Notices. Notice

37,543 words·~171 min read·/register/2005/05/10/05-9329·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-898] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or Brian C. Smith, 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)482-3797 or

(202)482-1766, respectively. Final Determination We determine that chlorinated isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) as provided in section 735 of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination Margins” section of this notice. SUMMARY: On December 16, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its preliminary determination and postponement of the final determination in this case. On February 24, 2005, the Department published an amended preliminary determination in this case. On April 11, 2005, the Department published its partial affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determination in this case. This investigation covers two exporters of chlorinated isocyanurates that are Mandatory Respondents 1 and five Section A Respondents. 2 We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination, amended preliminary determination, and preliminary critical circumstances determination. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations for the two Mandatory Respondents. As a result of those changes, the rate assigned to the Section A Respondents has also changed. 1 Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Jiheng”) and Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (“Nanning”). 2 Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (“Huaao”); Shanghai Tian Yuan International Trading Co., Ltd., (“Tian Yuan”); Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Clean Chemical”); Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation (“Sinochem Hebei”); and Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation (“Sinochem Shanghai”). Case History The Department published its preliminary determination in this investigation on December 16, 2004. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 75293 (December 16, 2004) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). On February 24, 2005, the Department published an amended preliminary determination. *See Notice of Amended Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 9035 (February 24, 2005) (“ *Amended Preliminary Determination* ”). On April 11, 2005, the Department published its partial affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determination. *See Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 18362 (April 11, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination* ”). Since the publication of the *Preliminary Determination* , the following events have occurred. The Department conducted verification of the two Mandatory Respondents: Jiheng on January 17 through 21, 2005; Nanning on January 24 through 28, 2005; and a Section A Respondent: Sinochem Hebei on January 27 and 28, 2005. *See* “Verification” Section below for additional information. On January 13, 2005, Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (the “Petitioners”), Jiheng, and Arch Chemicals, Inc. (“Arch”), an importer of subject merchandise, requested that the Department convene a hearing in this proceeding. On March 4, 2005, the Department informed all interested parties of the hearing date and location. On February 24, 2005, the Department published the *Amended Preliminary Determination.* On March 4, 2005, the petitioners filed a critical circumstances allegation. On March 15, 2005, the Petitioners, BioLab Inc., 3 and the two Mandatory Respondents submitted case briefs. 3 On January 27, 2005, BioLab, Inc. (BioLab), a U.S. producer of chlorinated isocyanurates, submitted a letter of appearance as an interested party. On March 17, BioLab requested a one-day extension to submit rebuttal briefs until March 22, 2005. The Department granted the request, and received the rebuttal briefs from parties on March 22, 2005. On March 24, 2005, the Department convened a public hearing in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(l). Representatives for the two Mandatory Respondents, the Petitioners, and BioLab were in attendance. On March 29, 2005, Jiheng submitted its revised rebuttal brief. On April 11, 2005, the Department published the *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination.* On April 14, 2005, the Petitioners submitted a case brief on the Department's *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination.* Mandatory Respondents On December 10, 2004, Jiheng and Nanning submitted sales reconciliation documentation. Jiheng also submitted its response to a question addressed in the Department's November 12, 2004, letter concerning its reported sulfuric acid data. On December 17, 2004, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire for sales and cost reconciliations to Jiheng and Nanning. On December 21, 2004, the Department sent another supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng addressing certain deficiencies in its November 23, 2004, submission. On December 22, 2004, Arch Chemicals, an interested party in this proceeding, submitted a copy of its July 30, 2004, rebuttal scope comments, “Respondent's Reply to Petitioners' Scope Comments,” which are applicable to the dual PRC and Spain antidumping proceedings: *Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from People's Republic of China and Spain, Case Nos. A-570-898 and A-469-814.* On December 20, 2004, Jiheng and Nanning submitted ministerial error allegations. On January 4, 2005, Jiheng submitted its response to the Department's December 21, 2004, supplemental questionnaire. On January 5 and 12, 2005, Jiheng and Nanning submitted their responses to the Department's December 17, 2004, sales and cost reconciliations questionnaire, respectively. On January 10, 2005, Jiheng submitted a revised sales listing and factors of production database to correct its date of payment and consumption for coal and water, respectively. On January 10, 2005, Nanning also submitted a revised factors of production listing to replace Attachment 1 of its November 17, 2004, submission. On January 10 and 13, 2005, the Department issued verification outlines to Jiheng and Nanning, respectively. On January 14, 2005, the Petitioners submitted pre-verification comments regarding Jiheng. On January 18, 2005, the Petitioners submitted a letter requesting the Department's verification team to examine a company, “Dry Chlorine Corp,” which they claimed was possibly related to Jiheng. On January 19, 2005, Jiheng submitted rebuttal comments on the Petitioners' January 13, 2005, pre-verification comments. On January 21, 2005, Jiheng submitted a revision to its rebuttal comments. On January 24, 2005, the Department issued a clerical error memorandum. *See Memorandum to the File, dated January 24, 2005, from the team to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China (“China”): Analysis of Allegations of Ministerial Errors* (“ *Clerical Error Memo* ”). On January 21, 2005, Jiheng and Nanning requested a 17-day extension until February 11, 2005, for Nanning and other interested parties to submit surrogate value information for consideration in the final determination. The Department granted the request on January 24, 2005. On January 27, 2005, Jiheng filed a second ministerial error allegation. On January 31, 2005, the petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to Jiheng's January 27, 2005, allegation. On February 4, 2005, Jiheng submitted a letter requesting that the Department strike from the record the petitioners' January 31, 2005, comments. The Department amended its *Preliminary Determination* on February 24, 2005. On February 15, 2005, the Petitioners, BioLab, and the two Mandatory Respondents submitted surrogate value data. On February 25, 2005, the petitioners filed additional data. On February 16, 2005, the Department received a request from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to update the HTS numbers in the AD/CVD Module associated with this proceeding. *See Memorandum to James Doyle, Office 9, dated February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner, Liaison w/Customs, Customs Unit, Regarding Request for HTS Number Update(s) to AD/CVD Module Chlorinated Isos (A-570-898).* On March 2, 2005, the Department released the verification report for Jiheng. On March 7, 2005, the Department released the verification report for Nanning. On March 4, 2005, the Petitioners filed a timely allegation of critical circumstances (“critical circumstances petition”). On March 8 and 14, 2005, the Department requested that Jiheng and Nanning report their shipment data of subject merchandise to the United States on a monthly basis for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. On March 13, 14, and 17, 2005, Nanning and Jiheng provided the requested information. On April 4, 2005, the Department issued its preliminary determination on critical circumstances. *See Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination.* Section A Respondents On December 20, 2004, the Department sent the verification outlines to the two selected Section A Respondents, Sinochem Hebei and Tian Yuan. On January 3, 2005, Sinochem Hebei submitted a minor correction to its quantity and value. On January 13, 2005, Tian Yuan informed the Department that it would not participate in verification. On February 24, 2005, the Department released the verification report for Sinochem Hebei. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated May 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the *Decision Memorandum* is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The *Decision Memorandum* is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.* The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Scope Comments In the *Preliminary Determination* , we found that Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurate tablet is included within the scope of this antidumping duty investigation. *See Preliminary Determination.* We received no further comments from any interested party regarding our preliminary finding. Therefore, for this final determination, we continue to find that Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurate tablet is included within the scope of this antidumping duty investigation. Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates:

(1)Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl 3

(NCO)3 ),

(2)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl 2

(NCO)3 (2H 2 O), and

(3)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl 2

(NCO)3 ). Chlorinated isocyanurates are available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This investigation covers all chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 4 The tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that includes chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is also included in the scope of this investigation. *See Scope Comments* section, above. *See also Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 18362 (April 11, 2005) (“ *Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination* ”). 4 In the scope section of the Department's initiation and in its preliminary determination notices, chlorinated isocyanurates were classified under subheading 2933.69.6050 of the HTSUS. ( *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China and Spain* , 69 FR 32,488 (June 10, 2004), and *Preliminary Determination.* Effective January 1, 2005, chlorinated isocyanurates are also currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015 and 2933.69.6021 of the HTSUS. The new subheading 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous & dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid, and subheading 2933.69.6021 covers all other chlorinated isos used as pesticides (bactericides). The subheading 2933.69.6050 covers all other chlorinated isos not used as pesticides. *See Memorandum to James Doyle, Office 9, dated February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner, Liaison w/Customs, Customs Unit, regarding Request for HTS Number Update(s) to AD/CVD Module Chlorinated Isos (A-570-898).* Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the Mandatory Respondents and Sinochem Hebei ( *i.e.,* one of the Section A Respondents) for use in our final determination. *See* the Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation in the CRU with respect to Jiheng, Nanning, and Sinochem Hebei. For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the respondents. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the Petition (May 14, 2004). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Surrogate Country In the *Preliminary Determination,* we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons:

(1)India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC;

(2)Indian manufacturers produce comparable merchandise, specifically are significant producers of calcium hypochlorite; 5

(3)India provides the best opportunity to use appropriate, publicly available data to value the factors of production. *See Preliminary Determination,* 69 FR at 75297; and *see Memorandum to James Doyle, Program Manager, dated July 10, 2004, from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Re: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China* (“ *Surrogate Country Memo* ”), which is on file in CRU. We received no comments from interested parties concerning our selection of India as the surrogate country. Therefore, we have continued to use India as the surrogate country in the final determination and, accordingly, have calculated normal value using Indian prices to value the respondents' factors of production, when available and appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. For a detailed description of the surrogate values that have changed as a result of comments the Department has received, see the May 2, 2005, *Final Surrogate Value Memorandum.* 5 For purposes of the final determination, we have determined that calcium hypochlorite and stable bleaching powder are both comparable to the subject merchandise. The record contains financial reports of Indian manufacturers which are significant producers of comparable merchandise. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, October 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004, from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2005.* Separate Rates In the *Preliminary Determination* and the *Amended Preliminary Determination* the Department found that all five companies which provided responses to Section A of the antidumping questionnaire were eligible for a rate separate from the PRC-wide rate. For the final determination, we have determined that Tian Yuan is no longer qualified for separate-rate status. For a complete listing of all the companies that received a separate rate, see “Final Determination Margins” section below. With respect to Tian Yuan, as discussed below, the Department applied adverse facts available, because it refused to allow the Department to conduct verification of its submitted information. Accordingly, Tian Yuan has not overcome the presumption that it is part of the PRC-wide entity and its entries will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. *See Final Separate Rates Memorandum. See also Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination.* The margin we calculated in the *Amended Preliminary Determination* for the companies receiving a separate rate was 111.03 percent. Because the rates of the selected Mandatory Respondents have changed since the *Preliminary Determination* and the *Amended Preliminary Determination,* we have recalculated the rate for Section A Respondents that are eligible for a separate rate. The rate is 137.69 percent. *See Memorandum to the File from the Team, Calculation of Section A Rates,* dated May 2, 2005. Critical Circumstances For this final determination, we have made no changes to our *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination* based on the comments received from the Petitioners on this matter. As such, the Department continues to find that critical circumstances exist for the PRC-wide entity, which includes Tian Yuan. Additionally, for this final determination, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist with regard to imports of chorinated isocyanurates from the PRC for Jiheng, Nanning, and for the following Section A Respondents: Huaao, Clean Chemical, Sinochem Hebei and Sinochem Shanghai. For further details regarding the Department's critical circumstances analysis from the *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination,* see *Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 4, 2005, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, Regarding the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China -Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances.* On April 14, 2005, the Petitioners submitted a case brief on the Department's *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination.* The Petitioners contest the Department's *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination* on the following grounds:

(1)March 2004 should be included in the comparison period instead of the base period because the respondents and other U.S. importers had knowledge that an antidumping petition was likely to be filed well before mid-March;

(2)the Department should consider seasonality in its critical circumstances analysis because the consumption of the subject merchandise shows a pattern of seasonality;

(3)certain off-season months ( *i.e.,* July to September) should be excluded from both the base period and the comparison period because of no-shipments or low-shipments in those months;

(4)the base period and comparison period should consist of a four-month period rather a seven-month period; and

