Notices. Notice of opportunity to serve as a member of one of the fifty-nine District Export Councils

11,399 words·~52 min read·/register/2005/07/21/05-14376

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-812] Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. The period of review is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. This review covers imports of furfuryl alcohol from one producer/exporter.

We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise have not been made at less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of furfuryl alcohol from Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. without regard to antidumping duties. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Smith, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1276. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 25, 1995, the Department published an antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. *See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Order* , 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995). On December 12, 2002, the Department published the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. *See Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 67 FR 76380 (December 12, 2002) (“ *FA First Review* ”). On July 1, 2004, the Department published its *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 29, 2004, Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“petitioner”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Indorama Chemicals (Thailand), Ltd. (“IRCT”), a producer and exporter of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on August 30, 2004. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. An antidumping duty questionnaire was sent to IRCT on September 10, 2004. We received a timely response from IRCT on October 17, 2004. On November 11, 2004, the petitioner submitted an allegation that IRCT made sales of the subject merchandise below the cost of production and requested that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation. On November 12, 2004, IRCT submitted comments on the petitioner's allegations. On November 18, 2004, the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments on IRCT's original comments. We issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding IRCT's responses to sections A, B, and C of the Department's original questionnaire on December 8, 2004. On December 9, 2004, the Department initiated a sales below cost investigation of IRCT. *See* December 9, 2004, Memorandum from Team to Susan Kuhbach entitled “Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand), Inc., “ which is in the Department's Central Records Unit, located in Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). We received a timely response from IRCT to the Department's December 8, 2004, supplemental questionnaire on December 22, 2004. We received IRCT's response to the Department's cost questionnaire on January 18, 2005. We issued an additional supplemental questionnaire on February 10, 2005. On February 14, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we published a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results in this case by 31 days ( *i.e.* , until no later than May 4, 2005). *See* 70 FR 7469. We received a timely response to the second supplemental questionnaire from IRCT on February 22, 2005. On March 17, 2005, the petitioner submitted comments on IRCT's response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On April 8, 2005, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to IRCT. On April 18, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we published a notice extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results in this case by 88 days ( *i.e.* , until no later than August 1, 2005). *See* 70 FR 20103. On April 22, 2005, we received a timely response from IRCT to the Department's April 8, 2005, supplemental questionnaire. We issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire to IRCT on June 6, 2005. We received a timely response on the fourth supplemental questionnaire from IRCT on June 14, 2005. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol (C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes. The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of furfuryl alcohol by IRCT to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared the export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average sales prices of the foreign like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Normal Value” section of this notice. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by IRCT covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In making product comparisons, consistent with the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 60 FR 22557 (May 8, 1995) and *Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand: Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination and Order* , 60 FR 38035 (July 25, 1995) (collectively “LTFV Final”), we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by IRCT. Export Price We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed delivered, freight-on-board, cash-in-freight, or the delivery-duty paid price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included foreign inland freight, country of manufacture inland insurance, brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance. It is normally the Department's practice to confirm that the duty drawback adjustment claimed by the respondent meets the Department's two-pronged criteria for determining whether the duty drawback adjustment is appropriate. We have determined that only one of the reported inputs used in the production of furfuryl alcohol meets the two-pronged criteria. Therefore, we made an adjustment to the starting price for duty drawback to account for import duties paid on the importation of a single input used in the production of the subject merchandise. For an in-depth explanation of these changes, *see* Memorandum from Case Analyst to File, “Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd.,” (“ *Prelim Calc Memo* ”) dated August 1, 2005, available in the Department's CRU. Normal Value A. *Home Market Viability* In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the volume of IRCT's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2) of the Department's regulations. Because IRCT's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. B. *Cost of Production* As discussed in the “Background” section above there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that IRCT made sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the cost of production (“COP”), as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we requested that IRCT respond to section D, the cost of production/constructed value section of the questionnaire. We conducted the COP analysis as described below: 1. *Calculation of COP* In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of IRCT's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses (“G&A”), interest expenses, and home market packing costs. We relied on the COP information provided by IRCT, except in the following instances. IRCT reported that it did not include in its calculated G&A the cost IRCT incurred for the depreciation of certain assets. It is the Department's normal practice to include the depreciation figure for assets in a company's reported G&A expenses if these assets relate to the general operations of the company. Therefore, we have recalculated IRCT's reported G&A expenses to include these costs. *See* Prelim Calc Memo. 2. *Test of Home Market Sales Prices* On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sales prices were below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges or indirect selling expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act, whether such sales were made

