Notices. Notice and call for applications for the International Buyer Program for the period October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007

14,092 words·~64 min read·/register/2005/07/12/05-13599

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-274-804] Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Trinidad and Tobago for the period of review (“POR”) October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.

We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Carribean Ispat Limited and its affiliates Ispat North America Inc. (“INA”) and Walker Wire (Ipsat) Inc. (“Walker Wire”) (collectively “CIL”), sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”). 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 equal to the difference between the export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding should also submit with them:

(1)a statement of the issues and

(2)a brief summary of the comments. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic version of the public version of any such comments on diskette. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5973 or

(202)482-3965, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago; *see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine* , 67 FR 65945 (“ *Wire Rod Orders* ”). On October 1, 2004, we published in the **Federal Register** a *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 69 FR 58889. We received timely requests for review from petitioners 1 , and CIL 2 , in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On November 19, 2004, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004, naming CIL as the respondent. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 69 FR 67701 (November 19, 2004). On December 1, 2004, we sent a questionnaire to CIL. 3 1 The petitioners are ISG Georgetown Inc. (formerly Georgetown Steel Company), Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. (formerly Co-Steel Raritan, Inc.), Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. 2 On May 2, 2005, we preliminarily found that Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited is the successor-in-interest to CIL. *See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago* , 70 FR 22634. 3 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise Section B: Comparison Market Sales Section C: Sales to the United States Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value Section E: Cost of Further Manufacture or Assembly Performed in the United States CIL submitted its responses to sections A through D of the Department's questionnaire on January 31, 2005, and sections C and E relating to Walker Wire on February 28, 2005. On April 27, 2005, the petitioners submitted comments on CIL's questionnaire response. On March 22, 2005, the Department issued a section A-E supplemental questionnaire to CIL. We received the response to the supplemental questionnaire on April 20, 2005. On May 5, 2005, the Department issued a second section A-E supplemental questionnaire to CIL. We received the response to the second supplemental questionnaire on May 25, 2005. On June 6, 2005, the petitioners requested that the Department issue additional questions with regard to CIL's claimed level of trade (“LOT”) and request for a CEP Offset. On June 14, 2005, the Department received a reconciliation of CIL's home market and U.S. sales database to its income statements. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for

(a)stainless steel;

(b)tool steel;

(c)high nickel steel;

(d)ball bearing steel; and

(e)concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are

(f)free machining steel products ( *i.e.* , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as:

(i)grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;

(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium. This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as:

(i)grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter;

(ii)with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns);

(iii)having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns;

(iv)having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114;

(v)having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm;

(vi)capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and

(vii)containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown:

(1)0.78 percent or more of carbon,

(2)less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum,

(3)0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur,

(4)0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and

(5)either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified). For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003. *Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review* , 68 FR 64079 (November 12, 2003). The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise. All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope. The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of the Order section, above, and sold in Trinidad and Tobago during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade 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 listed above. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and

(b)of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States and the applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect discounts and increased the prices to reflect billing adjustments and surcharges. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight, international freight, demurrage expenses, marine insurance, survey fees, U.S. customs duties and various U.S. movement expenses from arrival to delivery. For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, and further manufacturing). In addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and

