Affiliated Producers ICDAS has an affiliated rolling mill, Demir Sanayi ve Celik Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S. (Demir Sanayi). ICDAS has argued that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse these entities for purposes of this review because:
(1)the two entities have the same shareholders and managers;
(2)Demir Sanayi and ICDAS have the same production capacities for rebar; and
(3)Demir Sanayi sold rebar in the home market for its own account. Based on the information on the record of this review, we preliminary find that it is appropriate to collapse ICDAS with Demir Sanayi, consistent with our treatment of these entities in the previous segment of this proceeding. For further discussion, see the memorandum to Louis Apple from the team entitled “Concurrence Memorandum,” dated May 2, 2005 (concurrence memo). Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price
(EP)to the NV. When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire, or CV, as appropriate. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. and home markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: form, grade, size, and American Society for Testing and Materials specification. Where there were no home market sales of foreign like product that were identical in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority. Export Price For all U.S. sales made by Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. Regarding the date of sale, three of the respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Habas, and ICDAS) argued in their questionnaire responses that we should use the date of either single-shipment contracts or purchase orders as the date of sale for their U.S. sales in this review. However, we determined that it is appropriate to continue to follow our normal practice of using invoice date as the date of sale for all U.S. sales reported by all of the respondents in this review because the material terms of sale are established on that date. For further discussion, see the concurrence memo. A. Colakoglu We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for inspection fees, lashing and loading expenses, demurrage expenses (offset by freight commission revenue, wharfage revenue, despatch revenue, demurrage commission revenue, agency fee revenue, attendance fee revenue, and other freight-related revenue), ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. B. Diler We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight expenses, brokerage and handling expenses, loading expenses (including charges for loading supervision), and ocean freight expenses (offset by despatch revenue), where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Regarding foreign inland freight expenses, Diler reported that these expenses were provided by an affiliated party. Because Diler was not able to demonstrate that these expenses were charged on an arm's-length basis, we adjusted the reported amounts to be equivalent to the market price. For further discussion, see the concurrence memo. C. Habas We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made adjustments for billing adjustments. We also made deductions for foreign inland freight expenses, customs overtime fees, forklift charges, loading charges, surveying expenses, and ocean freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. D. ICDAS We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight expenses, surveying expenses, customs overtime fees, loading expenses, ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage charges, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales. For each respondent, in accordance with our practice, we excluded home market sales of non-prime merchandise made during the POR from our preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in the home market and the fact that no such sales were made to the United States during the POR. ( *See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea* , 58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993); *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part* , FR 25066, 25066 (May 5, 2004); *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 21634, 21636 (May 1, 2002) (unchanged by the final results); *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 56274 (Nov. 7, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.) B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test Diler and ICDAS made sales of rebar to affiliated parties in the home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested these sales to ensure that they were made at “arm's-length” prices, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade (LOT), we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market* , 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002). C. Cost of Production Analysis Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that these respondents had made home market sales at prices below their COPs in this review because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the cost test for these companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which these companies participated (i.e., the 2001-2002 administrative review for Habas and the 2002-2003 administrative review for Colakoglu, Diler, and ICDAS). As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether these companies had made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. *See 2001-2002 Rebar Review and 2002-2003 Rebar Review* . In this review, Habas and ICDAS reported their costs on both a quarterly basis and a POR basis. These respondents argued that the Department should base its analysis on their quarterly cost data because the world price of scrap experienced a significant increase during the POR. The Department has used monthly or quarterly costs in non-inflationary cases only when there was a single primary input product and that input experiences a significant and consistent decline or rise in its cost during the reporting period. Conversely, when there are inconsistent fluctuations in both directions we use a single weighted-average cost for the entire POR. *See Certain Pasta from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 77852 (Dec. 13, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18. In this case, because we do not find that the price of scrap experienced a significant and consistent increase during the POR, we have continued to follow the Department's normal practice of using weighted-average POR costs for all respondents. For further discussion, see the concurrence memo. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses. See the “Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. We relied on the COP information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued: A. Diler 1. We excluded the value of purchased rebar from the COP database. 2. We disallowed certain income items reported as offsets to G&A expenses because Diler failed to provide an explanation for them, despite the Department's request that it do so. 3. We recalculated the financial expense ratio for Diler based on the company-specific financial statements. However, because the resulting ratios are negative, we set them to zero in accordance with the Department's practice. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8933 (Feb. 23, 1998) ( *SRAMs from Taiwan* ). For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum from Ji Young Oh to Neal Halper entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.,” dated May 2, 2005. B. Habas 1. We increased the POR weighted-average fixed overhead for each control number to include the difference between the total depreciation expenses recorded in Habas's general ledger and the amount included in the reported costs. For further discussion of this adjustment, see the memorandum from Alice Gibbons to the file entitled “Calculations performed for Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas) for the Preliminary Results in the 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,” dated May 2, 2005. 2. Because the financial expense ratio for Habas is negative, we set it to zero in accordance with the Department's practice. *See SRAMs from Taiwan* , 63 FR at 8933. C. ICDAS 1. We adjusted ICDAS's reported cost of manufacturing to include an unreconciled difference between the POR total cost of manufacturing recorded in the company's accounting system and the total cost of manufacturing reported in the COP/CV file. 2. We increased the POR weighted-average total cost of manufacturing of each control number as follows: a) we eliminated a credit for recycled scrap because this amount was overstated; b) we included the difference between the total depreciation expenses recorded in ICDAS's general ledger and the amount included in the reported costs; and c) we disallowed the claimed start-up adjustment for ICDAS's Biga melt shop. 3. We recalculated the weighted-average material costs for rebar in coil and consequently adjusted the weighted-average total cost of manufacturing for several products. 4. We recalculated ICDAS's submitted G&A expense ratio as follows: a) we included in the numerator expenses that are non-deductible for tax purposes and a contingent liability related to a legal dispute; b) we excluded from the numerator rental income received from the rental of a vessel and income related to the reversal of prior period expenses; c) we adjusted the gain on the sale of a vessel to an affiliated company to reflect a market price, in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act; and d) we excluded from the denominator the total 2003 scrap sales used as an offset in the calculation of the reported costs, as well as adjustments for depreciation and start-up costs. 5. We adjusted the reported total cost of sales used as the denominator of the financial expense ratio to exclude the total 2003 scrap sales used as an offset to the reported costs, as well as the adjustments to depreciation expenses and start-up costs noted in items 2.b. and c., above. Because the ratio remains negative, we set it to zero in accordance with the Department's practice. *See SRAMs from Taiwan* , 63 FR at 8933. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum from Ji Young Oh to Neal Halper entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,” dated May 2, 2005. 2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, selling expenses, and packing expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made:
(1)in substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. *See* sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and
(D)of the Act. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that sales of that model were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded these below-cost sales for Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. D. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, G&A expenses, and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. All respondents claimed that they made home market sales at only one LOT. We analyzed the information on the record for each company and found that three of the respondents, Colakoglu, Diler, and Habas, performed essentially the same marketing functions in selling to all of their home market and U.S. customers, regardless of customer category ( *e.g.* , end-user, distributor). Therefore, we determine that these sales are at the same LOT. We further determine that no LOT adjustment is warranted for these respondents. Regarding ICDAS, we found that this company performs additional selling functions on certain home market sales. Specifically, we found that ICDAS performs an additional layer of selling functions on its sales through affiliated distributors which are not performed on its sales to unaffiliated customers. Because these additional selling functions are significant, we find that ICDAS's sales through affiliated distributors are at a different LOT than its direct sales to unaffiliated parties. We further find that the LOT for U.S. sales is the same as the home market LOT for ICDAS's direct sales to unaffiliated parties because the selling functions performed by ICDAS are essentially the same in both markets. Consequently, we compared ICDAS's EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market ( *i.e.* , ICDAS's direct home market sales). For further discussion, see the concurrence memo. Because all comparisons were made at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment is warranted. E. Calculation of Normal Value 1. Colakoglu We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the Turkish lira