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

(2)at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 3. *Results of the COP Test* Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices below the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we determine that in such instances the below cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales are made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. We found that, for all products, less than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP. Therefore, we did not disregard any home market sales in determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1). C. *Level of Trade* Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id* .; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 1 including selling functions, 2 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each sale. 1 The marketing process in the United States and comparison market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. 2 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales, we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, et. al.* , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming this methodology). When the Department is unable to match U.S. EP sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales to a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practical, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. IRCT reported one level of trade in the home market and one level of trade in the U.S. market. IRCT reported making sales only to end-users in the home market. In the United States, IRCT reported that it made sales to a trading company. We examined the information IRCT reported regarding its marketing process for making the reported comparison market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities performed and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer categories ( *i.e.* , distributors and end users). Based on our analysis, we found that the single level of trade in the United States is identical to the single level of trade in the comparison market. Thus, we preliminarily find that a LOT adjustment for IRCT is not warranted. D. *Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices* We calculated NV based on the delivered prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's length. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for inland freight and inland insurance. Furthermore, where appropriate, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales (credit expenses), and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses). We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily find that the following dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Manufacturer/Exporter Margin Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. 0.00 Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer (or customer) of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Cash Deposit Rates The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of furfuryl alcohol from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

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

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in 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 in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any prior review, or the original less than fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 7.82 percent, the “all others” rate established in the *LTFV Final* . Public Comment Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first business day thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 15, 2005. Susan Kuhbach, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3905 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 31, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 4818) a notice announcing the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review

(POR)is December 1, 2003, to November 30, 2004. On June 22, 2005, petitioners and Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. (Wuhan Bee) withdrew their requests for an administrative review of Wuhan Bee. This review is now being rescinded for Wuhan Bee. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak or Kristina Boughton, 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)482-6375 and

(202)482-8173, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 10, 2001, the Department of Commerce published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order covering honey from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 2004, the Department published a *Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 69 FR 69889. On December 30, 2004, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners), requested, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC for 19 companies covering the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. On December 30, 2004, and January 3, 2005, nine Chinese companies requested an administrative review of their respective companies. The Department notes that petitioners' request covered these nine companies as well. On January 31, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of 19 Chinese companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). On March 29, 2005, the Department rescinded this review with respect to seven companies because petitioners, the only party to request a review for these companies, withdrew their request for review. *See Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Honey from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 15836 (March 29, 2005). On May 25, 2005, the Department rescinded this review with respect to Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corp. and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corporation because petitioners, the only party to request a review for these companies, withdrew their request for review. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 30082 (May 25, 2005). On June 22, 2005, petitioners filed a letter withdrawing their request for review of Wuhan Bee (respondent), and on the same day, respondent also filed a letter withdrawing its request for an administrative review. Both parties originally requested a review of Wuhan Bee and both parties requested that the Department withdraw the review despite the request coming after the 90-day withdrawal period because both parties have withdrawn their original requests for review and because the Department has not yet committed substantial resources to reviewing Wuhan Bee. Further, both parties stated that the Department may rescind a review after the 90-day deadline, according to its regulations, when it determines it is reasonable. Respondent further noted that there are no other Wuhan Bee importers or other interested parties that could pose any valid objection to the rescission of the review. Rescission of Review The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. It further states that the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary finds it reasonable to do so. Although petitioners and respondent withdrew their review requests with respect to Wuhan Bee after the 90-day deadline, the Department finds it reasonable to extend the deadline for parties to withdraw their request for review with respect to Wuhan Bee in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The Department finds it reasonable to extend the withdrawal deadline with respect to Wuhan Bee because the Department has not yet committed substantial resources to reviewing Wuhan Bee in the instant review and because both parties who requested the review have subsequently withdrawn their requests. Therefore, we are partially rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC covering the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, with respect to Wuhan Bee. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of 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 that is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 14, 2005. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3909 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak or Kristina Boughton, 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)482-6375 and