(f)of the Act. Furthermore, we recalculated INA's credit expense and inventory carrying costs as we did in the final results of the first administrative review. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago* , 70 FR 12648 (March 15, 2005) (“ *First Review* ”) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared CIL's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because CIL had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. Cost of Production Analysis The Department found and disregarded home market sales that were made below the cost of production (“COP”) in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which CIL participated. *See First Review* . Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by CIL of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review were made at prices below the COP. Therefore, we initiated a cost investigation of the respondent. *1. Calculation of COP* Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of CIL, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the respondent's comparison market sales were made below the COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. CIL reported cost databases based on generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) in Trinidad and Tobago and U.S. GAAP. Pursuant to section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department relied on CIL's cost database which was based on CIL's audited financial statements prepared in accordance with their home country GAAP ( *i.e.* , IAS) as submitted. 4 4 For the final determination of the investigation and final results of the first administrative review, we used cost databases based on CIL's home market GAAP. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago* , 67 FR 55788 (August 30, 2002) and First Review. In addition, CIL requested that we use control number-specific costs for two six-month cost periods (October 2003 through March 2004 and April 2004 through September 2004) to account for the increase in raw material ( *i.e.* , iron ore and various alloys used in the production of wire rod) prices during the POR. CIL based its request, in its January 31, 2005, section D response, on the fact that the cost of certain inputs increased substantially. Our normal practice for a respondent in a country that is not experiencing high inflation is to calculate a single weighted-average cost for the entire POR except in unusual cases where this preferred method would not yield an appropriate comparison in the margin calculation. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands* , 64 FR 48760 (September 8, 1999) citing *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* ; 64 FR 30664, 30676 (June 8, 1999) (concluding that weighted-average costs for two periods were permissible where major declines in currency valuations distorted the margin calculations); *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8925 (February 23, 1998) (calculating quarterly weighted-average costs due to a significant and consistent price and cost decline in the market); *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above from the Republic of Korea* ; 58 FR 15467, 15476 (March 23, 1993) (determining that the Department may use quarterly weighted-average costs where there exists a consistent downward trend in both U.S. and home market prices during the period); *Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Erasable Programable Read Only Memories from Japan* ; 51 FR 39680, 39682 (October 30, 1986) (finding that significant changes in the COP during a short period of time due to technological advancements and changes in production process justified the use of quarterly weighted-average costs). We have reviewed the information on the record. CIL has not demonstrated that the raw material price increases were significant and/or consistent and would distort the margin calculation. Therefore, we followed our normal practice of calculating a single weighted-average cost for the POR. *2. Test of Comparison Market Prices* As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes. *3. Results of COP Test* Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” *See* section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. *See Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Caribbean Ispat Ltd.* , dated July 5, 2005, on file in the Central Records Unit, room B099 of the main Department building, for our calculation methodology and results. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Trinidad and Tobago. We adjusted the starting price for inland freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit and warranty directly linked to sales transactions). No other adjustments to NV were claimed or allowed. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 of the Department's regulations. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. D. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP transactions, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from CIL about the marketing stages involved in the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by CIL for each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs for EP and home market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act. In the home market, CIL reported sales to end-users as its only channel of distribution. In the U.S. market, CIL reported sales through two channels of distribution, one involving sales made directly by CIL to end-users and trading companies, and the second involving sales made by CIL's affiliated U.S. resellers to end-users. We have determined that the sales made by CIL directly to U.S. customers are EP sales and those made by CIL's affiliated U.S. resellers constitute CEP sales. We found the home market and EP sales to be at the same LOT. CIL's EP sales and home market sales were both made primarily to end-users. In both cases, the selling functions performed by CIL were almost identical in both markets. Other than freight & delivery arrangement, which was only provided for U.S. sales, in both markets CIL provided services such as: strategic and economic planning, sales forecasting, sales force development, solicitation of orders, technical advice, price negotiation, processing purchase orders, invoicing, extending credit, managing accounts receivable, and making arrangements for warranties related to sales. CIL makes CEP sales to the United States through its affiliates, INA and Walker Wire. Sales through CIL's affiliates are normally made to unrelated end-users in the U.S. market. However, because in our LOT analysis for CEP sales we only consider the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of the expenses incurred by the U.S. affiliate, the record indicates that for CIL's CEP sales there are substantially fewer services performed than the sales in its home market. Therefore, we have determined that CIL's home market sales are made at a more advanced stage of the marketing process than the CEP sales to the affiliates and therefore are at a different LOT within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.412. Accordingly, when we compared CEP sales to home market sales, we examined whether an LOT adjustment may be appropriate. As CIL sold at only one LOT in the home market, there is no basis to determine that there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs. Further, we do not have information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns of CIL's sales of other similar products, and there are no other respondents or record evidence on which such an analysis could be based. Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making an LOT adjustment and the LOT of CIL's home market sales is at a more advanced stage of marketing than the LOT of the CEP sales, we have made a CEP offset to CIL's NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. This offset is equal to the amount of indirect expenses incurred in the home market not exceeding the amount of the deductions made from the U.S. price in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Caribbean Ispat Limited 6.19 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate The Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* , the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(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 11.40 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Wire Rod Orders* . These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice 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 increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed. These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 5, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3690 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-828] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Brazil AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is fully extending the time limit for the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Brazil. The period of review is March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004. This extension is made pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Kristin Najdi at