(5)the Department should determine massive shipments for the Section A Respondents by using the same formula used for deriving the massive shipments for the PRC-wide entity. We disagree with the Petitioners' argument that seasonality exists in this instant case. In this instance, imports of chlorinated isocyanurates are not necessarily dominated by seasonality. Our analysis of the shipment data for Jiheng, Nanning, and PRC as a whole show no clear seasonal patterns for the three year period between 2002 and 2004. In certain circumstances, the peak month of shipment in one year coincided with the trough month of shipment in another year. Therefore, we continued not to consider seasonal trend as a factor in the final determination. We also did not eliminate any “off-peak” months from our analysis, as suggested by the Petitioners. After considering the Petitioners' arguments concerning the appropriate comparison period, our analysis shows that we obtain the same conclusion regarding whether there are massive imports for Jiheng, Nanning, the Section A Respondents, and the China-wide entity, regardless of whether we use March 2004 as the knowledge month, as suggested by the Petitioners, or use May 2004 as the knowledge month, in which this proceeding was filed. Finally, we disagree with the Petitioners that massive shipments for the Section A Respondents should be determined using the same formula as used for deriving the massive shipments for the PRC-wide entity. As discussed below, the PRC-wide entity refers to those exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC that did not respond to our antidumping questionnaire and therefore have received an adverse facts available margin and an adverse inference with respect to critical circumstances. By contrast, all Section A Respondents, except Tian Yuan ( *see* Facts Available Section below), have cooperated with the Department and therefore the use of adverse inferences is inappropriate. Therefore, for the final determination, we have continued to use the same methodology as stated in the *Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination.* The PRC-Wide Rate Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a non market-economy (“NME”) country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China,* 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). *See also PRC Shrimp.* The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents which are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below (except as noted). The information used to calculate this PRC-wide rate is based on a calculated margin derived from information obtained in the course of the investigation and placed on the record of this proceeding. In this case, we have applied a rate of 285.63 percent, which is equal to the actual, calculated rate for one of the mandatory respondents, Nanning. Facts Available For the final determination, the Department is applying adverse facts available to Tian Yuan because Tian Yuan decided to terminate its participation in this investigation and declined verification of its Section A responses. *See* Tian Yuan's letter dated January 13, 2005. 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 the Commission under this title,

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

(e)of section 782,

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Furthermore, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if a party has failed to act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information, the Department may apply an adverse inference. In this case, Tian Yuan unilaterally decided to terminate its participation in this investigation and declined verification of its Section A responses shortly before the Department's scheduled verification. Tian Yuan's failure to participate in the Department's verification disallowed the Department to examine the accuracy and completeness of its Section A responses and, therefore, has significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, we are using facts available, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, Tian Yuan has failed to act to the best of its ability by refusing the Department's scheduled verification. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we also find that the use of adverse facts available is warranted. For purposes of this final determination, we find that Tian Yuan does not qualify for a separate rate and will be subject to the PRC-wide rate, which is based on adverse facts available. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our findings at verification, additional information placed on the record of this investigation, and analysis of comments received, we have made adjustments to the calculation methodology for the final dumping margins in this proceeding. For discussion of the company-specific changes made since the preliminary determination to the final margin programs, see *Final Analysis Memorandum for Jiheng* and *Final Analysis Memorandum for Nanning.* Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not Selected For those exporters who responded to Section A of the Department's antidumping questionnaire, established their claim for a separate rate, and had sales of the merchandise under investigation, but were not selected as Mandatory Respondents in this investigation, the Department has calculated a weighted-average margin based on the rates calculated for those exporters that were selected to respond in this investigation, excluding any rates that are zero, *de minimis* or based entirely on adverse facts available. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of China,* 64 FR 24101 (May 11, 2001). Surrogate Values The Department made changes to the surrogate values used to calculate the normal value from the *Preliminary Determination.* For a complete discussion of the surrogate values, see *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* at Comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the POI: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the PRC Mandatory Respondents Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. 75.78 Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 285.63 PRC-Wide Rate 285.63 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the PRC Section A Respondents Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd. 137.69 Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 137.69 Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation 137.69 Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation 137.69 Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing the CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Jiheng, Nanning, the four remaining Section A Respondents ( *i.e.* , Huaao, Clean Chemical, Sinochem Hebei and Sinochem Shanghai), that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the December 16, 2004, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination.* However, with respect to Tian Yuan, and all other PRC exporters, the Department will continue to direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after 90 days before the December 16, 2004, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* . These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also 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. Timely 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. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I. General Comments *Comment 1:* Surrogate Value for Cyanuric Acid. *Comment 2:* Production of Comparable Merchandise for Surrogate Financial Ratios. *Comment 3:* Comparability in Level of Integration for Surrogate Financial Ratios. *Comment 4:* Methodology for Valuing Caustic Soda and Chlorine Gas. *Comment 5:* Surrogate Value for Electricity. *Comment 6:* Intermediary Input By-products: Hydrogen Gas, Chlorine Gas, Sulfuric Acid, and Ammonia Gas. *Comment 7:* Reclassification and Adjustments to Certain Financial Data. *Comment 8:* Timeliness of the Petitioners' Submission on Grasim's Annual Report. II. Company-Specific Comments Jiheng *Comment 9:* Jiheng's Allocation Methodology for Caustic Soda and Chlorine Gas. *Comment 10:* Jiheng's Consumption of Certain Customer-Provided Factors of Production. *Comment 11:* Revision to Jiheng's Reported Data for Certain Inputs. *Comment 12:* The Petitioners' January 31, 2005, Comment on the Treatment of Jiheng's By-Products. *Comment 13:* The Petitioners' January 31, 2005, Comment on Jiheng's Packing Labor. Nanning *Comment 14:* Surrogate Value for Sodium Sulfite. *Comment 15:* Adjustment to Surrogate Values Used for Calcium Chloride and Sulfuric Acid. *Comment 16:* Valuation of Hydrogen Gas. *Comment 17:* Subtracting By-Product Offsets in the Normal Value Calculation. *Comment 18:* Treatment of Chlorine Tail Gas. *Comment 19:* Nanning's Indirect Labor Calculation. *Comment 20:* Nanning's Shipment Date. [FR Doc. E5-2235 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-469-814] Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has determined that chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination of Investigation” section of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin and Mark Manning, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3936 or

(202)482-5253, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On December 20, 2004, the Department published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping investigation of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain. *See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination,* 69 FR 75902 (December 20, 2004) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). Since the *Preliminary Determination,* the following events have occurred. On January 12, 2005, the petitioners 1 submitted a request for a public hearing. We conducted verification of the sales and cost questionnaire responses of Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (“Delsa”), the sole respondent in this investigation, from January 31, 2005, through February 11, 2005. On February 17, 2005, Delsa submitted revised sales data resulting from corrections made at verification. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our *Preliminary Determination* and our findings at verification. On March 15, 2005, the petitioners and respondent submitted case briefs, and on March 22, 2005, these parties submitted rebuttal briefs. The Department held a public hearing on March 29, 2005. 1 The petitioners in this investigation are Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, the “petitioners”). Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates:

(1)Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl 3

(NCO)3 ),

(2)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl 2

(NCO)3 2H 2 O), and

(3)sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl 2

(NCO)3 ). Chlorinated isocyanurates are available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This investigation covers all chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 2 The tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that include chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. 2 In the scope section of the Department's initiation and in its *Preliminary Determination,* chlorinated isocyanurates were classified under subheading 2933.69.6050 of the HTSUS. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China and Spain,* 69 FR 32488 (June 10, 2004). Effective January 1, 2005, chlorinated isocyanurates are also currently classifiable under new subheadings 2933.69.6015 and 2933.69.6021 of the HTSUS. The new subheading 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid, while subheading 2933.69.6021 covers all other chlorinated isocyanurates used as pesticides (bactericides). Subheading 2933.69.6050 covers all other chlorinated isocyanurates not used as pesticides. *See* Memorandum to James Doyle, Office 9, dated February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner, Liaison w/Customs, Customs Unit, regarding Request for HTS Number Update(s) to AD/CVD Module Chlorinated Isos (A-570-898) (added to the record of the instant investigation in Memorandum from Thomas Martin to the File, dated April 25, 2005). Scope Comments On July 1, 2004, Arch Chemicals, Inc. (“Arch”), an importer, argued that its patented, formulated, chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is not covered by the scope of this investigation. In the *Preliminary Determination,* we found that Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is included within the scope of this antidumping duty investigation. *See Preliminary Determination,* and Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office Director, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Scope of the Antidumping Duty Investigations of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China and Spain,” dated December 10, 2004. We received no further comments from any interested party regarding our preliminary decision on this issue. Therefore, for this final determination, we find that Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is included within the scope of this antidumping duty investigation. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain,” (“ *Issues and Decision Memorandum* ”) dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Internet at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.html.* The paper copy and electronic version of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Partial Adverse Facts Available A. Use of Facts Available As further discussed below, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and (C), and 776(b) of the Act, the Department determines that the application of partial adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted for Delsa's home market (“HM”) inland freight and U.S. market movement expenses. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department must inform the interested party of the nature of any deficiency in its response and, to the extent practicable, allow the interested party to remedy or explain such deficiency. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:

(1)The information is submitted by the established deadline;

(2)the information can be verified;

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. We find that pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, we should apply facts available to Delsa's HM inland freight and U.S. market movement expenses (consisting of foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and U.S. brokerage and handling) because

(1)Delsa failed to accurately and timely report these expenses;

(2)Delsa took action that further impeded the Department's ability to conduct the proceeding; and

(3)Delsa provided information that could not be verified. With respect to HM inland freight, Delsa stated in its initial and first supplemental section B questionnaire responses that it reported its HM inland freight using an allocation methodology. *See* August 23, 2004, Section B submission at 11 and September 29, 2004, first supplemental Section B submission at 7. In our second supplemental questionnaire, we instructed Delsa to provide a full explanation of the allocation methodology and explain why it represents a reasonable allocation. Delsa provided a one sentence answer in its second supplemental response: “We have revised our home market sales file with the *actual amount of freight for each transaction.”* See November 22, 2004, second supplemental Section B submission at 3. (Emphasis added). Furthermore, Delsa reiterated in its third supplemental questionnaire response that it reported actual HM inland freight expenses. See December 2, 2004, third supplemental questionnaire submission at 4. Given that Delsa stated that it reported the actual amount of freight for each transaction, the Department concluded that Delsa no longer used an allocation methodology. However, at verification, Delsa stated that it had incorrectly reported to the Department that it was submitting actual transaction-specific freight cost data for its HM sales, and instead submitted a worksheet that provided a limited overview of its allocation methodology. At verification, the Department tested the results of this allocation methodology against actual costs in selected sales and found the discrepancies between the actual and allocated freight to be so great as to indicate that the allocation methodology does not result in per-unit expenses that reasonably approximate the actual expenses. At no point in this investigation, prior to verification, did Delsa notify the Department that it had any difficulties complying with the Department's requests for information. Delsa did not seek guidance on the applicable reporting requirements as contemplated by section 782(c)(1) of the Act. Instead, Delsa only reported at the start of verification that it had reported its HM inland freight expenses using an allocation methodology, after reporting in its last two supplemental questionnaire responses that it was providing actual HM inland freight expenses for each sale. Based on the above, we find that Delsa failed to provide accurate and timely information in the form and manner requested by the Department, within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 3. In addition, Delsa's failure to provide accurate and timely information concerning its HM freight expenses prevented the Department from requesting supplemental information regarding these expenses. Without this information, we were unable to satisfy ourselves that the information reported was complete and accurate. Since the Department does not accept new information at verification, and this allocation methodology was new information, we were precluded from verifying the specifics of how Delsa allocated its freight costs. Delsa thus took specific action to prevent the Department from determining the reliability of central elements of its responses, thereby impeding the proceeding. This action warrants the application of facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. In regard to Delsa's U.S. movement expenses, Delsa reported to the Department in its questionnaire responses that it reported the actual costs that it was charged by its freight forwarder. The Department made supplemental requests for information regarding these movement expenses, and Delsa made corrections and provided explanations. *See, e.g.* , September 29, 2004, supplemental section C submission at Exhibits C-7a and C-7b. However, Delsa reported at the beginning of the Department's verification that it made multiple errors affecting three reported movement expenses (foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and international freight), with an undetermined, varying impact on each sale. Specifically, the errors were

(1)failure to take account of containers that were only partially filled;

(2)failure to take account of the decrease in freight charges on larger volume transactions;

(3)failure to report the costs from another freight forwarding company that was used during the POI;

(4)failure to account for changes that took place in the freight fee schedules;

(5)failure to report the correct foreign inland freight for sales that originated from one of its factories; and

(6)failure to account for weight differences in allocating costs to containers that held a mix of products that vary by weight. These errors affect a large number of U.S. sales and have an overlapping effect, so that the Department is unable to separately analyze the errors on an individual basis. Moreover, these errors have a large impact on the reported per-unit expenses for each variable. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 4. Furthermore, Delsa reported its U.S. brokerage and handling expenses for the first time at verification, even though Delsa denied having the ability to report this expense in its initial and first supplemental questionnaire responses. Delsa did not seek guidance concerning this expense on the applicable reporting requirements, as contemplated by section 782(c)(1) of the Act. Based on the above, for its U.S. movement expenses (consisting of foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and U.S. brokerage and handling), we find that Delsa failed to provide requested information before the established deadlines and in the form and manner requested by the Department, within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. We further find that Delsa has significantly impeded the proceeding by providing changes to all of its U.S. movement expenses at the start of verification that significantly affect a large quantity of U.S. sales and have a large impact on the reported per-unit expenses. Calculation of U.S. movement expenses is necessary to the Department's calculation of net U.S. prices, which is in turn necessary to calculate accurate dumping margins. The information is in the respondent's possession and cannot otherwise be obtained by the Department. Therefore, we find that Delsa has significantly impeded the proceeding within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Furthermore, with respect to both HM inland freight and U.S. market movement expenses, Delsa has not met the requirements of sections 782(d) and