(TL)price adjusted for *kur farki* ( *i.e.* , an adjustment to the TL invoice price to account for the difference between the estimated and actual TL value on the date of payment), because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price remained unchanged; the buyer merely paid the TL-equivalent amount at the time of payment. This treatment is consistent with our treatment of these transactions in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 25063, 25067 (May 5, 2004) (unchanged in the final results). Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank charges, exporter association fees, and commissions. Regarding commissions, Colakoglu incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by the lesser of the commission amount or home market indirect selling expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 2. Diler We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for *kur farki* , because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank fees, and exporter association fees. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 3. Habas We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, exporter association fees, and commissions.Regarding commissions, Habas incurred commissions only in relation to U.S. sales. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset U.S. commissions by the lesser of the commission amount or home market indirect selling expenses. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 4. ICDAS We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For those home market sales negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for *kur farki* , because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this price remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses, bank charges, and exporter association fees. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars pursuant to sections 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415. Although the Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency conversions based on exchange rates from the Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva). Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the respondents during the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004: Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin Percentage Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. 0.01 Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. 0.33 Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istithsal Endustrisi A.S. 26.07 ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. 0.47 The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all of Habas's sales and certain of ICDAS's sales, because we have the reported entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding all of Colakoglu's and Diler's sales, as well as certain of ICDAS's sales, we note that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the EPs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. We are preliminarily revoking the order with respect to ICDAS's exports of subject merchandise. If this revocation becomes final, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2004, and to refund all cash deposits collected. Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the less than fair value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2222 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Alternative Personnel Management System
(APMS)at the National Institute of Standards and Technology AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Modifications with Request for Comment. SUMMARY: This notice provides for changes to the existing provisions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST)Alternative Personnel Management System
(APMS)published October 21, 1997, (62 FR 54606), primarily to strengthen the link between pay and performance, to simplify the pay-for-performance system, and to broaden the link between performance and retention service credit for reduction in force. DATES: This notice is effective on May 6, 2005. Comments must be received no later than June 6, 2005. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Robert Kirkner, Human Resources Management Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building 101, Room A-133, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3550, FAX:
(301)948-6107, or e-mail comments to *robert.kirkner@nist.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Kirkner at the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
(301)975-3005; Joan Jorgenson at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-4233; Jill Rajaee at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
(202)606-0836. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with Public Law 99-574, the NIST Authorization Act for 1987, the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)approved a demonstration project plan, “Alternative Personnel Management System