(202)482-0405 or

(202)482-8221, respectively; 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 April 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Brazil covering the period March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004 (70 FR 17406). The final results for the antidumping duty administrative review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Brazil are currently due no later than August 4, 2005. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Agreement Act (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an antidumping duty order for which a review is requested and issue the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 741(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the originally anticipated time limit ( *i.e.* , by August 4, 2005), in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, for the following reasons:

(1)the cost verification of the affiliated importer located in the United States is scheduled to take place July 20-22, 2005;

(2)there is insufficient time for the briefing schedule following the sales and cost verifications; and

(3)a domestic interested party has requested a hearing, which must take place after the briefs are filed. Accordingly, the Department is fully extending the time limits for completion of the final results to no later than October 3, 2005. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with Section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 6, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3685 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-810] Notice of Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, From Argentina AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from the petitioner, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Siderca S.A.I.C. (Siderca). The Department is preliminarily rescinding this review based on record evidence indicating that the respondent had no entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). The POR is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. DATES: *Effective Date* : July 12, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Mike Heaney, or Robert James, 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)482-2924 (Baker),

(202)482-4475 (Heaney), or

(202)482-0649 (James). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 11, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods 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 an opportunity to request an administrative review of this order 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). On August 31, 2004, United States Steel Corporation (petitioner) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales of the subject merchandise made by Siderca. On September 22, 2004, the Department initiated the administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). On September 27, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Siderca. In response, Siderca stated in an October 18, 2004, submission that it had no consumption entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and requested that the Department rescind the review with respect to Siderca. On April 19, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Siderca. The Department attached to it a list of shipments of OCTG from Argentina that entered the United States during the POR that the Department had reason to believe had been manufactured by Siderca or its affiliates. We obtained this list from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)by doing a CBP automated commercial system

(ACS)data query. We asked Siderca to explain why it believed these entries were not subject to this administrative review. Siderca submitted its response on April 22, 2005. Siderca explained that it did not sell to the importer identified on the list of entries that we had attached to the April 19, 2005, supplemental questionnaire. On June 22, 2005, the Department placed on the record of this administrative review copies of import documentation obtained from CBP. Period of Review The POR is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Scope of the Order Oil country tubular goods

(OCTG)are 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. Drill pipe was excluded from this order beginning August 11, 2001. *See Continuation of Countervailing and Antidumping Duty Orders on Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea and Mexico, and Partial Revocation of Those Orders From Argentina and Mexico With Respect to Drill Pipe* , 66 FR 38630 (July 25, 2001). The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (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 HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Preliminary Rescission Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. Based on our review of data from the CBP ACS data query and of documentation from CBP, we preliminarily determine that Siderca had no entries during the POR. We are therefore preliminarily rescinding the review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). We are giving interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary rescission. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* CFR 351.310(c). 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. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this preliminary rescission. 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 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. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, 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 this preliminary rescission. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 6, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3686 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809] Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke the Order in Part* , 70 FR 10953 (March 7, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers imports of subject merchandise from Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (Viraj), and Echjay Forgings Pvt., Ltd. (Echjay). The period of review

(POR)is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no changes in the margin calculations for either Viraj or Echjay. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for Viraj and Echjay are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” In addition, we are revoking Viraj from the order. DATES: Effective Date: July 12, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Mike Heaney, or Robert James, 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)482-2924,