(e)of the Act. Section 782(d) of the Act is not applicable because Delsa did not provide enough information to the Department to indicate that its reporting methodology for these HM and U.S. movement expenses might be deficient until the start of verification. It was not until verification that the Department was aware of the use of an allocation methodology for HM inland freight and the extent of the errors ( *i.e.* , in terms of quantity and volume) in Delsa's reported U.S. movement expenses. By this time, it was too late to notify Delsa of any deficiencies, obtain the allocation methodologies and possibly new data, and examine such methodologies and data for deficiencies. Similarly, section 782(e) of the Act has also not been satisfied because Delsa failed to submit before the deadlines established by the Department reasonably accurate HM inland freight and U.S. movement expenses. In its response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire, when the Department requested detailed information regarding Delsa's HM inland freight expense and U.S. movement expense reporting methodologies, Delsa reported that it provided actual HM expenses and U.S. market movement expenses based upon its freight schedules. At that time, Delsa did not acknowledge that its HM inland freight costs were, in fact, reported on an allocated basis. For U.S. movement expenses, Delsa reported significantly inaccurate U.S. movement expenses, due to its failure to go beyond the freight schedules, and take into account divergences from the scheduled fees. These statements by Delsa prevented the Department from asking additional questions about the methodology that Delsa actually did use. Thus, Delsa has failed to satisfy the requirements of subsections

(1)and

(2)of section 782(e). B. Adverse Inferences Once the Department determines that the use of facts available is warranted, the Department must then determine whether an adverse inference is warranted pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, which permits the Department to apply an adverse inference if it makes the additional finding that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. In determining whether a respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a determination regarding the willfulness of the respondent's conduct. *Nippon Steel Corp.* v. *United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Instead, the courts have made clear that the Department must articulate its reasons for concluding that a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, and explain why the missing information is significant to the review. In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid sufficient attention to its statutory duties. *Pacific Giant, Inc.* v. *United States* , 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1342 (CIT 2002); *see also Tung Mung Dev. Co.* v. *United States* , 2001 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 94 at 89 (July 3, 2001). The Department also considers whether there is at issue a “pattern of behavior.” *Borden, Inc.* v. *United States* , 22 C.I.T. 1153 (CIT 1998) As discussed below, we determine that, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, Delsa failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information by not providing it with timely and accurate HM inland freight and U.S. movement expenses, and that the application of partial AFA is therefore warranted. On more than one occasion, Delsa failed to provide information when requested to do so by the Department. Specifically, Delsa misrepresented the nature of its HM inland freight data in its last two supplemental questionnaire responses by reporting to the Department that for its HM sales, it reported actual, transaction-specific inland freight costs. This precluded the Department from making supplemental requests for information regarding the allocation methodology that it did use. Delsa's misrepresentation prevented the Department from issuing supplemental questions that might otherwise have resulted in changes to the methodology, to make the methodology reasonable, such that the Department could have accepted it. In its questionnaire responses, Delsa did not provide evidence to support its allocation methodology, as it is required to do pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(g)(2). Delsa failed to fully demonstrate that it could not provide its HM freight on an actual, transaction-specific basis. Moreover, Delsa failed to demonstrate that its allocation methodology did not yield distortive or inaccurate results. Without accurately reported expenses and costs, the Department is unable to calculate accurate net HM prices, which prevents the Department from calculating accurate dumping margins. We find that Delsa did not act to the best of its ability in reporting HM inland freight expenses, and therefore an adverse inference is warranted. As partial AFA, we are applying the lowest verified inland freight cost to all HM sales made by Delsa during the POI, except for those sales examined at verification and sales of a particular CONNUM for which Delsa provided actual, invoiced freight expenses during verification (and the Department successfully tested for accuracy). A complete explanation of the selection and application of partial AFA can be found in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 3. Delsa also failed to accurately report its U.S. movement expenses (consisting of foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and international freight), despite having three opportunities to do so in response to the Department's initial and supplemental questionnaires. Delsa reported corrections to multiple errors with respect to these variables at the Department's verification. Since each of these errors affect more than one movement variable, the overall impact of these errors on the reported variables is actually a net change resulting in increases and decreases of Delsa's reported U.S. movement expenses. Because

(1)There were six errors affecting three variables,

(2)the separate effect of each individual error cannot be determined with information on the record, as Delsa only provided the Department with the net effect of all of the errors,

(3)the errors affect a large quantity of U.S. sales, and

(4)the impact of these errors on the reported per-unit expense is also large, the corrections for these errors cannot be considered as minor corrections to the U.S. sales database. In addition, U.S. brokerage and handling was an expense that Delsa reported that it did not have until the Department's verification, even though the Department asked supplemental questions on this topic. The Court of International Trade has found that the “respondent bears the burden of creating a complete and adequate record upon which the Department can make its determination.” *See NSK Ltd.* v. *United States* , 919 F. Supp. 442, 449 (CIT 1996). *See also Tianjin Mach. Imp. & Exp. Corp.* v. *United States* , 353 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1305 (CIT 2004) (“Although the standard does not demand perfection, it censures inattentiveness and carelessness.”). Therefore, the Department determines that Delsa failed to act to the best of its ability, and thus determines that partial adverse facts is warranted in this case. As partial AFA, we have selected the highest non-aberrational reported freight cost for all four U.S. freight variables. We have applied these per-unit expenses to all U.S. sales made by Delsa during the POI, except for those sales that were examined at verification. A complete explanation of the selection and application of partial AFA can be found in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 4. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by Delsa for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our findings at verification, and analysis of comments received, we have made certain adjustments to the margin calculations used in the *Preliminary Determination.* These adjustments are discussed in detail in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* and are listed below: 1. We corrected a clerical error with respect to our recalculation of HM credit expense. 2. We corrected a clerical error regarding the customer code used to allocate certain freight expenses incurred by Delsa for defective merchandise returned from the United States. In addition, although not a clerical error, we changed the allocation methodology to ensure a more appropriate allocation of these expenses. Lastly, we added U.S. brokerage and handling expenses to this calculation. 3. We applied partial AFA to Delsa's HM inland freight for sales that are not based upon actual, transaction-specific costs, and which have not been specifically verified. 4. We applied partial AFA to Delsa's foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and international freight for all U.S. sales that have not been specifically verified. 5. We applied AFA to Delsa's U.S. brokerage and handling expenses that were reported for the first time during verification. 6. We revised the interest rate used in calculating U.S. credit expenses to the correct POI-average Federal Reserve rate. 7. We eliminated the second rebate variable from Delsa's HM price adjustments, pursuant to a minor correction that Delsa submitted at verification. 8. We recalculated Delsa's packaging costs to equal the packaging and packing costs reported for the *Preliminary Determination* less the packing expenses identified at verification. Accordingly, we revised the reported packing expenses to equal the packing expenses identified at verification. Since Delsa packs its products in an identical manner regardless of the market to which they are sold, we used the same values for packing in the home and U.S. markets. 9. We recalculated the adjustments to certain raw material costs based on the comparison of Delsa's reported transfer prices and market prices obtained at verification. 10. We adjusted the startup period for purposes of determining the amount, if any, of the startup adjustment. 11. We recalculated Delsa's financial expense ratio to include net foreign exchange losses in the numerator. Final Determination of Investigation We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Aragonesas Delsa S.A 24.83 All Others 24.83 Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 20, 2004, the date of publication of the *Preliminary Determination* in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-average dumping margins in the chart above. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether these imports are causing material injury, or threat of material injury, to an industry in the United States. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP officials to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice 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(a)(3). Timely written 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(I) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum *Part I: Corrections to the Preliminary Calculations:* Comment 1: Corrections to the Preliminary Calculations. *Part II: Home Market (“HM”) Sales Issues:* Comment 2: Whether Delsa's Allocation Methodology for HM Inland Freight Results in Unreliable Allocations. Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) to Delsa's HM Inland Freight. *Part III: United States Sales Issues:* Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial AFA to Delsa's Foreign Inland Freight, Foreign Brokerage and Handling, International Freight Expenses, and U.S. Brokerage and Handling Expenses. Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Apply the Calculated U.S. Average Short-Term Borrowing Rate to All U.S. Sales. *Part IV: Cost of Production (“COP”) Issues:* Comment 6: Whether the Department Double Counted Delsa's Reported Packaging and Packing Costs in the Preliminary Determination. Comment 7: Whether the Packaging and Packing Service Provider is an Affiliated Party and, as Such, Whether the Department Should Adjust the Price of the Services Provided by a Affiliated Party. Comment 8: Whether Certain Raw Material Inputs Should be Adjusted in Accordance with the Department's Major Input Rule. Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Allow Delsa's Claimed Startup Adjustment. Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Adjust Delsa's Financial Expense Ratio for Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses. Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Make Certain Adjustments to Delsa's General and Administrative Expense Ratio. [FR Doc. E5-2236 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A 588-707] Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan: Notice of Intent to Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 22, 2004, the Department of Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular polytetrafluoroetheylene resin from Japan for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. The Department intends to rescind this review after determining that the party requesting the review did not have entries during the period of review upon which to assess antidumping duties. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dunyako Ahmadu at

(202)482-0198 or Richard Rimlinger at

(202)482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 28, 1988, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the antidumping duty order for granular polytetrafluroetheylene

(PTFE)resin from Japan. See *Antidumping Duty Order; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan* , 53 FR 32267 (August 28, 1988). On August 3, 2004, we published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. See *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation* , 69 FR 46496 (August 3, 2004). On August 30, 2004, Asahi Glass Fluoropolymers Ltd., a Japanese producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, and AGC Chemicals America, an affiliated U.S. importer of subject merchandise (collectively AGC), made a timely request that the Department conduct an administrative review of AGC. On September 22, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (the Act), the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). On October 8, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to AGC. On November 2, 2004, AGC submitted a letter to the Department indicating that it did not have any shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the period of review but had one U.S. sale of PTFE resin during the period of review. As a result, on November 29, 2004, the Department issued a memorandum recommending rescission of the 2003-2004 administrative review and invited interested parties to comment. See *Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary* dated November 29, 2004, ( *November 29 Memorandum* ). On December 10, 2004, AGC submitted comments in disagreement with the recommendation in the *November 29 Memorandum* . AGC argued that the Department does not have an established practice of conditioning an administrative review on the existence of entries during the period of review and that the Department's interpretation of 19 CFR 351.213(e) in this instance is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the regulation. AGC also argued that because no review of AGC's sales has occurred since the imposition of the antidumping duty order on August 28, 1988, the 2003-2004 administrative review would determine a more accurate deposit rate and, therefore, the Department should not rescind the administrative review. Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we will rescind an administrative review in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer if we conclude that during the period of review there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may be. Contrary to AGC's position that rescission of the 2003-2004 administrative review would not be in accordance with law and that the Department does not have an established practice of rescinding an administrative review based solely on the absence of entries, the Department's practice, supported by substantial precedent, requires that there be entries during the period of review upon which to assess antidumping duties, irrespective of the export-price or constructed export-price designation of U.S. sales. See, *e.g.* , *Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 63067 (November 7, 2003), and *Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 20859 (April 19, 2004). Given that AGC had no entries of subject merchandise during the period of review and that AGC has no entry under suspension of liquidation that corresponds to the sale which occurred during the period of review, we would be unable to assess any antidumping duties resulting from this administrative review. See *November 29 Memorandum* . Accordingly, we intend to rescind the 2003-2004 administrative review. Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 20 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 34 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 20 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs, must be filed not later than 7 days from the case brief after the date of publication of this notice. 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. We will issue our final decision concerning the conduct of the review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. Further, absent the completion of the 2003-2004 administrative review, the cash-deposit rate will remain at 51.45 percent and the all other rate will continue to be 91.74 percent (see *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 53 FR 25191 (July 5, 1988)). This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: May 3, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2237 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-502) Certain Iron Construction Castings From The People's Republic of China; Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of Antidumping Duty Order; Final Results AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Summary: On October 1, 2004 the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain iron construction castings (“iron castings”) from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”). On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, and adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and no response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on iron castings from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). 1 The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Deeter Foundry, Inc., East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., LeBaron Foundry, Inc., Leed Foundry, Inc., Municipal Castings, Inc., Neenah Foundry Company, Tyler Pipe Company, and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co. (collectively, “domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the subject merchandise. We received a substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in the Department's regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties as required in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. As a result, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations. * 1 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews * , 69 FR 58890 (October 1, 2004). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order consists of certain iron construction castings from the PRC, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and frames, clean-out covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS)item number 7325.10.0010; and to valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to encase water, gas, or other valves, or water and gas meters, classifiable as light castings under HTS item number 7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this case are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* , under the heading “May 2005”. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on iron castings from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margin: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) PRC wide-rate 25.52 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: May 2, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2290 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-122-503) Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of Antidumping Duty Order; Final Results AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Summary: On October 1, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain iron construction castings (“iron castings”) from Canada. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on iron castings from Canada pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See* *Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 69 FR 58890 (October 1, 2004). The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Deeter Foundry, Inc., East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., LeBaron Foundry, Inc., Leed Foundry, Inc., Municipal Castings, Inc., Neenah Foundry Company, Tyler Pipe Company, and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co. (collectively, “domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the subject merchandise. The Department notes that Tyler Pipe is a U.S. producer of light castings only and is not an interested party in this proceeding. The Department received a complete response from the domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in the Department's regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the Department received no responses from respondent interested parties as required in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. As a result, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order consists of certain iron construction castings from Canada, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and frames, clean-out covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as “heavy” castings under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 7325.10.0010. These articles must be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not malleable. On September 23, 1998, the Department issued final results of a changed circumstances review, in which the Department revoked the order with respect to “light” castings. As a result, only one HTS item number applies to this order. That number, HTS item number 7325.10.000, is provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this case are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memo, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn,* under the heading “May 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on iron castings from Canada would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Bibby Ste. Croix Foundries, Inc. 8.60 LaPerle Foundry, Ltd 4.40 Mueller Canada, Inc. 9.80 All Others 7.50 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 section 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: May 2, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2291 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-503] Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil; Final Results of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: On October 1, 2004 the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain iron castings (“iron castings”) from Brazil. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and no response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” DATES: *Effective Date:* May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on iron castings from Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). 1 The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Deeter Foundry, Inc., East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., LeBaron Foundry, Inc., Leed Foundry, Inc., Municipal Castings, Inc., Neenah Foundry Company, Tyler Pipe Company, and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co. (collectively, “the domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the subject merchandise. We received a complete response from the domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in the Department's regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties as required in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Departments regulations. As a result, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations. 1 *See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews,* 69 FR 58890 (October 1, 2004). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order consists of certain iron construction castings from Brazil, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and frames, clean-out covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS)item number 7325.10.0010; and to valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to encase water, gas, or other valves, or water and gas meters, classifiable as light castings under HTS item number 7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this case are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn,* under the heading “May 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on iron castings from Brazil would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/ Producers Weighted-average margin (percent) Fundicao Aldebara, Ltda. Aldebara 58.74 Sociedade de Metalurgia E Processos, Ltda. SOMEP 16.61 Companhia Siderurgica da Guanabara COSIGUA (formerly Usina Siderurgica Paraende, S.A. (USIPA) 5.95 All Others 26.16 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: May 2, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2293 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-588-837 Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has obtained information with respect to Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. (TKS), a producer/exporter of large newspaper printing presses, sufficient to warrant the self-initiation of a changed circumstances review. Interested parties are invited to submit comments, as indicated below. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Kate Johnson, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-4136 and