(APMS)at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),” and published the plan in the **Federal Register** on October 2, 1987, (52 FR 37082). The project plan has been modified twice to clarify certain NIST authorities (54 FR 21331 of May 17, 1989, and 55 FR 39220 of September 25, 1990). The project plan and subsequent amendments were consolidated in the final APMS plan, which became permanent on October 21, 1997, (62 FR 54604). The plan provides for modifications to be made as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. This notice formally changes the APMS plan to further strengthen the links between pay and performance, and performance and retention service credit. Comments will be considered and any changes deemed necessary will be made. Dated: April 28, 2005. Hratch G. Semerjian, Acting Director. Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Basis for APMS Plan Modification III. Changes to the APMS Plan I. Executive Summary The National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST)Alternative Personnel Management System
(APMS)is designed to
(1)improve hiring and allow NIST to compete more effectively for high-quality researchers through direct hiring, selective use of higher entry salaries, and selective use of recruiting allowances;
(2)motivate and retain staff through higher pay potential, pay-for-performance, more responsive personnel systems, and selective use of retention allowances;
(3)strengthen the manager's role in personnel management through delegation of personnel authorities; and
(4)increase the efficiency of personnel systems through installation of a simpler and more flexible classification system based on pay banding through reduction of guidelines, steps, and paperwork in classification, hiring, and other personnel systems, and through automation. Since implementing the APMS, according to findings in the Office of Personnel Management's “Summative Evaluation Report National Institute of Standards and Technology Demonstration Project: 1988-1995,” NIST is more competitive for talent; NIST retained more top performers than a comparison group; and NIST managers reported significantly more authority to make decisions concerning employee pay. This modification builds on this success by strengthening the link between pay and performance and streamlining the current system. This amendment replaces the current 100-point rating scale with six performance ratings. Pay increases will be based on an annually determined percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band in the career path and linked directly to the top three performance ratings, strengthening the pay-for-performance link, increasing transparency, and reducing potential payout variations among employees in the same career path and pay band and with the same performance ratings. This amendment also implements a required bonus for high-performing employees who cannot receive a pay increase because they are at the cap of their pay band, or their adjusted salaries would exceed the maximum rate for their pay band. Finally, the provisions on retention service credit for reduction in force and annual adjustments to basic pay are being modified to correspond with these changes. NIST will continually monitor the effectiveness of this amendment and provide OPM with its findings. II. Basis for APMS Plan Modification The need to modify the current Pay for Performance System
(PPS)surfaced in the results of both the 2000 and 2002 NIST Employee Surveys, the NIST Research Advisory Committee 2002 Report to the NIST Director, stakeholder focus group feedback, and in discussions of the NIST Senior Management Board. Generally, feedback indicated a need to clarify and simplify the system and suggested ways that this could be accomplished. The suggestions were found to have merit and are incorporated into this modification. The NIST system proposed modifications include replacing the current 100-point rating scale with six performance ratings and linking pay increases to the ratings. From highest to lowest, the six performance ratings are: Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, Significant Contributor, Contributor, Marginal Contributor, and Unsatisfactory. Performance ratings are determined based on the cumulative ratings and relative weights of the critical elements. Critical elements are rated using benchmark standards and any supplemental standards. The ratings for the critical elements are: exceeds expectations (E), fully successful (S), minimally meets expectations (M), or unsatisfactory (U). Performance pay increases will be based on the annually determined percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band in the career path. When the percentage is applied to the mid-point salary in each pay band, the resulting dollar amount is the unit of salary increase or “I” for that pay band and career path. The “I” is used to determine salary increases NIST-wide. The Director, however, may authorize an operating unit to use a lower “I” for reasons related to solvency. Actual salary increases based on multiples of “I” are granted to employees in the top three performance levels as follows: Exceptional Contributor: “I” x 5; Superior Contributor: “I” x 3; and Significant Contributor: “I.” A salary-capped employee with an Exceptional Contributor or Superior Contributor rating must receive a bonus at least equivalent to the salary increase that would have been received if the employee's salary were not capped. In addition to receiving a performance pay increase, employees with Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, and Significant Contributor ratings receive the full annual basic pay adjustment (general and locality pay increases) and are eligible for a bonus. Employees with a Contributor rating do not receive a performance pay increase but do receive the full annual basic pay adjustment and are eligible for a bonus. Employees rated Marginal Contributor or Unsatisfactory do not receive a performance pay increase, bonus, or annual basic pay adjustment. The current provision on additional service credit for reduction-in-force purposes is revised to correspond with these changes. For retention purposes, this modification grants 10 additional years of service for a rating of Exceptional Contributor, eight additional years of service for a rating of Superior Contributor, three additional years of service for a rating of Significant Contributor, and one additional year of service for a rating of Contributor. III. Changes in the APMS Plan The APMS at the NIST, published in the **Federal Register** October 21, 1997, (62 FR 54604), is amended as follows: 1. Promotion: The subsection titled “Promotion” (62 FR 54609) is replaced with the following: Promotion A promotion is a change of an employee to
(1)a higher pay band in the same career path or
(2)a pay band in another career path in combination with an increase in pay. An employee must have a current performance rating of Contributor or higher to be eligible for promotion. The time-in-pay-band requirement for promotion eligibility is 52 weeks with two exceptions:
(1)An employee may be promoted from pay band I to band II in the Support career path without time restriction; and
(2)an employee may be promoted from pay band II to band III in the Support career path without time restriction if the employee was not promoted from a band I to band II position during the previous 52 weeks. (For pay provisions related to promotion, see “Pay Administration.”) 2. Link Between Performance and Retention: The subsection titled “Link Between Performance and Retention” (62 FR 54609) is replaced with the following: Link Between Performance and Retention An employee with a performance rating of Exceptional Contributor is credited with 10 additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Superior Contributor is credited with eight additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Significant Contributor is credited with three additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Contributor is credited with one additional year of service for retention purposes. The total credit is based on the employee's three most recent annual performance ratings of record received during the four-year period prior to an established cutoff date, for a potential total credit of 30 years. No reduction-in-force credit converts to this system from any other performance appraisal system. 3. Placement in a Lower Pay Band: The subsection titled “Placement in a Lower Pay Band” (62 FR 54609) is replaced with the following: Placement in a Lower Pay Band An employee whose performance rating is Marginal Contributor or Unsatisfactory does not receive the NIST annual adjustment to basic pay. Because the minimum pay rate for each pay band is increased each year by the amount of the NIST annual adjustment to basic pay, it is possible that the new minimum rate of a pay band will exceed the basic pay of an employee in that pay band who does not receive the NIST annual adjustment to basic pay due to a Marginal Contributor or Unsatisfactory performance rating. When this happens, the employee is placed in the next lower pay band. This placement shall not be considered an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. 7512; nor shall grade ( *i.e.* , pay band) retention under 5 U.S.C. 5362 be applicable. 4. Effect of General and Locality Pay Increases on Individual Pay: The subsection titled “Effect of General and Locality Pay Increases on Individual Pay” (62 FR 54610) is replaced with the following: Effect of General and Locality Pay Increases on Individual Pay Only employees with a current performance rating of Contributor or above may receive the full amount of increase in their basic pay (including locality pay) at the time of pay band adjustments. This increase in basic pay will reflect any applicable general and/or locality pay increase for General Schedule employees. The increase in basic pay for employees with a rating of Contributor or above, whose basic pay is at the ceiling of their pay band, will equal the increase in the ceiling. The basic pay increase for eligible employees whose basic pay is below the ceiling of their band will be calculated by applying a factor to the employee's rate of pay. The factor is based on the net pay increase for General Schedule employees in the locality, including both the general increase and any applicable locality pay increase. Employees with ratings of Contributor or above will receive the full amount of the net increase, and the factor is equal to 1 plus the net increase percentage (expressed as a decimal). For example, if the net increase for a locality were 3.22 percent, the factor for Contributor or above would be 1.0322. Thus, the new rate of basic pay for an employee with a rating of Contributor or above would be calculated using the following formula: New pay rate = (1 + net pay increase) x former pay rate However, a basic pay increase will be applied only to the extent that it does not cause an employee's basic pay to exceed the pay band ceiling. 5. Performance Plans: The subsection titled “Performance Plans” (62 FR 54611) is replaced with the following: Performance Plans At the beginning of each rating period, supervisors develop and issue performance plans with input from employees. The plans contain from three to six critical performance elements for each position. For performance planning and appraisal purposes, only critical elements are used. The supervisor assigns a weight of 1, 2, 3, or 4 to each element indicating its relative level of importance to the position, so that the total weight of all elements is 10. Benchmark performance standards define the range of performance required to exceed expectations, be fully successful, minimally meet expectations, and be unsatisfactory. A supervisor may supplement the standards to add specificity or clarify expectations. 