(202)482-4475, or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2005, the Department published the *Preliminary Results* . We invited parties to comment on those preliminary results. On April 6, 2005, we received a case brief from Echjay. No party filed rebuttal comments. Period of Review The POR is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order. Revocation On March 1, 2004, Viraj requested revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). In a March 12, 2004 submission Viraj provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e). The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking the order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, *inter alia* , that a company requesting revocation must submit the following:

(1)A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value

(NV)in the current review period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future;

(2)a certification that the company sold commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and

(3)an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will consider:

(1)Whether the company in question sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years;

(2)whether the company has agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and

(3)whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). In the preliminary results, we found the request from Viraj met all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. We continue to find this is the case for Viraj. With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show that Viraj sold stainless steel flanges at only a *de minimis* level of dumping during the current period. *See* dumping margins below. In addition, Viraj sold stainless steel flanges at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews ( *i.e.* , Viraj's dumping margin was either zero or *de minimis* ). *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 10409 (March 5, 2004) and *Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 42005 (July 16, 2003). Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we determine that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in this review and each of the two prior administrative reviews. Additionally, we find that the continued application of the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we determine that Viraj qualifies for revocation of the order on stainless steel flanges pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Viraj should be revoked. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we are terminating the suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2004, and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to refund any cash deposits for such entries. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in Echjay's brief to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated July 5, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. 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 Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the decision memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the decision memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine the weighted-average dumping margins for the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004, to be as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Echjay Forgings Pvt., Ltd 0.03 Viraj Forgings, Ltd 0.01 The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise in question based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on export prices. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the period of review. The Department will issue assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements Because we have revoked the order with respect to Viraj's exports of subject merchandise, we will order CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2004, and to refund all cash deposits collected for such unliquidated entries. The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:

(1)Since the margin for Echjay was less than 0.50 percent, and hence *de minimis* , no cash deposit shall be required for Echjay;

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

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

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* ; 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing 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 or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties or countervailing duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders

(APOs)or their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I) of the Tariff Act. Dated: July 5, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues Raised in Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Assignment of Antidumping Rate to Exporter As Well As Manufacturer [FR Doc. E5-3688 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-427-819) Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative review of the countervailing duty

(CVD)order on low enriched uranium from France for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003 ( *see Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 70 FR 10989 (March 7, 2005) ( *LEU Preliminary Results 2003* )). The Department has now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Based on our analysis of the comments received, the Department has not revised the net subsidy rate for Eurodif S.A. (Eurodif)/Compagnie Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires (COGEMA), the producer/exporter of subject merchandise covered by this review. For further discussion of our analysis of the comments received for these final results, *see* the July 5, 2005, Issues and Decision Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, concerning the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France ( *LEU Decision Memorandum 2003* ). The final net subsidy rate for Eurodif/COGEMA is listed below in “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, Import Administration, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results ( *see LEU Preliminary Results 2003* at 70 FR 10989). We invited interested parties to comment on the results. On April 7, 2005, we received a case brief from Eurodif/COGEMA and the Government of France (GOF), the respondents. On April 12, 2005, we received a rebuttal brief from petitioners. 1 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers only Eurodif/COGEMA. The review covers the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, and two programs. 1 Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation

(USEC)and USEC Inc. Scope of Order The product covered by this order is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU

(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designated transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and

(ii)are re-exported within eighteen

(CBP)for entries made during the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, until such time as the injunctions, issued on June 24, 2002, and November 1, 2004, are lifted. We will instruct CBP, within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review, to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at 1.23 percent *ad valorem* of the f.o.b. price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the reviewed entity, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the investigation. *See Amended Final Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 67 FR 6689 (February 13, 2002). The “all others” rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested. 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(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 administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 5, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I-Issues and Decision Memorandum I. SUBSIDIES VALUATION INFORMATION A. Calculation of Ad Valorem Rates II. ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS A. Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies *1. Purchases at Prices that Constitute “More Than Adequate Remuneration”* *2. Exoneration/Reimbursement of Corporate Income Taxes* III. TOTAL *AD VALOREM* RATE IV. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS Comment 1: Benefit from Transaction Comment 2: Draft Customs Instructions [FR Doc. E5-3687 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-428-829); (C-421-809); (C-412-821) Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative reviews of the countervailing duty