(202)482-4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 4, 1996, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, whether assembled or unassembled, from Japan (LNPPs) (61 FR 46621). One of the producer/exporters covered by the order was TKS. Its rate from the less-than-fair-value investigation was 56.28 percent. The Department conducted administrative reviews of TKS for the following periods: September 1, 1997 - August 31, 1998, September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999, and September 1, 1999 - August 31, 2000. The administrative review for the 2000-2001 review period was rescinded. A zero margin was found for TKS in the 1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-2000 review periods. Effective January 16, 2002, the antidumping duty order was revoked with respect to TKS ( *Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part* , 67 FR 2190, (January 16, 2002)) based on the three consecutive reviews resulting in zero dumping margins (see 19 CFR 351.222(b)). On February 25, 2002, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order under a five-year sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) ( *Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan (A-588-837) and Germany (A-428-821): Notice of Final Results of Five-Year Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders* , 67 FR 8522 (February 25, 2002)). Scope of the Changed Circumstances Review The products covered by this changed circumstances review are large newspaper printing presses, including press systems, press additions and press components, whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper. In addition to press systems, the scope of the review includes the five press system components. They are:

(1)A printing unit, which is any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process

(full)color;

(2)a reel tension paster (RTP), which is any component that feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in width into a subject printing unit;

(3)a folder, which is a module or combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than two pages in width into a newspaper format;

(4)conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production process and which provides structural support and access; and

(5)a computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components. A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate such components into an existing press system. Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, and press components are typically shipped either partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components, regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope of this review. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major LNPP components of which they are a part. For purposes of the review, the following definitions apply irrespective of any different definition that may be found in customs rulings, U.S. Customs law or the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS):

(1)the term “unassembled” means fully or partially unassembled or disassembled; and

(2)the term “incomplete” means lacking one or more elements with which the LNPP is intended to be equipped in order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP system, addition or component. This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are separately identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or not shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the scope of this review. Used presses are also not subject to this scope. Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an arm's-length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce newspapers in the ordinary course of business. Also excluded from the scope, in accordance with the Department's determination in a previous changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order which resulted in the partial revocation of the order with respect to certain merchandise, are elements and components of LNPP systems, and additions thereto, which feature a 22-inch cut-off, 50-inch web width and a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour. *See Large Newspaper Printing Presses Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order, In Part* , 64 FR 72315 (Dec. 27, 1999). In addition to the specifications set out in this paragraph, all of which must be met in order for the product to be excluded from the scope of the review, the product must also meet all of the specifications detailed in the five numbered sections following this paragraph. If one or more of these criteria is not fulfilled, the product is not excluded from the scope of the review. 1. *Printing Unit* : A printing unit which is a color keyless blanket-to-blanket tower unit with a fixed gain infeed and fixed gain outfeed, with a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour, which includes the following features: • Each tower consisting of four levels, one or more of which must be populated. • Plate cylinders which contain slot lock-ups and blanket cylinders which contain reel rod lock-ups both of which are of solid carbon steel with nickel plating and with bearers at both ends which are configured in-line with bearers of other cylinders. • Keyless inking system which consists of a passive feed ink delivery system, an eight roller ink train, and a non-anilox and non-porous metering roller. • The dampener system which consists of a two nozzle per page spraybar and two roller dampener with one chrome drum and one form roller. • The equipment contained in the color keyless ink delivery system is designed to achieve a constant, uniform feed of ink film across the cylinder without ink keys. This system requires use of keyless ink which accepts greater water content. 2. *Folder* : A module which is a double 3:2 rotary folder with 160 pages collect capability and double (over and under) delivery, with a cut-off length of 22 inches. The upper section consists of three-high double formers (total of 6) with six sets of nipping rollers. 3. *RTP* : A component which is of the two-arm design with core drives and core brakes, designed for 50 inch diameter rolls; and arranged in the press line in the back-to-back configuration (left and right hand load pairs). 4. *Conveyance and Access Apparatus* : Conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheets across through the production process, and a drive system which is of conventional shafted design. 5. *Computerized Control System* : A computerized control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press components. Further, this review covers all current and future printing technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited to, lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress systems. The products covered by this review are imported into the United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and 8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the review is dispositive. Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department is self-initiating a changed circumstances review based upon information contained in a recent federal court decision, *Goss International Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.* , 321 F.Supp.2d 1039 (N.D. Iowa 2004) ( *Goss Int'l* ). See Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1321 (CIT 2002). In the *Goss Int'l* proceeding, evidence was presented demonstrating that TKS provided false information regarding its sales to the Dallas Morning News (DMN), the subject of the Department's 1997-1998 review. Specifically, The jury further heard evidence at trial that TKS agreed to a fraudulent price increase and secret $2.2 million rebate to keep the DMN from purchasing the two towers {the sale under the 97-98 administrative review} from Goss in 1996. To make it appear to Goss that the 1996 sale was not dumped, TKS and the DMN agreed to increase the price on paper to $7.4 million. In exchange, TKS and the DMN agreed that TKS would secretly rebate $2.2 million to the DMN through a combination of $1 million in cash and a promise of $1.2 million in free digital ink pumps or credit to be delivered in the future. TKS and its counsel engaged in a concerted effort to conceal the secret rebates * * *. {TKS's counsel} told TKS that 'there should be no apparent linkage between {the digital ink pumps'} give-away and the towers' price,' and urged TKS

(USA)to falsify its business records. * * * There was also evidence presented at trial that TKS and its counsel attempted to destroy documents to conceal the secret rebates. *See Goss Int'l* 321 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. The final results of the 1997-1998 administrative review were a factor in the Department's decisions to revoke TKS from the antidumping duty order, as well as to sunset the order. ( *See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews* , 65 FR 7492 (February 15, 2000). We will place on the record of this review the Court decision, *Goss Int'l* , as well as a number of public documents we obtained from the court record of *Goss Int'l* . Interested parties may submit comments on the above-referenced information and the actions the Department should take not later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Any responses to those comments must be submitted not later than seven days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 (2004), and must be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f) (2004). The Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i) (2004), which will set forth the factual and legal conclusions upon which its preliminary results are based, and a description of any action proposed based on those results. The Department will afford the interested parties the opportunity to comment prior to issuing its final results of review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e) (2004), which will be published in the **Federal Register** . This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(i). Dated: May 4, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2287 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-427-818 Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum or Myrna Lobo at

(202)482-0197 or

(202)482-2371, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on low enriched uranium from France for the period February 1, 2003 through January 31, 2004. *See Low Enriched Uranium from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* (70 FR 10957). The current deadline for the final results of this review is July 7, 2005. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to issue the final results in an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results were published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to 180 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the review within the original time frame due to the complex nature of the case and because the Department is seeking clarification on certain issues (supplemental questionnaires were issued on March 8, 2005 and March 18, 2005, after the preliminary results were issued). In order to provide the Department sufficient time to review the submissions, conduct verification, and thoroughly analyze all information on the record, completion of this review is not practicable within the original time limit. Consequently, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results of the review until no later than September 6, 2005, which is the next business day after 180 days from the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2295 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-810] Notice of Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Argentina AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker at

(202)482-2924 or Robert James at

(202)482-0649; AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 11, 1995 the Department published the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods

(OCTG)from Argentina. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina* , 60 FR 41055 (August 11, 1995). On August 3, 2004 the Department published a notice of opportunity to request a review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 46496 (August 3, 2004). On August 31, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the Department received a timely and properly filed request from United States Steel Corporation, a petitioner in the original investigation, for a review of the imports by producer Siderca S.A.I.C. On September 22, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review covering the period August 1, 2003 through July 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than May 3, 2005. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff 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 this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff 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 OCTG from Argentina within the originally anticipated time limit ( *i.e.* , by May 3, 2005) because significant questions have arisen regarding whether or not Siderca had any entries of subject merchandise for consumption during the period of review. As a result, the Department needs additional time in order to obtain and analyze relevant documents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 70 days until no later than July 12, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: May 3, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2241 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-201-817 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from United States Steel Corporation, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular goods

(OCTG)from Mexico. The period of review

(POR)is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. We preliminarily find that Hylsa, S.A. de C.V (Hylsa) made sales of the subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. (Tamsa) because Tamsa reported, and we confirmed, that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between constructed value

(CV)and the NV for Hylsa. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-0193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 11, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods From Mexico* , 60 FR 41056 (August 11, 1995) (AD Order). On August 3, 2004, the Department published the opportunity to request administrative review of, *inter alia* , OCTG from Mexico for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 46496 (August 3, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on August 31, 2004, United States Steel Corporation requested that we conduct an administrative review of the sales of subject merchandise of Tamsa and Hylsa. On September 22, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 183 (September 22, 2004). On October 6, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Hylsa and Tamsa. On October 25, 2004, Tamsa submitted a no-shipment certification letter to the Department explaining that it had no sales of subject merchandise during the POR and requested a rescission of the administrative review with respect to Tamsa. *See Partial Rescission of Administrative Review* below for a discussion of this issue. Hylsa submitted its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire on November 9, 2004, and its response to section C on November 23, 2004. In its section A response, Hylsa informed the Department that it had no viable home market or third country sales to use as normal value and was therefore reporting constructed value data. The Department issued a supplemental sections A and C questionnaire to Hylsa on December 29, 2004. Hylsa submitted its response to the Department's sections A and C questionnaire on January 19, 2005. The Department issued a second supplemental sections A and C questionnaire on February 18, 2005 and on February 25, 2005 Hylsa submitted its response. The Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire on April 13, 2005 and on April 14, 2005 Hylsa submitted its response. Because Hylsa did not have home market or third country sales of subject merchandise during the POR, Hylsa submitted a section D response on December 6, 2004. We issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding Hylsa's response to section D on March 9, 2005 and on April 4, 2005 Hylsa submitted its response. Period of Review The POR is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order are oil country tubular goods (OCTG), hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute

(API)or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited-service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the HTSUS under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The Department has determined that couplings, and coupling stock, are not within the scope of the antidumping order on OCTG from Mexico. *See* Letter to Interested Parties; Final Affirmative Scope Decision, August 27, 1998. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Administrative Review In response to our October 6, 2004 original questionnaire, Tamsa submitted an October 25, 2004 letter claiming they made no exports of the subject merchandise during the POR. We examined CBP data to confirm that Tamsa was not listed as a manufacturer or exporter of the subject merchandise on entries during the POR. We requested and received from CPB entry documents that showed Tamsa was the manufacturer of the entered merchandise. After reviewing the information, we determined that the entries in question were exported from third countries without Tamsa's knowledge and properly identified Mexico as the country of origin. In addition, there is no information on the record to indicate that Tamsa had U.S. sales or exports of subject merchandise during the POR. As a result, we find that Tamsa 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 preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Tamsa. Product Comparisons Because Hylsa had no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market or any third country comparison market during the POR, we compared U.S. sales to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether Hylsa made sales of OCTG to the United States at less than fair value, we compared EP to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Because Hylsa had no sales of subject merchandise either in the home market or to third countries during the POR, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we compared the EP of U.S. transactions falling within the period of review to CV. Export Price Section 772(a) of the Act defines export price