6. Performance Appraisal: The subsection titled “Performance Appraisal” (62 FR 54611) is replaced with the following: Performance Appraisal The performance appraisal brings supervisors and employees together to discuss performance and accomplishments during the performance rating cycle. The appraisal leads to decisions affecting performance ratings, performance pay increases, and bonuses. Performance appraisals normally occur at the end of the rating period. However, a supervisor should issue a performance improvement plan and take appropriate follow-up action any time an employee's performance is unsatisfactory. 7. Performance Ratings: The subsection titled “Performance Ratings” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following: Performance Ratings The NIST APMS performance ratings are Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, Significant Contributor, Contributor, Marginal Contributor, and Unsatisfactory. Performance ratings are determined based on the cumulative ratings and weights of the critical elements in the performance plan. Performance in each critical element is evaluated using the benchmark standards and any supplemental standards, and the element is assigned a rating that exceeds expectations (E), fully successful (S), minimally meets expectations (M), or unsatisfactory (U). The rating of the element is then matched with the weighted value of that critical element to produce a value for the element. For example, if an element is weighted 4 and the element is assigned a rating that exceeds expectations (E), then that element has a value of 4E. Once this matching is completed and the elements are totaled, performance ratings are assigned using the following table. Performance rating Critical element ratings Exceptional Contributor At least 8E; None below S. Superior Contributor At least 6E; None below S. Significant Contributor At least 3E; Up to 2M. Contributor Up to 3M. Marginal Contributor 4 or more M. Unsatisfactory 1 or more U. An employee with unsatisfactory performance in one or more critical elements is considered unsatisfactory overall and is given a performance improvement plan and an opportunity to improve. If the employee's performance remains unsatisfactory at the end of an opportunity to improve, the supervisor initiates appropriate follow-up action; *i.e.* , reassignment, proposed change to a lower pay band, or proposed removal. 8. Performance Scores: The subsection titled “Performance Scores” (62 FR 54612) is deleted. 9. Performance Ranking: The subsection titled “Performance Ranking” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following: Performance Ranking Performance ranking has been tested and found to be not appropriate for most positions covered by this modification. The Director may authorize the use of ranking where it is found to be appropriate. 10. Performance Pay Decisions: The subsection titled “Performance Pay Decisions” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following: Performance Pay Decisions Annually, the NIST Director determines the amount of a unit of increase, or “I,” based on a percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band of each career path. The percentage may vary by career path but must be the same for all pay bands within a career path. Performance pay increases are linked directly to performance ratings. An employee with an overall performance rating of Exceptional Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to five units of increase, or 5 x “I.” A Superior Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to 3 x “I.” A Significant Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to “I.” The actual dollar amount of a performance pay increase depends upon an employee's career path and pay band. Employees may not receive an increase that causes their salary to exceed the maximum rate for their pay band. Employees with Contributor, Marginal Contributor, or Unsatisfactory ratings do not receive performance pay increases. 11. Performance Bonuses: The subsection titled “Performance Bonuses” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following: Performance Bonuses Bonuses are the only cash awards linked to the NIST APMS pay-for-performance system. They are awarded at the end of the performance rating period and may be granted in conjunction with performance pay increases. A pay pool manager may award a bonus to any employee with a performance rating of Contributor or higher. A pay pool manager is a line manager who manages his or her organization's pay increase and bonus fund and has final decision authority over the performance ratings and bonuses of subordinate employees. An employee with an Exceptional Contributor or Superior Contributor rating whose adjusted salary would exceed the maximum rate for the pay band must receive a bonus at least equivalent to the amount of the performance pay increase over the maximum rate but may receive more. 12. Employee Development: The subsection titled “Employee Development” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following: Employee Development The objective of the NIST Employee Development Program is to develop the competence of employees for maximum achievement of NIST mission and goals. The NIST APMS legislation mandates the continuance of an employee development program including, in appropriate circumstances, a sabbatical program. The NIST APMS sabbatical program is consistent with the terms and conditions of the Senior Executive Service sabbatical program. It covers all career appointees under the NIST APMS who have at least seven years of Federal service and a current performance rating of Contributor or higher. [FR Doc. 05-9116 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 18
Traces to 18 documents
CFR
2 references not yet in our index
  • 19 CFR 251.214(2)(iii)(A)
  • Pub. L. 99-574
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Intent To Rescind Administrative Review
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.107
C.F.R.§ 351.305
U.S.C.§ 1675
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.401
Cite19 CFR 251.214(2)(iii)(A)
Pub. L.Pub. L. 99-574
Cites 20 · showing 11Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.