(CVD)orders on low enriched uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003 ( *see Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom* , 70 FR 10986 (March 7, 2005) ( *Preliminary Results* )). The Department has now completed these administrative reviews in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Based on information received since the *Preliminary Results* and our analysis of the comments received, the Department has not revised the net subsidy rate for Urenco Deutschland GmbH of Germany (UD), Urenco Nederland B.V. of the Netherlands (UNL), Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited

(UCL)of the United Kingdom, Urenco Ltd., and Urenco Inc. (collectively, the Urenco Group or respondents), the producers/exporters of subject merchandise covered by these reviews. For further discussion of our positions, *see* the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration concerning the “Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom” (Decision Memorandum) dated July 5, 2005. The final net subsidy rates for the reviewed companies are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Reviews.” EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2786. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 7, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its *Preliminary Results* . We invited interested parties to comment on the results. Since the preliminary results, the following events have occurred. On April 6, 2005, we received case briefs from respondents. In their case brief, respondents requested a hearing. On April 11, 2005, we received rebuttal briefs from petitioners. 1 On April 12, 2005, respondents withdrew their request for a hearing. 1 Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation

(USEC)and USEC Inc. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, these reviews cover the Urenco Group. These reviews cover the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, and four programs. Scope of the Orders For purposes of these orders, the product covered is all low enriched uranium (LEU). LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ) with a U 235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO 2 , or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of these orders. Specifically, these orders do not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of these orders. For purposes of these orders, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO 2 ), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates (U 3 O 8 ) with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U 235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of these orders. Also excluded from these orders is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU

(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designated transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and

(ii)are re-exported within eighteen

(18)months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user. The merchandise subject to these orders is currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these reviews are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues contained in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Record Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading “ **Federal Register** Notices.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an *ad valorem* subsidy rate for the Urenco Group for calendar year 2003. The total net subsidy rate for the Urenco Group in these reviews is 0.00 percent *ad valorem* for the POR. We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews, to liquidate shipments of low enriched uranium by Urenco from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, without regard to countervailing duties. Moreover, the Department also will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the reviewed entity, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews. In addition, for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies 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 this order will be the rate for that company established in the investigations. *See Notice of Amended Final Determinations and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Low Enriched Uranium from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom* , 67 FR 6688 (February 13, 2002) ( *Amended Final* ). The “all others” rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by these orders are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(WIR)2. Regional Investment Premium IV. TOTAL *AD VALOREM* RATE V. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS Comment 1: Net Countervailable Subsidy Rate Comment 2: Draft Cash Deposit and Liquidation Instructions Comment 3: Enrichment Services Comment 4: Allocation Period Comment 5: Centrifuge Enrichment Capacity Subsidies by the Government of Germany [FR Doc. E5-3689 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration International Buyer Program Support for Domestic Trade Shows AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice and call for applications for the International Buyer Program for the period October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007. Contact: Office of Global Trade Programs; Room 2012; Department of Commerce; Washington, DC 20230; tel:

(202)482-4457; Fax:

(202)482-0178. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth objectives, procedures and application review criteria associated with support for domestic trade shows by the International Buyer Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). As the program is changing from a fiscal year to a calendar year basis, this announcement covers selection for International Buyer Program participation for Fiscal Year 2007 (October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007) and the 1st quarter of Fiscal Year 2008 (October 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007). The International Buyer Program was established to bring international buyers together with U.S. firms by promoting leading U.S. trade shows in industries with high export potential. The International Buyer Program emphasizes cooperation between the DOC and trade show organizers to benefit U.S. firms exhibiting at selected events and provides practical, hands-on assistance such as export counseling and market analysis to U.S. companies interested in exporting. The assistance provided to show organizers includes worldwide overseas promotion of selected shows to potential international buyers, end-users, representatives and distributors. The worldwide promotion is executed through the offices of the DOC United States and Foreign Commercial Service (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial Service) in more than 70 countries representing America's major trading partners, and also in U.S. Embassies in countries where the Commercial Service does not maintain offices. As the program is changing from a fiscal year to a calendar year basis, the Department expects to select approximately 50 shows for the October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2007 period from among applicants to the program. Shows selected for the International Buyer Program will provide a venue for U.S. companies interested in expanding their sales into international markets. Successful show organizer applicants will be required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU)with the DOC. The MOU constitutes an agreement between the DOC and the show organizer specifying which responsibilities are to be undertaken by DOC as part of the IBP and, in turn, which responsibilities are to be undertaken by the show organizer. Anyone requesting information about applying will be sent a copy of the MOU along with the application package. The responsibilities to be undertaken by DOC will be carried out by the Commercial Service. DATES: Applications must be received within 60 days after the publication date of this **Federal Register** notice. Participation fees (discussed below) are for shows selected and promoted during the period between October 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: International Buyer Program, Global Trade Programs, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., H2107, Washington, DC 20230. Telephone:

(202)482-0146 (for deadline purposes, facsimile or e-mail applications will be accepted as interim applications, to be followed by signed original applications). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Boney, Product Manager, International Buyer Program, Room 2114, Global Trade Programs, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Telephone

(202)482-0146; Fax:

(202)482-0115; e-mail: *Jim.Boney@mail.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commercial Service is accepting applications for the International Buyer Program for events taking place between October 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. A participation fee of $8,000 for shows of five days or less is required. For shows more than five days in duration, or requiring more than one International Business Center, a participation fee of $14,000 is required. Under the IBP, the Commercial Service seeks to bring together international buyers with U.S. firms by selecting and promoting in international markets U.S. domestic trade shows covering industries with high export potential. Selection of a trade show is valid for one event, *i.e.,* a trade show organizer seeking selection for a recurring event must submit a new application for selection for each occurrence of the event. Even if the event occurs more than once in the 15-month period covering this announcement, the trade show organizer must submit a separate application for each event. The Commercial Service will select approximately 50 events for support between October 1, 2006 and December 31, 2007, inclusive. The Commercial Service will select those events that, in its judgment, most clearly meet the Commercial Service's statutory mandate to promote U.S. exports, especially those of small- and medium-size enterprises, and that best meet selection criteria articulated below. The Department selects trade shows to be International Buyer Program partners that it determines to be leading international trade shows appropriate for participation by U.S. exporting firms and for promotion in overseas markets by U.S. Embassies and Consulates. Selection as an International Buyer Program partner does not constitute a guarantee by the U.S. Government of the show's success. International Buyer Program partnership status is not an endorsement of the show organizer except as to its international buyer activities. Non-selection should not be viewed as a finding that the event will not be successful in the promotion of U.S. exports. *Exclusions:* Trade shows that are either first-time or horizontal (non-industry specific) events will not be considered. *General Selection Criteria:* The Department will select shows to be International Buyer Program partners that, in the judgment of the Department, best meet the following criteria:

(a)*Export Potential:* The trade show promotes products and services from U.S. industries that have high export potential, as determined by DOC sources, *e.g.,* Commercial Service best prospects lists and U.S. export statistics (certain industries are rated as priorities by our domestic and international commercial officers in their Country Commercial Guides).

(b)*International Interest:* The trade show meets the needs of a significant number of overseas markets and corresponds to marketing opportunities as identified by the posts in their Country Commercial Guides ( *e.g.* best prospect lists). Previous international attendance at the show may be used as an indicator.