(EP)as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c). In contrast, section 772(b) of the Act defines constructed export price

(CEP)as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by, or for the account of, the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). For sales to the United States, we have used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold directly to an unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation. We calculated EP based on the prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We used the date of invoice as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed delivered duty paid prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, including: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight and U.S. brokerage and handling. Calculation of Constructed Value Hylsa reported that it had no viable home or third country market during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV for Hylsa on CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the costs of materials, labor, overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A), profit, interest expenses, and U.S. packing costs. Section 773(e)(2)(A) states that SG&A and profit are to be based on the actual amounts incurred in connection with sales of a foreign like product. In the event such data is not available, section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act sets forth three alternatives for computing profit and SG&A without establishing a hierarchy or preference among the alternative methods. The alternative methods are:

(1)Calculate SG&A and profit incurred by the producer based on the sale of merchandise of the same general type as the exports in question;

(2)average SG&A and profit of other producers of the foreign like product for sales in the home market; or

(3)any other reasonable method, capped by the amount normally realized on sales in the foreign country of the general category of the products. In addition, the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that, if the Department does not have the data to determine amounts for profit under alternatives one and two, or a profit cap under alternative three, it still may apply alternative three (without the cap) on the basis of the “facts available.” SAA at 841. In this case, because Hylsa did not have a viable home market or third country market for this product, we based Hylsa's profit and indirect selling expenses on the following methodology. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, we calculated indirect selling expenses incurred and profit realized by the producer based on the sale of merchandise of the same general types as the exports in question. Specifically, we based our profit calculations and indirect selling expenses on the income statement of Hylsa's tubular products division, a general pipe division that produces OCTG and like products. We calculated a CV profit using Hylsa's tubular division financial statements for 2003 ( *i.e.* , tubular division profit 2003 divided by tubular division 2003 cost of goods sold). We deducted packing expenses allocated to Hylsa's tubular products division from the COGS denominator when we calculated CV profit. For the preliminary results we recalculated Hylsa's SG&A expense by deducting packing expenses from the cost of goods sold denominator. We used the financial statements of Alfa, S.A. de C.V., Hylsa's parent company, to calculate financial expenses. *See* Analysis Memorandum from Stephen Bailey to the File and Accounting Cost Memorandum from Margaret Pusey to the File, both dated May 3, 2005, for further discussion. There were no allegations of below-cost sales for Hylsa during this POR. Consequently, we did not initiate a cost of production

(COP)analysis for Hylsa. Price-to-CV Comparisons For price-to-CV comparisons, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market indirect selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit, warranty, and other direct selling expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and section 19 CFR 351.401(c). For computing credit expenses, it is the Department's normal practice to use an interest rate applicable to loans in the same currency as that in which the sales are denominated ( *see, e.g.* , Analysis for the preliminary determination in the investigation of stainless steel plate in coils from Korea--Pohang Iron & Steel Company, 63 FR 59535 (November 4, 1998)). Because Hylsa had no short-term borrowings in U.S. dollars, the credit expense for Hylsa's U.S. sales was calculated using the average U.S. prime rate during the POR. *See* Hylsa's Section C response at exhibit 7. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the weighted-average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004, to be as follows: Manufacturer / Exporter Margin (percent) Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. 1.36 The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to section 351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding 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. Case and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Also, an interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Unless otherwise specified, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first business day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any briefs or comments at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 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 subject merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 23.79 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See AD Order* , 60 FR at 41056. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 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 this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2288 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-001) Potassium Permanganate from The People's Republic of China; Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of Antidumping Duty Order; Final Results AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 1, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”). On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order of potassium permanganate from the PRC. See Initiation of Five-year Sunset Review, 69 FR 58890 (October 1, 2004). The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from a domestic interested party, Carus Chemical Company (“Carus”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Carus claimed interested party status as a domestic producer of the subject merchandise as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. On May 3, 2004, the Department received a complete substantive response from Carus within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. The Department determined that the respondent interested party response was inadequate. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Department's regulations, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this antidumping duty order. Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are shipments of potassium permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, technical, and pharmaceutical grades. Potassium permanganate is currently classifiable under item 2841.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this case are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department 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 “May 2005”. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margin: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) PRC-wide rate 128.94 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: May 2, 2005 Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2292 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-485-805] Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination Not to Revoke in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub), a producer/exporter of subject merchandise and United States Steel Corporation (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Romania. The period of review

(POR)is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Silcotub informed the Department that it would not be participating in the review. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the application of adverse facts available

(AFA)is warranted with respect to Silcotub. In addition, because Silcotub did not satisfy the requirement of selling subject merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of three consecutive years, we also preliminarily determine not to revoke the order in part. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janis Kalnins at

(202)482-1392 or John Holman at

(202)482-3683, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 10, 2000, the Department published an antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Romania. See *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Romania* , 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000). On August 3, 2004, 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* , 69 FR 46496. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on August 31, 2004, Silcotub requested that the Department conduct an administrative review. In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), Silcotub requested that the Department revoke the order with regard to Silcotub, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Silcotub subsequently withdrew its request for review on December 20, 2004. On August 31, 2004, the petitioner requested a review of Silcotub. On September 22, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Romania, covering the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745. On October 19, 2004, the Department issued its questionnaire to Silcotub 1 . Responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire were received in December 2004. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. On February 11, 2005, we published the final results in the most recently completed review, in which we disregarded below-cost sales by Silcotub. See *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Romania* , 70 FR 7237 (February 11, 2005) ( *Final Results* ) and *Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Romania* , 70 FR 14648 (March 23, 2005) ( *Amended Final* ). Therefore, on February 14, 2005, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we requested that Silcotub complete section D of our October 19, 2004, questionnaire. On March 4, 2005, Silcotub informed the Department that it was withdrawing its participation in the administrative review and it withdrew its business-proprietary information from the record of the review. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically included within the scope of the order are seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 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 the order are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gases 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 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 is use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. 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. Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications. The scope of the 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 specific exclusions discussed below, and 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 the order. 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-335, 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, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of the order. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order is 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-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG are excluded from the scope of the order, 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. With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to require end-use certification until such time as the petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being used in a covered application. If such information is provided, we 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 covered applications as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, we find a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-161 specification is being used in a standard, line or pressure application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally we 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, we 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 CBP purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to the scope of this order is dispositive. Use of Facts Available Pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and

(2)of the Act, if necessary information is not available on the record or if an interested party or any other person

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

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

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In this case, Silcotub's decision not to participate in the review constitutes a withholding of information requested by the Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act ( *i.e.* , its business-proprietary sales and cost-of-production information), necessary for the Department to conduct an accurate antidumping analysis. Without Silcotub's business-proprietary sale-specific information and, in a review such as this where the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made at prices at less than the cost of production (see *Final Results* ), the Department is unable to determine the reliability of sales prices in the home market and whether they form an appropriate basis for determining normal value. As a result of Silcotub's March 4, 2005, withdrawal of its business-proprietary sales information and its failure to report its actual cost of production for the foreign like product and the constructed-value information for subject merchandise, the Department is unable to calculate an accurate dumping margin. By withdrawing from the review and failing to provide the information requested, Silcotub has also impeded the review process because the Department has insufficient information upon which it can conduct its review. See section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Therefore, the Department must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Absent a sufficient response on the record from the respondent, sections 782(d) and

(e)do not apply. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information (see also the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870). By refusing to provide its cost-of-production information and withdrawing its business-proprietary sales information, Silcotub has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted with respect to Silcotub. In selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice has been to assign respondents which fail to cooperate with the Department the highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation or in any administrative review. See *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States* , 117 F.3d 1401,1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As such, we have preliminarily assigned Silcotub an AFA rate of 15.15 percent which is the LTFV weighted-average margin calculated for Silcotub during the original investigation. See *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania* , 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000). Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The SAA clarifies that the final determination concerning the subject merchandise is “secondary information” and states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. As discussed 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), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. We also find that this rate, calculated from a prior segment of the proceeding, is relevant. The data upon which the Department relied in calculating the 15.15 rate in the LTFV investigation was that of Silcotub and Sota Communication Company. During the period of investigation, Silcotub produced the product which Sota Communication Company sold to the United States. Therefore, we examined for the LTFV investigation Silcotub's factor-of-production information in our calculation of the 15.15 percent rate. See *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania* , 65 FR 5594 (February 4, 2000). Furthermore, there is no information on the record that calls into question the validity of this rate. Therefore, we find that this rate is corroborated to the extent practicable. Also, we find that this rate is sufficiently high as to reasonably ensure that Silcotub does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate. Accordingly, we determine that the rate of 15.15 percent, the highest weighted-average margin determined for any firm during any segment of this proceeding, is in accordance with the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. No Revocation in Part In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), on August 31, 2004, Silcotub submitted a request that the Department revoke the order in part on seamless pipe from Romania with respect to its sales. We preliminarily determine that the request from Silcotub does not meet all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). In the immediately preceding review, Silcotub did not receive a zero or *de minimis* margin. See *Amended Final* . Therefore, Silcotub did not meet the requirement of selling the subject merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of three consecutive years. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(1)(i)(A). Thus, Silcotub is not eligible for consideration for revocation, and we preliminarily determine not to revoke the order with respect to Silcotub's sales of seamless pipe to the United States. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, covering the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004, we preliminarily determine the dumping margin for Silcotub to be as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) S.C. Silcotub S.A. 15.15 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. Upon publication of the final results of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because we are applying AFA to all exports of subject merchandise produced or exported by Silcotub, we will instruct CBP to assess the final percentage margin against the entered customs values on all applicable entries during the period of review. Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of seamless pipe from Romania entered, or withdrawn, from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)The cash-deposit rate for Silcotub will be the rate established in the final results of this review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered by this review, 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 by this review, a prior review, or the original 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;

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash-deposit rate will be 13.06 percent, the all-others rate established in the prior administrative review. See *Final Results* at 70 FR 7239. These cash-deposit requirements, 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 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 administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2242 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-351-826 Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from V&M do Brasil, S.A., the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe from Brazil (A-351-826). This administrative review covers imports of subject merchandise from V&M do Brasil, S.A. (VMB). The period of review

(POR)is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by VMB have been made at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the constructed export price

(CEP)and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Patrick Edwards, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-0193 or

(202)482-8029, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 3, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless line and pressure pipe) from Brazil. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil* , 60 FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). On August 1, 2004, the Department published the opportunity to request administrative review of, *inter alia* , seamless line and pressure pipe from Brazil for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 46496 (August 3, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on August 31, 2004, both VMB and United States Steel Corporation (US Steel), the petitioner, requested that we conduct an administrative review of VMB's sales of the subject merchandise. On September 22, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). On October 2, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to VMB. VMB submitted its response to Section A of the questionnaire (Section A Response) on November 5, 2004, and the responses to Sections B and C (Sections B and C Response) on November 19, 2004. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for all three responses on January 13, 2005 and received VMB's response on February 7, 2005. VMB submitted its response to Section D of the questionnaire on December 6, 2004, along with supplemental information on December 9, 2004. On March 18, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding VMB's Section D response. On March 23, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to VMB pertaining to VMB's February 7, 2004, supplemental response for Sections A, B, and C. The Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to VMB regarding the company's reported home market interest revenue on March 31, 2005. VMB submitted its responses to these three supplemental questionnaires on April 11, 2005. Period of Review The period of review is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Scope of the Order The products covered by the order are seamless pipes produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters below, regardless of specification. For purposes of this order, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) 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. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thickness are commonly referred to as tubes. The seamless pipes subject to this antidumping duty order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The following information further defines the scope of this order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above: Specifications, Characteristics and Uses: 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 standard A-106 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 standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. 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. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent ASTM A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple-certify the pipes. 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-certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, 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, and 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 order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if used in a standard, line or pressure application. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order. Specifically excluded from this order are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 or API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line or pressure applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (“OCTG'') are excluded from the scope of this order, 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. Finally, also excluded from this order are redraw hollows for cold-drawing when used in the production of cold-drawn pipe or tube. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether VMB made sales of seamless standard, line and pressure pipe to the United States at less than fair value, we compared the CEP to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by VMB covered by the descriptions in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to VMB's U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. We have relied on the following six criteria to match U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to sales in Brazil of the foreign like product: product specification, manufacturing process (cold-finished or hot-rolled), outside diameter, schedule, surface finish and end finish. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's October 2, 2004, questionnaire. Constructed Export Price Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by, or for the account of, the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). In the instant review, VMB sold subject merchandise through an affiliated company, Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes Corporation (VM Corp.) of Houston, Texas. VMB reported all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise as CEP transactions. After reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined that VMB's transactions are classified properly as CEP sales because these sales occurred in the United States and were made through its U.S. affiliate to an unaffiliated buyer. Such a determination is consistent with section 772(b) of the Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *AK Steel Corp. et al. v. United States* , 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( *AK Steel* ). In *AK Steel* , the Court of Appeals examined the definitions of EP and CEP, noting “the plain meaning of the language enacted by Congress in 1994, focuses on where the sale takes place and whether the foreign producer or exporter and the U.S. importer are affiliated, making these two factors dispositive of the choice between the two classifications.” *AK Steel* at 1369. The court declared, “... the critical differences between EP and CEP sales are whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or outside the United States and whether it is made by an affiliate,” and noted the phrase “outside the United States” had been added to the 1994 statutory definition of EP. *AK Steel* at 1368-70. Thus, the classification of a sale as either EP or CEP depends upon where the contract for sale was concluded ( *i.e.* , in or outside the United States) and whether the foreign producer or exporter is affiliated with the U.S. importer. For these CEP sales transactions, we calculated price in conformity with section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty-paid prices to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including imputed credit expenses and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value *A. Home Market Viability* To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared VMB's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because VMB'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 the home market was viable. See Section A Response, at Exhibit 1. *B. Cost of Production Analysis* In the most recently completed segment, the Department determined that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of production

(COP)and, therefore, excluded such sales from its calculation of NV. *See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil* , 69 FR 54125 (September 7, 2004). The Department's affirmative findings of sales-below-cost in the preliminary results of the prior period review did not change in the final results. Therefore, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below the COP for this POR. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether VMB's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of VMB's material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative expenses (G&A), interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP data reported by VMB, except as noted below: 1. We revised the total cost of manufacturing (TOTCOM) to reflect the higher market price of charcoal, provided by a home market affiliate, rather than the transfer price or COP in accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act. 2. We revised VMB's reported TOTCOM by recalculating the correction factor (i.e., INDCOR) by allocating certain costs related to subject merchandise over the cost of goods sold

(COGS)of subject merchandise and allocating costs related to both subject and non-subject over the COGS of all products. 3. We revised the G&A expense ratio to exclude dividends received and the reversal of a provision for depreciation relating to prior periods. For further details regarding these adjustments, see the Department's “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results V&M do Brasil, S.A.” (COP Memorandum), dated May 3, 2005. We compared the weighted-average COP figures to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net of any applicable billing adjustments, indirect taxes (ICMS, IPI, COFINS and PIS), and any applicable movement charges. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because:

(1)they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, and

(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Our cost test for VMB revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that for certain models, more than 20 percent of the home market sales of those models were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV. *C. Price-to-Price Comparisons* We matched all U.S. sales to NV. We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, interest revenue, indirect taxes, and the per-unit value of any post-transaction complimentary invoices (or credit notes) that were issued to adjust for any errors in the originating invoice. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, insurance and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses, warranty expenses, and commissions. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. 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 home market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the export transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. We consider only the selling activities reflected in the U.S. price after the deduction of expenses incurred in the United States and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. We analyze whether different selling activities are performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or downward adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference in LOT involves the performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT adjustment, we reduce NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP sales. *See* section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000). In the present review, VMB claimed that there was no LOT in the home market comparable to the LOT of the CEP sales, and requested a CEP offset. *See* Section A Response at A-25. VMB claimed two LOTs in the home market based on distinct channels of distribution to two categories of customers: distributors and end-users. We examined the reported selling functions and found that VMB's home market selling functions for all customers include sales forecasting, planning, order processing, general selling functions performed by VMB sales personnel, sales and marketing support, technical assistance and provision for warranties. VMB also claimed packing as a selling function performed for all customers. *See* Section A Response at Exhibit 11. However, we make a separate COS adjustment for packing and do not consider this to be a selling function relevant to LOT. VMB further reported several selling functions unique to each channel of distribution: sales and marketing support, personnel training, sales promotion and research are functions involved only in sales to distributors. In addition, we recognize warehousing as a necessary step in VMB's sales process to distributors evidenced by VMB's home market sales listing, which shows that warehousing was predominantly provided on sales to distributors. In contrast, advertising in trade magazines, procurement services and after-sales services are provided solely to end-users. VMB also reported the selling function of inventory maintenance with regard to sales to one end-user customer, for which a small percentage of VMB sales are transferred to unaffiliated warehouses from which this customer regularly extracts merchandise on a just-in-time

(JIT)basis, resulting in an inventory maintenance expense for VMB. *See* Section A Response at A-20. *See also* Section B Response at B-51. VMB also claimed the payment of commissions on sales to some end-users as a selling function. However, we make a separate COS adjustment for commissions and do not consider this as a selling function in our LOT analysis. In addition, the record demonstrates that VMB acts as a service center in some of its sales transactions with end-users ( *i.e.* , after-sales services). Such was the case noted by the Department in the prior review of seamless line and pressure pipe from Brazil. *See* Section A Response at Exhibits 9 and 11; *see also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil* , 70 FR 7243 (February 11, 2005), and attached Decision Memorandum at comment 2. Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily conclude that the selling functions for the reported home market channels of distribution are sufficiently dissimilar to consider them as two LOTs. Because VMB reported that all of its U.S. sales are CEP sales made through one channel of distribution to its U.S. affiliate, we preliminarily agree with VMB's claim that there is only one LOT in the U.S. market. We examined the claimed selling functions for VMB's CEP sales, ( *i.e.* , the selling functions performed for the sale to VM Corp.) which include sales forecasting, order processing, delivery of the merchandise, and warranties. *See* Section A Response at Exhibit 11; *see also* VMB's Supplemental A-C Questionnaire Response dated February 7, 2005, at page 35. VM Corp. handles the remaining selling functions of strategic planning, sales negotiations and promotion, and customer service involved in the CEP sales to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(f) of the Department's regulations, we may determine that sales in the home and export markets were not made at the same LOT, and that it is not possible to determine whether the difference affects price comparability. We compared VMB's selling functions in the home market with the selling functions for U.S. sales to its affiliate, VM Corp., and carefully considered the evidence on the record. We preliminarily find that VMB's selling functions for sales to the United States, namely, sales forecasting, order processing, delivery and warranties, are less numerous than VMB's selling functions for either level of trade of its home market sales. Furthermore, in the home market, the chain of distribution is further from the factory. For example, many sales are made to distributors and may go through unaffiliated warehouses; in contrast, the CEP LOT is determined by the selling function performed at the point of sale to the affiliated importer and, thus, the CEP LOT is at a less advanced stage of distribution. We therefore examined whether a LOT adjustment or CEP offset may be appropriate. We preliminarily find that VMB's home market sales to distributors are at a more advanced stage of marketing than its CEP sales and, further, that there is no LOT in the home market comparable to the CEP LOT. Additionally, we do not have record information that would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on VMB's sales of non-subject merchandise, and there are no other respondents or other record information on which such an analysis could be based. Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, we preliminarily determine that a CEP offset adjustment is appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004, to be as follows: Manufacturer / Exporter Margin (percent) V&M do Brasil, S.A. 18.68 The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings 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. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date. The Department will issue the final results of these preliminary results, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 124.94 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil* , 60 FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 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 this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2297 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-821-801) Solid Urea from the Russian Federation; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 1, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on solid urea from the Russian Federation pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 69 FR 58890 (October 1, 2004). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and inadequate responses filed on behalf of respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Parkhill, 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)482-3791. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the AD order on solid urea from the Russian Federation pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See* *Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 69 FR 58890 (October 1, 2004). The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the following domestic interested parties: the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen Producers, (consisting of CF Industries, Inc. and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, LP), and Agrium U.S., Inc. (collectively “the domestic interested parties”) within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's Regulations (“Sunset Regulations”). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and

(D)of the Act, as domestic manufacturers of urea or a coalition whose members are engaged in the production of urea in the United States. The Department received a complete substantive response collectively from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department received inadequate substantive responses from the respondent parties. 1 As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this order. 1 On December 10, 2004, both respondent and domestic interested parties filed comments on the Department's adequacy determination in this sunset review. The Department's consideration of these comments are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Scope of the Order Merchandise covered by this order is solid urea, a high-nitrogen content fertilizer which is produced by reacting ammonia with carbon dioxide. The product is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (“HTS”) item 3102.10.00.00. During previous reviews such merchandise was classified under item number 480.3000 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as the scope of the product coverage. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the margins likely to prevail were the order revoked. 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 “May 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Russian Federation would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the rate listed below: Producers/Exporters Margin (percent) Phillip Brothers, Ltd./Phillip Brothers, Inc. 53.23 All Others 68.26 Notification regarding Administrative Protective Order: This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 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 publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2289 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-351-504) Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of Countervailing Duty Order; Final Results AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Summary: On October 1, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain iron construction castings (“iron castings”) from Brazil. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, and no substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and no response from respondent interested parties, the Department conduced an expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review”. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5050. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 1, 2004, the Department initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty order on iron castings from Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). 1 The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Deeter Foundry, Inc., East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., LeBaron Foundry, Inc., Leed Foundry, Inc., Municipal Castings, Inc., Neenah Foundry Company, Tyler Pipe Company, and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co. (collectively, “domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the subject merchandise. 1 *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 69 FR 58890 (October 1, 2004.) We received a complete response from the domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in the Department's regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties as required in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Departments regulations. As a result of receiving no responses from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the countervailing duty order consists of certain heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 7325.10.0010. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this case are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memo, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading “May 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on iron castings from Brazil would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following percentage weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Country-wide rate 1.06 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: May 2, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2294 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C-122-815 Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. We preliminarily find that certain producers/exporters have received countervailable subsidies during the period of review. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess countervailing duties as detailed in the “Preliminary Results of Reviews” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results ( *see* the “Public Comment” section of this notice). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-1174. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History On August 31, 1992, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada ( *see Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* , 57 FR 39392 (“ *Magnesium Investigation* ”)). On August 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of these countervailing duty orders ( *see Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 46496). We received timely requests for review from Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. (“NHCI”) and from the petitioner, U.S. Magnesium, LLC for reviews of NHCI and Magnola Metallurgy, Inc. (“Magnola”). On September 1, 2004, we received a request for review from Magnola. On September 7, 2004, we asked Magnola to explain the circumstances which led to its late filing. On September 10, 2004, Magnola responded to the Department's request and explained its circumstances. On September 16, 2004, the Department rejected Magnola's September 1, 2004, request for review, but the review with respect to Magnola continued based on the request of the petitioner. On September 22, 2004, we initiated these reviews covering shipments of subject merchandise from NHCI and Magnola ( *see Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745). On October 6, 2004, we issued countervailing duty questionnaires to NHCI, Magnola, the Government of Québec (“GOQ”), and the Government of Canada (“GOC”). We received questionnaire responses from GOQ on November 8, 2004, from GOC and Magnola on November 12, 2004, and from NHCI on December 22, 2004. Scope of the Orders The products covered by these orders are shipments of pure and alloy magnesium from Canada. Pure magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight with magnesium being the largest metallic element in the alloy by weight, and are sold in various ingot and billet forms and sizes. The pure and alloy magnesium subject to the orders is currently classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the merchandise subject to the orders are dispositive. Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are summarized in *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada* , 57 FR 6094 (February 20, 1992). Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. Subsidies Valuation Information *Discount rate* : As noted below, the Department preliminarily finds that NHCI and Magnola benefitted from countervailable subsidies during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3), it is the Department's preference to use a company's long-term, fixed-rate cost of borrowing in the same year a grant was approved as the discount rate. However, where a company does not have any debt that can be used as an appropriate basis for a discount rate, the Department's next preference is to use the average cost of long-term fixed-rate loans in the country in question. In the investigation and previous reviews, the Department determined that NHCI received and benefitted from countervailable subsidies from the Article 7 grant from the Québec Industrial Development Corporation (“Article 7 grant”). *See Magnesium Investigation* . In line with the Department's practice, we used NHCI's cost of long-term, fixed-rate debt in the year in which the Article 7 grant was approved as the discount rate for purposes of calculating the benefit pertaining to the POR. In the *Final Results of Pure Magnesium from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review* (“ *New Shipper Review* ”), 68 FR 22359 (April 28, 2003), we found that Magnola benefitted from grants under the Emploi-Québec Manpower Training Measure Program (“MTM Program”). Magnola did not have any long-term fixed-rate debt during the years the grants were approved. Therefore, consistent with our treatment of these grants in previous administrative reviews, we continue to use long-term commercial bond rates for purposes of calculating the benefit attributable to the POR. *Allocation period* : In the investigations and previous administrative reviews of these cases, the Department used as the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies the average useful life (“AUL”) of renewable physical assets in the magnesium industry as recorded in the Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System (“the IRS tables”), *i.e.* , 14 years. Pursuant to section 351.524(d)(2) of the Department's regulations, we use the AUL in the IRS tables as the allocation period unless a party can show that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect either the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry. During this review, none of the parties contested using the AUL reported for the magnesium industry in the IRS tables. Therefore, we continue to allocate non-recurring benefits over 14 years. For non-recurring subsidies, we applied the “0.5 percent expense test” described in section 351.524(b)(2) of the Department's regulations. In this test, we compare the amount of subsidies approved under a given program in a particular year to sales (total or export, as appropriate) in that year. If the amount of the subsidies is less than 0.5 percent of sales, the benefits are expensed in their entirety, in the year of receipt, rather than allocated over the AUL period. Analysis of Programs *I. Programs Preliminarily Determined to Confer Countervailable Subsidies* *A. Article 7 Grant from the Québec Industrial Development Corporation (“SDI”)* SDI ( *Société de Développement Industriel du Québec* ) administers development programs on behalf of the GOQ. SDI provides assistance under Article 7 of the SDI Act in the form of loans, loan guarantees, grants, assumptions of costs associated with loans, and equity investments. This assistance is provided for projects that are capable of having a major impact upon the economy of Québec. Article 7 assistance greater than 2.5 million dollars must be approved by the Council of Ministers and assistance over 5 million dollars becomes a separate budget item under Article 7. Assistance provided in such amounts must be of “special economic importance and value to the province.” ( *See Magnesium Investigation* , 57 FR at 30948.) In 1988, NHCI was awarded a grant under Article 7 to cover a large percentage of the cost of certain environmental protection equipment. In the *Magnesium Investigation* , the Department determined the Article 7 grant confers a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The grant is a direct transfer of funds from the GOQ bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant. We previously determined that NHCI received a disproportionately large share of assistance under this program, and, on this basis, we determined that the Article 7 grant was limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries, within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In these reviews, neither the GOQ nor NHCI has provided new information which would warrant reconsideration of this determination. In the *Magnesium Investigation* , the Department determined that the Article 7 assistance received by NHCI constituted a non-recurring grant because it represented a one-time provision of funds. In the current reviews, no new information has been placed on the record that would cause us to depart from this treatment. To calculate the benefit, we performed the expense test, as explained in the “Allocation period” section above, and found that the benefits approved were more than 0.5 percent of NHCI's total sales. Therefore, we allocated the benefits over time. We used the grant methodology as described in section 351.524(d) of the Department's regulations to calculate the amount of benefit allocable to the POR. We then divided the benefit attributable to the POR by NHCI's total sales of Canadian-manufactured products in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from the Article 7 grant to be 1.21 percent *ad valorem* for NHCI. *B. Emploi-Québec Manpower Training Program* The MTM Program is a labor-focused program designed to improve and develop the labor market in the region of Québec. It is implemented by the Emploi-Québec (“E-Q”), a labor unit within Québec's Ministry of Employment and Solidarity ( *Ministére de L'Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale* ), and funded by the GOQ. The Program provides grants to companies in Québec that have training programs approved by the E-Q. Up to 50 percent of a company's training expenses, normally over a period of 24 months, are reimbursed under the MTM program if the training programs satisfy the E-Q's five policy objectives of job preparation, job integration, job management, job stabilization, and job creation. Once the five objectives are met, companies with small-scale projects are eligible to receive reimbursement of 50 percent of their labor training expenses, up to a maximum reimbursement of $100,000. Major economic projects are required to:

(1)create either 50 jobs or 100 jobs in 24 months, depending on whether the company is a new company or a company that has been in operation;

(2)have the approval of the Ministry's *Commission des partenaires du marche du travail* ; and

(3)agree to close monitoring by the E-Q. The $100,000 reimbursement limit does not apply to major economic projects. ( *See New Shipper Review* and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Analysis of Programs.”) In 1998 and 2000, the E-Q approved grants to reimburse 50 percent of Magnola's training expenses. Magnola received the MTM grants in 1999, 2000 and 2001. In the *New Shipper Review* , the Department found that the MTM program assistance received by Magnola, constituted countervailable benefits within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. The assistance is a direct transfer of funds from the GOQ bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grants. We also found Magnola received a disproportionately large share of assistance under the MTM program and, on this basis, we found the grants to be limited to a specific enterprise or industry, or group of enterprises or industries, within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1) and (2), we treated the grants as non-recurring. In the current reviews, no new information has been provided that would warrant reconsideration of these determinations. To calculate the benefit, we performed the expense test, as explained in the “Allocation period” section above, and found that the benefits approved were more than 0.5 percent of Magnola's total sales. Therefore, we allocated the benefits over time. We used the grant methodology as described in section 351.524(d) of the Department's regulations to calculate the amount of benefit allocable to the POR. We then divided the benefit attributable to the POR by Magnola's total sales in the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily find the net subsidy rate from the MTM program to be 5.40 percent *ad valorem* for Magnola. *II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used* We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that neither NHCI nor Magnola applied for or received benefits under these programs during the POR: • St. Lawrence River Environment Technology Development Program • Program for Export Market Development • The Export Development Corporation • Canada-Québec Subsidiary Agreement on the Economic Development of the Regions of Québec • Opportunities to Stimulate Technology Programs • Development Assistance Program • Industrial Feasibility Study Assistance Program • Export Promotion Assistance Program • Creation of Scientific Jobs in Industries • Business Investment Assistance Program • Business Financing Program • Research and Innovation Activities Program • Export Assistance Program • Energy Technologies Development Program • Transportation Research and Development Assistance Program III. Program Previously Determined To Be Terminated • Exemption from Payment of Water Bills Adjustment of Countervailing Duty Cash Deposit Rate In its December 3, 2004, submission, NHCI contends that the Department should set the countervailing duty cash deposit rate to zero for pure and alloy magnesium produced by NHCI in Canada and entered on or after January 1, 2005. NHCI asserts that, as of that date, the only subsidy at issue for NHCI will have been fully amortized, and there will be no legal basis or need for collecting cash deposits from NHCI. On December 9, 2004, the GOQ made a submission supporting NHCI's arguments. On December 14, 2004, the petitioner argued that the Department should deny NHCI's request and complete the administrative review before setting future cash deposit rates. On December 14, 2004, the Department responded to NHCI's request by stating that we do not have the authority to modify deposit rates outside of the administrative review process. Therefore, we are not changing the deposit rate for NHCI effective January 1, 2005. Preliminary Results of Reviews In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to these administrative reviews. For the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, we preliminarily find the net subsidy rates for producers/exporters under review to be those specified in the chart shown below. If the final results of these reviews remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess countervailing duties at these net subsidy rates. We will disclose our calculations to the interested parties in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Net Subsidy Rate: Pure Magnesium Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. 1.21 percent Magnola Metallurgy, Inc. 5.40 percent Net Subsidy Rate: Alloy Magnesium Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. 1.21 percent Magnola Metallurgy, Inc. 5.40 percent Cash Deposit Instructions The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the rate specified on the f.o.b. value of all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these administrative reviews. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies (except Timminco Limited, which was excluded from the orders during the investigations) at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by these orders is that established in P *ure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada; Final Results of the Second

(1993)Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 62 FR 48607 (September 16, 1997) or the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results of an administrative review in which a company participated. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Interested parties may submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date of filing the case briefs. Parties who submit briefs in this proceeding should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of these administrative reviews within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2296 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katja Kravetsky at

(202)482-0108, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires that the Department of Commerce (the Department) make preliminary and final determinations during an administrative proceeding within specified time limits. *See, e.g.* , section 751(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a). The Act does not address the treatment of deadlines falling on a weekend, federal holiday, or day on which the Department is otherwise closed, *e.g.* , due to a weather emergency. With respect to certain deadlines involving filings made with the Department, the agency's regulations clarify that where “the applicable time limit expires on a non-business day, the Secretary will accept documents that are filed on the next business day.” *See* 19 CFR 351.303(b); *see, also, Dofasco, Inc. v. United States* , 390 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). With respect to deadlines for reaching administrative determinations, the Department's longstanding practice has been to apply a similar “next business day” rule, which recognizes the administrative reality that there are no employees present to make administrative determinations that fall due when the Department is closed. While this practice has never been challenged, the Department has concluded that it is appropriate to publicize this practice to interested parties. Clarification of Statutory Deadlines The Department hereby clarifies that where a statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or any other day when the Department is closed, the Department will continue its longstanding practice of reaching our determination on the next business day. We find that this clarification is consistent with federal practice. *See* Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a); Fed R. App. P. 26(a); *see, also, Dofasco Inc* ., 390 F.3d at 1372. Dated: April 29, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Sectretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2234 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Scope Rulings AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings completed between April 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004. In conjunction with this list, the Department is also publishing a list of requests for scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations pending as of December 31, 2004. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bridgette Roy or Irina Itkin, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-0160 or

(202)482-0656. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the **Federal Register** a list of scope rulings. *See* 19 CFR 351.225(o). Our most recent “Notice of Scope Rulings” was published on June 19, 2003. *See* 68 FR 36770. The instant notice covers all scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations completed by Import Administration between April 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004, inclusive. It also lists any scope or anticircumvention inquiries pending as of December 31, 2004. As described below, subsequent lists will follow after the close of each calendar quarter. Scope Rulings Completed Between April 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004 India A-533-824, C-533-825: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film Sheet and Strip from India Requestor: International Packaging Films, Inc.; tracing and drafting film is outside the scope of the order; August 25, 2003. A-533-502: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India Requestor: Aruvil International, Inc.; welded carbon steel pipes that are galvanized and have a polyester powder coating are within the scope of the antidumping duty order; March 4, 2004. Mexico A-201-805: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico Requestor: Galvak S.A. de CV; mechanical tubing is outside of the order, some Galvak tubing marked as ASTM A-787 is not mechanical tubing; scope ruling November 19, 1998; re-determination affirmed by NAFTA panel June 7, 2004. A-201-831: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Mexico Requestors: American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel Wire Products Company, Sumiden Wire Products Corp., and Cablesa , S.A. de C.V.; 0.05 oz./sq. ft. zinc coated PC strand is within the scope of the order; June 16, 2004. People's Republic of China A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Garden Ridge; nine candles six with a cheetah print (Styles 194735-A, 194736-A, 194768-A, 194735-C) and three with a zebra print (194735-D, 194736-D, 194768-D) are within the scope of the order; April 22, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Fleming International, Ltd.; three of Fleming's candles (B3922, B3966, and B3988) are not included in the scope of the order based on their vegetable wax content. However, one of Fleming's candles (EP878) is within the scope of the order because it is composed of more than 98 percent paraffin wax; May 14, 2003. A-570-827: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Barthco Trade Consultants; twist crayons are outside the scope of the order; May 22, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: For Your Ease Only; two gel candles are within the scope of the order; June 11, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: San Francisco Candle Company; three types of candles it imports (Style Numbers 71526, 71426, 17734, 17736, 213619, and 213449) are within the scope of the order; June 12, 2003. A-570-803: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Olympia Industrial Inc.; cast picks, with or without a handle, are within the scope of the order; September 22, 2003. A-570-502: Iron Construction Castings from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Westview Sales, Ltd.; imports of manhole frames and solid covers from the People's Republic of China are within the scope of the order; October 17, 2003. A-570-502: Iron Construction Castings from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Frank J. Martin Company; imports of cast iron full-flanged rings and certain cast iron gas lids from the People's Republic of China are outside the scope of the order; October 17, 2003. A-570-506: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Target Corporation; certain enamel-clad beverage holders and dispensers are outside the scope of the order; October 29, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Avon Products, Inc.; five candles (PP239209, PP239091, PP238336-PUMPKIN, PP238336-GHOST, PP239217) are not included within the scope of the order based on the fact that these candles contain less than 50 percent paraffin wax; November 17, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Avon Products, Inc.; one candle (PP231051) is not included within the scope of the order based on the fact that this candle contains less than 50 percent paraffin wax; November 17, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Meijer, Inc.; five candles (“floating eyeball,” “eyeball,” “skull,” “BAT NOG,” and “jack o'lantern” candles) are included within the scope of the order and one candle set (“Halloween floating” candles) is not included within the scope of the order, because it is associated with a recognized holiday; December 22, 2003. (A diversified scope proceeding was opened with respect to two other candle sets (“MJ10300 Thin Candles” and “MJ 70140 Twinkle Thin Candle”)). A-570-882: Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide (Otherwise known as Refined Brown Artificial Corundum or Brown Fused Alumina) from the People's Republic of China Requestors: Cometals Division of Commercial Metals Company,Wester Mineralien SA

(Pty)Ltd., and Polmineral Sp.zo.o.; crude brown aluminum oxide, in which particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight of the entire batch, that is purchased from the People's Republic of China and then refined in a country other than the People's Republic of China is outside the scope of the order; February 3, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Hallmark Cards, Inc.; four candles (“dark green leaf with red berries,” “red maple leaf,” “blue 6-point star,” and “white dome”) are included within the scope; May 17, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Spectrum Brands; five candles (“Cutter Citronella” candle, “Cutter Holiday Basket” candle, “Cutter Triple Wick Citronella” candle, “Cutter Outdoorsman Citronella” candle, and “Cutter Weather-Proof Citronella” candle) contain citronella oil and therefore are not included within the scope; May 20, 2004. A-570-831: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Coppersmith Inc. and Amexim Inc.; certain garlic cloves in brine are within the scope of the order; June 25, 2004 A-570-868: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Lifetime Hong Kong Ltd. and Lifetime Plastic Products Ltd.; table styles 4600 and 4606 are within the scope of the order; September 7, 2004. A-570-827: Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Target Corporation; “Hello Kitty Fashion Totes” are outside the scope of the order; September 29, 2004. A-570-827: Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Target Corporation; the “Hello Kitty Memory Maker” is outside the scope of the order; September 29, 2004. A-570-827: Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Target Corporation; the “Crayola the Wave” is outside the scope of the order; September 29, 2004. A-570-875: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Thomas and Betts Corporation; certain electrical conduit fittings are within the scope of the order; November 5, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Old Hickory Candle company; five “angel” candles are included within the scope of the order; November 18, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Neatzit Israel International, Ltd.; a box of 44 “Chanukah candles” is included within the scope of the order; November 18, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Paperproducts Design, Inc.; “Wine Cork” and “Champagne Cork” candles are outside the scope of the order; November 22, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Globalshop, Inc.; “Snowman” candles are outside the scope of the order; November 24, 2004. A-570-803: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Olympia Industrial Inc.; the MUTT , which is a forged scraper, with or without a handle, is within the scope of the antidumping duty order; December 9, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Atico International USA, Inc.; “Wax Icon,” “Santa Ornament,” “Candy Corn,” and “Christmas Pillar” candles are all within the scope of the order; December 16, 2004. A-570-848: Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Coastal Foods, LLC; crawfish etouffee is outside the scope of the order; December 17, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Pacific Enterprise, LLC; three “Chubby Palm Candles” (item numbers 02717, 02724, and 02700) are outside the scope of the order; December 17, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Direct Scent, Inc.; two candles (item numbers 01G020 and 01G0073) are outside the scope of the order while one candle (item number 01G060) is within the scope of the order; December 17, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; two candles sets (SC02-319 and SC02-320) and two candles (Styles SC02-325 and SC02-328) are included within the scope of the order; December 17, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Avon Products, Inc.; one candle (PPN 250246) is included within the scope of the order; December 21, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.; three candles (SKU 162394) are included within the scope of the order; December 22, 2004. Republic of Korea C-580-851: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea Requestor: ATI Technologies, Inc. (“ATI”); Mobility Radeon 9600 and Mobility Radeon 9700 visual processing units manufactured by ATI are outside the scope of the countervailing duty order; January 14, 2004. C-580-851: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea Requestor: Self-initiated by the Department of Commerce; the Department concluded that products classified under subheadings 8517.30.5000, 8517.50.1000, 8517.50.5000, 8517.50.9000, 8517.90.3400, 8517.90.3600, 8517.90.3800, and 8517.90.4400 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are within the scope of the countervailing duty order; May 3, 2004. Anti-circumvention Determinations Completed Between April 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004: Italy A-475-818 & C-475-819: Certain Pasta from Italy Requestor: Self-initiated by the Department of Commerce; certain pasta produced in Italy by Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A. (Pagani) and exported to the United States in packages of greater than five pounds, subsequently repackaged in the United States into packages of five pounds or less, constitutes circumvention of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders; September 19, 2003. Japan A-588-824: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel (“CRS”) Flat Products from Japan Requestor: USS-POSCO Industries; imports of boron-added CRS products, falling within the physical dimensions outlined in the scope of the order, are not circumventing the order; June 5, 2003. Scope Inquiries Terminated Between April 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004: The People's Republic of China A-570-827: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Designs by Skaffles Inc.; whether a stationary set is within the scope of the order; request withdrawn June 2, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Meijer, Inc. (“Meijer”); Diversified scope proceedings on Meijer's “MJ10300 Thin Candles” and “MJ 70140 Twinkle Thin Candle” were opened on May 24, 2004; terminated July 1, 2004. A-570-803: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Olympia Industrial Inc.; the requestor failed to request a scope ruling on a particular product; terminated July 29, 2004. Scope Inquiries Pending as of December 31, 2004: Brazil A-351-832; C-351-833: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil Requestors: Companhia Siderugica Belgo Mineira Participacao Industria e Comercio S.A. and B.M.P. Siderugica S.A.; whether grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and tire bead quality wire rod (1080 TCBQWR) is within the scope of the order; requested March 29, 2004. India A-533-808; A-533-810: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India Requestor: Mukand; whether stainless steel bar that is manufactured in the United Arab Emirates from stainless steel wire rod imported from India is within the scope of the orders on stainless steel wire rod or stainless steel bar from India; requested May 14, 2003. Japan A-588-833: Certain Tin Mill Products from Japan Requestor: Metal One America Inc.; whether certain tin mill products produced in Colombia from Japanese substrate are within the scope of the order; requested April 21, 2004. People's Republic of China A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: New Spectrum; whether floating candles, assorted figurine candles, “ball of gold rope” candle, Christmas ornament candles, various candle sets, scented candles, and citronella "garden torch” candles are within the scope of the order; requested March 29, 2002. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc.; whether a “rose blossom” candle, “sunflower” floating candles, “Americana heart” floating candles, “baked apple” tea lights, and vanilla tea lights are within the scope of the order; requested June 4, 2002. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Sears; whether three “wrapped present” candles with a mirrored tray are within the scope of the order; requested October 15, 2002. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: J.C. Penney Purchasing Corp.; whether a “wicker lamp shade” candle is within the scope of the order; requested January 22, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Target Corporation; whether snowball candles and sets are within the scope of the order; requested February 5, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Crazy Mountain Imports; whether various candles with Christmas ornaments are within the scope of the order; requested February 19, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Illuminations Stores, Inc.; two candles (item numbers 1050-0593 and 1050-0594) and two candle sets (item numbers 1050-0591 and 1050-0592) are included within the scope of the order; March 7, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Access Business Group; whether various “bowl” and jar candles are within the scope of the order; requested March 25, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Reckitt Benckiser Inc.; whether “air wick glowing candles” in various colors and scents, and containing more than 50 percent palm oil wax, were within the scope of the order; requested April 4, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Maredy Candy Company; whether “heart,” “star,” and “snowflake” candles are within the scope of the order; requested April 22, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Target Corporation; whether “leaf” and “cranberry ball” candles and a set of “stone” candles are within the scope of the order; requested June 12, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Home & Garden Party; whether two “leaf” candles are within the scope of the order; requested September 30, 2003. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Rokeach Foods; whether a “Yahrzeit” (or “day of memory”) candle is within the scope of the order; requested April 22, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Pier 1 Imports, Inc.; whether 13 models of candles are outside the scope of the order; requested May 24, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Pei Eichel, Inc.; whether three styles of “Archipelago Bombay Sleeve” candles (PO # 9904234, 9904235, and 9904236) are within the scope of the order; requested May 28, 2004, and June 3, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Specialty Merchandise Corp.; whether the “Xmas Joy” candle is within the scope of the order; requested June 23, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Coppersmith Inc.; whether “Xmas JOY” candles are within the scope of the order; requested July 15, 2004. A-570-882: Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Cometals Division of Commercial Metals Company; whether black aluminum oxide is excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty order; requested July 22, 2004. A-570-881: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Nitek Electronics, Inc. and Sango International L.P.; whether meter swivels and meter nuts are within the scope of the order; requested July 28, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Abrim Enterprises, Inc.; whether “Easter Egg/Flower Basket,” “Square-M Angel,” “Garlic-L,” “Easter Egg-E,” “Strobile-M,” “Halloween Skull-A,” “Tulip Bud-L,” “Birthday Cake-S,” “Censer,” and “X-Mas Tree-A,” “Snowman (Wife),” and “Snowman (Husband)” candles are within the scope of the order; requested August 2, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Noteworthy, a division of Papermates, Inc.; whether “Floater Flower Candle” and “Rose Pillar Candle” are within the scope of the order; requested August 13, 2004. A-570-827: Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Target Corporation; whether the RoseArt Clip N' Color is within the scope of the order; requested August 16, 2004. A-570-881: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China Requestor: A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Co.; whether meter swivels and meter nuts are within the scope of the order; requested September 3, 2004. A-570-827: Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Fiskars Brands, Inc.; whether certain compasses are within the scope of the order; requested September 10, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Kathryn Beich, Inc.; whether “Jewel,” “Red Rose,” and “Polka Dot” candles are within the scope of the order; requested September 23, 2004. A-570-803: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Olympia Group Inc.; whether cast tampers are within the scope of the order; requested September 24, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Holly Lobby Stores, Inc.; whether “Fall Floating Leaf Candles,” “Pumpkin Floating Candles,” and “Floating Rose Candles” are within the scope of the order; requested September 29, 2004. A-570-886: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Dimensions Trading, Inc.; whether polyethylene sample bags are within the scope of the order; requested October 13, 2004. A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Industrial Raw Materials Corp.; whether wickless wax plugs are within the scope of the order; requested October 26, 2004. A-570-803: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Olympia Group Inc.; whether pry bars, with a bar length under 18 inches, are within the scope of the order; requested November 4, 2004. A-570-502: Iron Construction Castings from the People's Republic of China Requestor: A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Co.; whether certain cast iron articles (meter box frames, covers, extension rings; meter box bases, upper bodies, lids), if imported separately are within the scope of the order; requested November 16, 2004. A-570-506: Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Taybek International; whether the Pro Popper professional popcorn popper is within the scope of the order; requested November 19, 2004. A-570-891: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Vertex International, Inc.; whether certain components of its Garden Cart, if imported separately, are within the scope of the order; requested December 29, 2004. A-570-827: Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China Requestor: Rich Frog Industries, Inc.; whether certain decorated wooden gift pencils are within the scope of the order; requested December 30, 2004. Republic of Korea C-580-851: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Korea Requestor: Cisco Systems, Inc.; whether removable memory modules placed on motherboards that are imported for repair or refurbishment are within the scope of the CVD order; requested December 29, 2004. Russian Federation A-821-802: Antidumping Suspension Agreement on Uranium Requestor: USEC, Inc. and its subsidiary, United States Enrichment Corporation; whether enriched uranium located in Kazakhstan at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union is within the scope of the order; requested August 6, 1999. Vietnam A-552-801: Certain Frozen Fish Filets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Requestor: Piazza Seafood World LLC; whether certain basa and tra fillets from Cambodia which are a product of Vietnam are excluded from the antidumping duty order; requested May 12, 2004. Multiple Countries A-475-820: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, C-475-821: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, A-588-843: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Japan, A-469-805: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Spain, A-469-807: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Spain, A-583-828: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Taiwan, A-533-810: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India, A-588-833: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India, A-351-825: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, A-533- 808: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India, C-469-004: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Spain Requestor: Ishar Bright Steel Ltd.; whether stainless steel bar that is manufactured in the United Arab Emirates from stainless steel wire rod imported from multiple subject countries is within the scope of the orders; requested December 22, 1998. Anti-circumvention Inquiries Pending as of December 31, 2004: People's Republic of China A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: National Candle Association; whether imports of palm and vegetable-based wax candles from the People's Republic of China can be considered later-developed merchandise which is now circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested October 8, 2004. >A-570-504: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China Requestor: National Candle Association; whether imports of palm and vegetable-based wax candles from the People's Republic of China can be considered a minor alteration to the subject merchandise, and thus whether imports of these products are circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested October 12, 2004. Vietnam A-552-801: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Requestor: Catfish Farmers of America and certain individual U.S. catfish processors; whether imports of frozen fish fillets from Cambodia made from live fish sourced from Vietnam, and falling within the scope of the order, are circumventing the antidumping duty order; requested August 20, 2004. Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of pending scope inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230. This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o) of the Department's regulations. Dated: May 4, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-2286 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application To Shuck Surf Clams/Ocean Quahogs at Sea. AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 11, 2005. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Brian R. Hooker, Department of Commerce, Sustainable Fisheries Division, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 or

(978)281-9220. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)Northeast Region manages the Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ)of the Northeastern United States through the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). The regulations implementing the FMP are specified under 50 CFR part 648.70. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at § 648.70 and § 648.74 form the basis for this collection of information. NMFS Northeast Region requests information from Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog individual transferable quota

(ITQ)allocation holders in order to process and track requests from the allocation holders to transfer quota allocation to another entity. NMFS Northeast Region also requests information from Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog permit holders in order to track and properly account for Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog harvest that is shucked at sea. Because there is not a standard conversion factor for estimating unshucked product from shucked product, NMFS requires vessels that choose to shuck product at sea to carry on board the vessel a NMFS approved observer to certify the amount of Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog harvested. This information, upon receipt, results in an increasingly more efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. EEZ. II. Method of Collection Paper applications are used to process requests. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0240. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 600. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 5 minutes for the application to transfer quota, and 30 minutes for the application to shuck surf clams and ocean quahogs at sea. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 51. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $230,400. 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 cost) of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 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: May 5, 2005 Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 05-9329 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents

CFR