(202)482-8173, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 10, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order covering honey from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). On December 1, 2004, the Department published a *Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 69 FR 69889. On December 30, 2004, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners), requested, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC for 19 companies 1 covering the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. On December 30, 2004, and January 3, 2005, nine Chinese companies requested an administrative review of their respective companies. The Department notes that petitioners' request covered these nine companies as well. 1 Among these 19 companies are “Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp.,” and “Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products.” These two names refer to the same company and the review is, therefore, being rescinded with respect to both iterations of the name. On January 31, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of 19 Chinese companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). On March 29, 2005, the Department rescinded this review with respect to seven companies because petitioners, the only party to have requested a review for these companies, withdrew their request. *See Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Honey from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 15836 (March 29, 2005). On April 28, 2005, petitioners withdrew their request for review of Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corp. (Anhui Native) and on April 29, 2005, petitioners withdrew their request for review of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corporation (Inner Mongolia). On May 25, 2005, the Department rescinded this review with respect to Anhui Native and Inner Mongolia, because petitioners, the only party to request a review of these two companies, withdrew their request. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 30082 (May 25, 2005). On June 20, 2005, petitioners requested that the Department extend the date for the issuance of the preliminary results in this proceeding from 245 days to 365 days, due to the large number of companies in the proceeding, complex issues of affiliation for several companies under review, and the difficulty in finding up-to-date factor valuation data, particularly for raw honey. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Pursuant to Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department shall issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides that the Department shall issue the final results of review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the **Federal Register** . However, if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the 245-day period to 365 days and the 120-day period to 180 days. The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than September 2, 2005. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this administrative review within this time limit because it needs additional time to analyze the questionnaire responses, issue appropriate supplemental questionnaires and conduct verifications, and research surrogate value data, particularly for raw honey. Therefore, 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 these preliminary results until no later than December 9, 2005, or 98 days. The deadline for the final results of the administrative review continues to be 120 days after the date the publication of the preliminary results, unless extended. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Dated: July 14, 2005. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3910 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Eighth New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is currently conducting the eighth new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. This review covers one exporter. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), we have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made at less than normal value (“NV”) with respect to the exporter who participated in this review. If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to not assess antidumping duties on entries of merchandise subject to this review. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Musser or Stephen F. Berlinguette, 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)482-1777 and

(202)482-3740, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). The Department received a timely request from Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Blue Field”), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b) and (c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC, which has a February annual anniversary month and an August semi-annual anniversary month. On September 24, 2004, the Department found that Blue Field's request for review appeared to satisfy the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated the new shipper antidumping duty review. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Eighth New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review* , 69 FR 57264 (September 24, 2004). On September 30, 2004 the Department provided the parties an opportunity to submit publicly available information for consideration in the preliminary results. On October 1, 2004, the Department requested from CBP copies of all customs documents pertaining to the entry of certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC exported by the respondent during the period of February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. *See Memorandum from James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, to William R. Scopa of CBP* , dated October 1, 2004. We issued the original questionnaire to Blue Field in September 2004. Responses to the questionnaire were received in October 2004. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Blue Field and an importer-specific questionnaire to Blue Field's U.S. importer in December 2004. We received responses to the questionnaires in December 2004 and January 2005. From January 10 through January 14, 2005, the Department conducted verification of the information submitted by Blue Field in accordance with 782(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307. On February 8, 2005, we issued the verification report for Blue Field. *See Memorandum to the File from Amber Musser and Steve Winkates through Brian C. Smith, Re: Verification of the Response of Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. in the Eighth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , dated February 8, 2005 (“Blue Field verification report”). On March 22, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of postponement of the preliminary results until no later than July 14, 2005 (70 FR 14444). Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The preserved mushrooms covered under this order are the species *Agaricus bisporus and Agaricus bitorquis* . “Preserved mushrooms” refer to mushrooms that have been prepared or preserved by cleaning, blanching, and sometimes slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are then packed and heated in containers including, but not limited to, cans or glass jars in a suitable liquid medium, including, but not limited to, water, brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved mushrooms may be imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. Included within the scope of this order are “brined” mushrooms, which are pre-salted and packed in a heavy salt solution to provisionally preserve them for further processing. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:

(1)all other species of mushrooms, including straw mushrooms;

(2)all fresh and chilled mushrooms, including “refrigerated” or “quick blanched mushrooms”;

(3)dried mushrooms;

(4)frozen mushrooms; and

(5)“marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms, which are prepared or preserved by means of vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain oil or other additives. 1 1 On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that “marinated,” “acidified,” or “pickled” mushrooms containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. *See* “Recommendation Memorandum-Final Ruling of Request by Tak Fat, *et al* . for Exclusion of Certain Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 19, 2000. The Department's scope determination was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in *Tak Fat Trading Company, et. al. v. United States* , et. al., 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir., 2005). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153 and 0711.51.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) covers February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, as amended, we verified information provided by Blue Field. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of Blue Field's facility and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the Blue Field verification report. New Shipper Status Consistent with our practice, we investigated the *bona fide* nature of the two sales made by Blue Field for this new shipper review. We found no evidence that the sales in question were not *bona fide* sales. Based on our investigation into the *bona fide* nature of the sales, the questionnaire responses submitted by the company, and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that the respondent has met the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR, and that it was not affiliated with any exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results of the review, we are treating the respondent's sales of certain preserved mushrooms to the United States as an appropriate transaction for this new shipper review. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market-economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate ( *i.e.* , a PRC-wide rate). Blue Field is a limited liability company registered in the PRC. Thus, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether the export activities of this respondent are independent from government control. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China* , 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department utilizes a test arising from the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and amplified in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. 1. *De Jure* Control Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of *de jure* absence of government control over exporter activities includes:

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

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. In prior cases involving products from the PRC, the Department has examined the following PRC laws for purposes of determining whether there is an absence of *de jure* control with respect to a respondent's export functions: the 1994 “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China;” the “Company Law of the PRC,” effective as of July 1, 1994; and “The Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations,” promulgated on June 13, 1988. *See* July 22, 2004, Memorandum to the File, which places the above-referenced laws on the record of this proceeding segment. As in prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them to establish sufficiently an absence of *de jure* control of limited liability companies absent proof on the record to the contrary. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (“Furfuryl Alcohol”), and *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995). The respondent has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control, including the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China (May 12, 1994) and the Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations (June 3, 1988). The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of *de jure* control. *See, e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). At verification, we found that the respondent's business license and Certificate of Approval for enterprises with foreign trade rights in the PRC were granted in accordance with these laws. For further information, see the Blue Field verification report. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de jure* control over the respondent's export activities. 2. *De Facto* Control As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at 22544. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:

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

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

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

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587 and *Furfuryl Alcohol* , 60 FR at 22545. Blue Field has asserted the following:

(1)it establishes its own export prices;

(2)it negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations;

(3)it makes its own personnel decisions; and

(4)it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. We examined documentation at verification which substantiated Blue Field's claims as noted above. *See* the Blue Field verification report, pages 3-11. As a result, there is a sufficient basis to determine preliminarily that this respondent has demonstrated a *de facto* absence of government control of its export functions and is entitled to a separate rate. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that Blue Field has met the criteria for the application of separate rates. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether Blue Field's two sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the export prices to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Export Price We used export price (“EP”) methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first sold prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States directly to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and constructed export price was not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the packed FOB China port price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling charges in the PRC in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate rates from India ( *see* “Surrogate Country” section below for further discussion of our surrogate-country selection). To value foreign inland trucking charges, we used truck freight distances and rates published by the Indian Freight Exchange obtained from the following website: http://www.infreight.com. To value foreign inland train freight charges, we used data contained in the July 2001 *Reserve Bank of India Bulletin* . To value foreign brokerage and handling expenses, we relied on October 1999-September 2000 information reported in the public U.S. sales listing submitted by Essar Steel Ltd. in the antidumping investigation of *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value* , 67 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001). Normal Value A. Non-Market-Economy Status In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the parties to this review has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. B. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that

(1)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and

(2)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. India was among the countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic development. *See Surrogate Country Request Memorandum* , dated September 28, 2004. In addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record (e.g., world production data), India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. *See Memorandum Re: Seventh Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review on Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country* , dated September 28, 2004. C. Factors of Production In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited to:

(A)hours of labor required;

(B)quantities of raw materials employed;

(C)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and

(D)representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the factors reported by Blue Field which produced the preserved mushrooms it exported to the United States during the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian values. Based on our verification findings, we revised the per-unit factor reported for soil and the reported inland freight distances reported in Blue Field's responses. *See* Blue Field verification report at pages 14 and 16. The Department's selection of the surrogate values applied in this determination was based on the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous with the POR and quoted in a foreign currency or in U.S. dollars, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices (“WPIs”) published in the International Monetary Fund's *International Financial Statistics (“IFS”). See Memorandum Re: Factors Valuation For the Preliminary Results, from Stephen F. Berlinguette, International Trade Compliance Analyst to James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9* , dated July 14, 2005, for a detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate surrogate values. Except where specified below, we valued raw material inputs using the weighted-average unit import values from the POR derived from the *World Trade Atlas Trade Information System (Internet Version 4.3e) (“World Trade Atlas”)* . The source of these values was the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Below is a listing of surrogate values that utilized sources other than POR-contemporaneous *World Trade Atlas* data. Blue Field produced (rather than purchased) the fresh mushrooms which it used in the mushroom canning process during the POR. Therefore, we valued the inputs which this company used to produce the fresh mushrooms which were canned during the POR. To value spawn, we used an average price based on data contained in the 2003-2004 financial reports of Agro Dutch Foods, Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”), Flex Foods Ltd. (“Flex Foods”) and Premier Explosives, Ltd. (“Premier Explosives”) (i.e., three Indian producers of the subject merchandise). To value cow manure, we averaged data contained in the above-referenced Flex Foods and Agro Dutch financial reports. To value rice straw, we used data from the 2003-2004 Premier Explosives financial report. For soil, we used 2003-2004 price information obtained from a project report issued in December 2004 by India's National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development entitled *Integrated Project on Production and Processing of Button Mushrooms for Export* , available online at: http://www.nabard.org/roles/ms/ap/mushroom.htm. Blue Field produced all of the cans which it used to sell preserved mushrooms to the U.S. market during the POR. Therefore, for can-making materials, we valued tin plate using January 2002-December 2002 average Indian import values from *World Trade Atlas* , and we valued copper conducting wire using January 2003-December 2003 average Indian import values from *World Trade Atlas* , as its useable form is consumed in the production of cans. Because there is insufficient evidence on the record to account for the factors involved in recovering the resulting scrap, we did not apply a scrap offset. Parties requesting a byproduct offset have the burden of presenting to the Department not only evidence that the generated byproduct is sold or re-used in the production of the subject merchandise, but also all the information necessary for the Department to incorporate such offsets into the margin calculation. In this instance, however, Blue Field did not provide evidence that post-production copper wire scrap was sold or re-used. Moreover, Blue Field did not provide either the complete set of factors necessary for the reworking of the scrap copper wire into a useable form, nor did it provide an attempt at a valuation for such factors. As a result of these considerations, we preliminarily determine that Blue Field did not meet its burden of adequately documenting the claimed byproduct offset and, as a result, we did not apply it. To value salt, we used and inflated an average import price based on January 2002-December 2003 data contained in *World Trade Atlas* because we were unable to obtain a more current value.To value water we used January 2003 data available on the Maharastra Industrial Development Corporation's website and was used in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 34082-34086 (June 13, 2005). We used data contained in the 2002-2003 financial report of Flex Foods to calculate and inflate a POR value for super phosphate. We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). *See Expected Wages of Selected Non-market Economy Countries* , from the Import Administration website at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. To value electricity, we used 2000 Indian price data from the International Energy Agency's (“IEA”) report, “Electricity Prices for Industry,” contained in the *2002 Key World Energy Statistics from the IEA* . To value steam coal, we used February 2004-July 2004 Indian import data from *World Trade Atlas* , and added an amount for loading and additional transportation charges associated with delivering coal to the factory based on June 1999 Indian price data contained in the periodical *Business Line* . To value factory overhead and selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit, we used the 2003-2004 financial reports of Agro Dutch and Flex Foods, both Indian producers of the subject merchandise. In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997), we revised our methodology for calculating source-to-factory surrogate freight for those material inputs that are valued, based all or in part, on CIF import values in the surrogate country. Therefore, we have added to CIF surrogate values from India a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port of importation to the factory, or from the domestic supplier to the factory on an input-specific basis. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists during the period February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004: Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin Percent Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. 0.00 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to the parties to this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held on September 12, 2005. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:

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

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted no later than August 22, 2005. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due no later than August 29, 2005. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue; and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of the review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 90 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess and liquidate, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* . Cash Deposit Requirements Upon completion of this review, we will require cash deposits at the rate established in the final results as further described below. Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of mushrooms from the PRC produced and exported by Blue Field that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of the new shipper review. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of subject merchandise from Blue Field entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date:

(1)for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Blue Field, no cash deposit will be required if the cash deposit rate calculated in the final results is zero or *de minimis* ;

(2)for subject merchandise exported by Blue Field but not manufactured by Blue Field, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate ( *i.e.* , 198.63 percent); and

(3)for subject merchandise produced by Blue Field but not exported by Blue Field, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These 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)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214. Dated: July 14, 2005. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3906 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 23, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 14643) a notice announcing the initiation of the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is February 1, 2004, to January 31, 2005. This review is now being rescinded for Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd.; China Processed Food Import & Export Company; China National Cereals, Oils, and Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation; COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial Co.; Ltd., Fujian Zishan Group Co.; Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd.; Fujian Yu Xing Fruit and Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co., Ltd. 1 ; Shandong Jiufa Edible Fungus Co., Ltd.; Guangxi Hengxian Pro-Light Foods, Inc.; Guangxi Yizhou Dongfang Cannery; Inter-foods D.S. Co., Ltd.; Mei Wei Food Industry Co., Ltd.; Nanning Runchao Industrial Trade Co., Ltd.; Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd.; Xiamen Jiahua Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd.; Xiamen Zhongjia Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Superlucky Import & Export Company, Ltd.; Shantou Hongda Industrial General Corporation; Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Qunxingyuan Trading Co., Ltd.; Tak Fat Trading Co.; Xiamen International Trade & Industrial Co., Ltd.; Zhangzhou Hongning Canned Food Factory; Zhangzhou Jingxiang Foods Co., Ltd.; Zhangzhou Longhai Lubao Food Co., Ltd.; and Zhangzhou Longhai Minhui Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., (collectively “the Twenty-five Companies”) because the only requesting party withdrew its request in a timely manner. 1 The Department originally made an inadvertent typographical error by neglecting to include the term ‘Development’ in this company's name in the above-referenced *Federal Register* initiation notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen F. Berlinguette, AD/CVD Operations Office 9, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4003, Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3740. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). On February 1, 2005, the Department published a *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 70 FR 5136. On February 28, 2005, the Petitioner requested, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.213(b), an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC for thirty companies covering the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. On February 7, 2005, and February 25, 2005, four Chinese companies requested an administrative review of their respective companies. The Department notes that these four companies were included in the Petitioner's February 28, 2005, request. On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of thirty Chinese companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On June 29, 2005, the Petitioner filed a timely letter withdrawing its request for review of the Twenty-five companies. Rescission of Review Pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, if a party that requests a review withdraws the review request within ninety days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. The Petitioner withdrew its review request with respect to the Twenty-five Companies in a timely manner, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Since the Petitioner was the only party to request an administrative review of the Twenty-five Companies, we are partially rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC covering the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005, with respect to the Twenty-five Companies. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of 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. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 14, 2005. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3911 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-557-809] Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Malaysia: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or 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: On February 28, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a timely request from Schultz (Mfg.) Sdn. Bhd. (Schultz), to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Malaysia, for the period February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review and published a notice of initiation in the **Federal Register** . *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On March 23, 2005, Schultz withdrew its request for an administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is rescinding this review because the requestor of this review has timely withdrawn its request for review, and no other interested party has requested a review. Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because Schultz withdrew its review request within the 90-day time limit, the Department is rescinding this review. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties for this rescinded company shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: July 14, 2005. Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-3904 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration District Export Council Nomination Opportunity AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of opportunity to serve as a member of one of the fifty-nine District Export Councils. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce is currently seeking expressions of interest from individuals in serving as a member of one of the fifty-nine District Export Councils

(DECs)nationwide. The DECs are closely affiliated with the U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEAC) of the U.S. Commercial Service. DECs combine the energy of more than 1,500 exporters and export service providers who promote U.S. exports. DEC members volunteer at their own expense. DATES: Applications for nomination to a DEC must be received by the designated local USEAC representative by September 1, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact: Les Williamson, National DEC Program Manager, the U.S. Commercial Service, tel. 202-482-4767. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DECs sponsor and participate in numerous trade promotion activities, as well as supply specialized expertise to small and medium-sized businesses that are interested in exporting. *Selection Process:* About half of the approximately 30 positions on each of the 59 DECs are open for nominations for the 4-year term which begins on January 1, 2006 and ends December 31, 2009. Nominees are recommended by the local USEAC Director, in consultation with the DEC and other local export promotion partners. After a review process, nominees are selected and appointed to a DEC by the Secretary of Commerce. The office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Domestic Operations coordinates the DECs. *Membership Criteria:* Each DEC is interested in nominating highly-motivated people. Appointment is based upon an individual's energetic leadership, position in the local business community, knowledge of day-to-day international operations, interest in export development, and willingness and ability to devote time to council activities. Members include exporters, export service providers and others whose profession supports U.S. export promotion efforts. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* , 15 U.S.C. 4721. Dated: June 21, 2005. Neal Burnham, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Domestic Operations, U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. [FR Doc. 05-14376 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

CFR