(c)*U.S. Content of Show Exhibitors:* Trade shows with exhibitors featuring a high percentage of U.S. products or products with a high degree of U.S. content will be preferred. Generally, to have “U.S. content”, products and services to be exhibited should be produced or manufactured in the U.S., or if produced or manufactured outside of the U.S., the products or services should contain more than 50% U.S. content and should be marketed under the name of a U.S. firm.

(d)*Stature of the show:* The trade show is clearly recognized by the industry it covers as a leading event for the promotion of that industry's products and services, both domestically and internationally, and as a showplace for the latest technology or services in that industry or sector.

(e)*Exhibitor Interest:* There is demonstrated interest on the part of U.S. exhibitors in receiving international business visitors during the trade show. A significant number of U.S. exhibitors should be new-to-export or seeking to expand sales into additional international markets.

(f)*Overseas Marketing:* There has been a demonstrated effort to market prior shows overseas. In addition, the applicant should describe in detail the international marketing program to be conducted for the event, explaining how efforts should increase individual and group international attendance. (Planned cooperation with Visit USA Committees overseas is desirable.)

(g)*Logistics:* The trade show site, facilities, transportation services, and availability of accommodations are of the stature of an international-class trade show.

(h)*Cooperation:* The applicant demonstrates a willingness to cooperate with the Commercial Service to fulfill the program's goals and to adhere to target dates set out in the MOU and the event timetable, both of which are available from the program office ( *see* the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above on when, where, and how to apply). Past experience in the IBP will be taken into account in evaluating current applications to the program. *Legal Authority:* The Commercial Service has the legal authority to enter into MOUs with show organizers (partners) under the provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (MECEA), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458 (c)). MECEA allows the Commercial Service to accept contributions of funds and services from firms for the purposes of furthering its mission. The statutory program authority for the Commercial Service to conduct the International Buyer Program is 15 U.S.C. 4724. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements of the application to this program under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 2501 *et seq.* ) (OMB Control No. 0625-0151). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. Dated: July 6, 2005. Donald Businger, Director, Office of Trade Event Programs, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E5-3692 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration North American Free-Trade Agreement, Article 1904; NAFTA Panel Reviews; Request for Panel Review AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of first request for panel review. SUMMARY: On June 24, 2005, Berg Steel Pipe Corporation filed a First Request for Panel Review with the Mexican Section of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Panel review was requested of the antidumping duty determination made by the Secretaria de Economia, respecting Pipe Line Longitudinally Welded with external or internal circle closed section, classified as tariff item 7305.11.01 and 7305.12.01 originating in the United States of America. This determination was published in the *Diario Oficial de la Federacion* , on May 27, 2005. The NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case Number MEX-USA-2005-1904-01 to this request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-5438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination. Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established *Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews* (“Rules”). These Rules were published in the **Federal Register** on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). A first Request for Panel Review was filed with the Mexican Section of the NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article 1904 of the Agreement, on June 24, 2005, requesting panel review of the final determination described above. The Rules provide that:

(a)A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is July 25, 2005);

(b)A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is August 8, 2005); and

(c)The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review. Dated: July 6, 2005. Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. [FR Doc. E5-3677 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Submission of Conservation Efforts To Make Listings Unnecessary Under the Endangered Species Act 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 September 12, 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 Marta Nammack,

(301)713-1401 or *Marta.Nammack@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Services) announced a final policy on the criteria the Services will use to evaluate conservation efforts by states and other non-Federal entities. The Services take these efforts into account when making decisions on whether to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The efforts usually involve the development of a conservation plan or agreement, procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan or agreement, and an annual report. II. Method of Collection NMFS does not require, but will accept, plans and reports electronically. NMFS has not developed a form to be used for submission of plans or reports. In the past, NMFS has made plans and annual reports from states available through the Internet and plans to continue this practice. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0466. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; and State, local or tribal governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3. *Estimated Time per Response:* 2,500 hours to complete each agreement or plan that has the intention of making listing unnecessary; 320 hours to conduct monitoring for successful agreements; and 80 hours to prepare a report for successful agreements. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 3,300. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $165,000. 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: July 6, 2005. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 05-13599 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR