Notices. Notice of fee effective date
24,161 words·~110 min read·
/register/2005/08/08/05-15643·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-201-822] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from respondent ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox S.A.) and Mexinox USA, Inc. (Mexinox USA) (collectively, Mexinox) and petitioners, 1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (S4 in coils) from Mexico.
This administrative review covers imports of subject merchandise from Mexinox S.A. during the period July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004. 1 Petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, North American Stainless, United Auto Workers Local 3303, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc. and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC. We preliminarily determine that sales of S4 in coils from Mexico have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed export price
(CEP)and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Strom, Maryanne Burke 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)482-2704,
(202)482-5604 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 27, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico* (64 FR 40560). On July 1, 2004, the Department published the *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , of, *inter alia* , S4 in coils from Mexico for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. 69 FR 39903. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Mexinox and petitioners requested that we conduct an administrative review. On August 30, 2004, we published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). On September 8, 2004, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Mexinox. Mexinox submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on October 8, 2004, and its response to sections B through E of the questionnaire on November 10, 2004. On January 28, 2005, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which Mexinox responded on March 7, 2005. On April 14, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C, as well as for section E pertaining to an affiliated U.S. reseller, Ken-Mac Metals, Inc. (Ken-Mac). Mexinox responded to sections A-C of this supplemental questionnaire on May 16, 2005, and filed its response to section E on May 23, 2005. The Department also issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D on April 18, 2005; Mexinox submitted its response to this questionnaire on May 16, 2005. On May 25, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire for section D and Mexinox filed its response to this on June 8, 2005. Finally, on July 6, 2005, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire for sections A through C, to which Mexinox responded on July 14, 2005. Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on March 8, 2005, we published in the **Federal Register** our notice of the extension of time limits for this review. *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 11194 (March 8, 2005). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as July 31, 2005. Period of Review The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, *etc.* ) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of this order are the following:
(1)sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled;
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length;
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more);
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm); and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are described below. Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves for compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 2 2 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 3 3 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 4 4 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 5 This steel is similar to ASTM grade 440F, but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 6 5 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 6 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Sales Made Through Affiliated Resellers A. U.S. Market Mexinox USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mexinox S.A., which is a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp AG, the lead holding company for steel operations in the ThyssenKrupp Group, sold subject merchandise in the United States during the POR to unaffiliated customers. Mexinox USA also made sales of subject merchandise to affiliated company, Ken-Mac, located in the United States. Ken-Mac is an operating division of ThyssenKrupp Materials Inc., a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp USA Inc. (TKUSA), which is the primary holding company for ThyssenKrupp AG in the U.S. market. Ken-Mac further manufactured and/or resold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States. *See* Mexinox's October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at A-10, A-18 and A-37 through A-38. For purposes of this review, we have included both Mexinox USA's and Ken-Mac's sales of subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States in our sales analysis. B. Home Market Mexinox Trading, S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox Trading), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mexinox S.A., resells the foreign like product as well as other merchandise in the home market. Mexinox reported its sales to Mexinox Trading during the POR. These sales represented a small portion of Mexinox's total sales of the foreign like product in the home market and were less than five percent of home market sales. *See* , *e.g.* , Mexinox's October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at A-3 to A-4 and its May 23, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at Attachment A-28 (quantity and value chart). Because Mexinox Trading's sales of the foreign like product were less than five percent of home market sales of the foreign like product, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(d), we did not require Mexinox to report downstream sales by Mexinox Trading to its first unaffiliated customers. This treatment is also consistent with that employed in past administrative reviews of S4 in coils from Mexico. *See* , *e.g.* , *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 3677 (January 26, 2005) ( *S4 in Coils from Mexico 2002-2003 Final Results* ). Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of S4 in coils from Mexico to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the CEP to NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared individual CEPs to monthly weighted-average NVs. Transactions Reviewed For its home market and U.S. sales, Mexinox reported the date of invoice as the date of sale. This is consistent with the Department's stated preference for using the invoice date as the date of sale, unless a date other than the date of invoice better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). Mexinox indicated the invoice date represented the date when the material terms of sales ( *i.e.* , price and quantity) are definitively set, and that up to the date of shipment and invoicing, these terms were subject to change. *See* , *e.g.* , Mexinox's October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at A-35 and A-41. Mexinox stated that sale orders may include provisional prices and customers may adjust the quantity of an order up to the date of shipment. *See* March 7, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at 12. We have preliminarily determined the date of invoice is the appropriate date of sale because evidence on the record indicates that final prices are not fixed until the material is sought to be released for shipment and invoicing. *See* Mexinox's October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at A-35. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act we considered all products produced by Mexinox S.A. covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on nine characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of priority):
(1)grade;
(2)cold/hot rolled;
(3)gauge;
(4)surface finish;
(5)metallic coating;
(6)non-metallic coating;
(7)width;
(8)temper; and
(9)edge trim. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's September 8, 2004, questionnaire. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the export transaction. There is one LOT in the comparison market, the NV LOT, which is defined as the starting price of the comparison sales in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), we use the sales from which selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are derived. With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. *See* 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 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). *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada* , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); *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 (November 19, 1997) and *Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that, if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000). We obtained information from Mexinox regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales. Mexinox provided a description of all selling activities performed, along with a flowchart and tables comparing the levels of trade and degrees of intensity among each channel of distribution and type in both markets. *See* Mexinox's October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at A-30 through A-35 and Attachments A-4-A through A-4-C. Mexinox sold S4 in coils to end-users and retailers/distributors in the home market and to end-users and distributors/service centers in the U.S. With respect to the home market, Mexinox identified two channels of distribution described as follows: 1) direct shipments ( *i.e.* , products produced to order) and 2) sales from inventory. *See* Mexinox's October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at A-22 through A-23. We compared the selling functions performed across all home market channels of distribution. In certain activities such as pre-sale technical assistance, process customer orders, sample analysis, prototypes and trial lots, freight and delivery, price negotiation/customer communications, sales calls and visits and warranty services, the level of intensity for direct shipments and sales through inventory were identical, while only a few functions such as inventory maintenance and just-in-time performance differed. Within its two channels of distribution, Mexinox S.A. made sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated distributors/retailers and end-users, all requiring smaller volume transactions, technical assistance, frequent sales calls and visits and other similar selling services. *See* October 8, 2004, at A-25 and Attachments A-4-B and A-4-C. While we find slight differences in the level of intensity of these selling activities performed for direct shipments and sales through inventory to both end-users and retailers, these differences are minor and do not establish distinct, multiple levels of trade in Mexico. Based on our analysis of all of Mexinox's home market selling functions, we find that all home market sales were made at the same LOT, the NV LOT. With respect to the U.S. market, Mexinox indicated that it made CEP sales through its U.S. affiliate, Mexinox USA, through the following four channels of distribution: 1) direct shipments to unaffiliated customers; 2) stock sales from the San Luis Potosi
(SLP)factory; 3) sales to unaffiliated customers through Mexinox USA's inventory/warehouses; and 4) sales through Ken-Mac. Ken-Mac is an affiliated service center located in the United States which purchases S4 in coils produced by Mexinox and Ken-Mac then resells (after, in some instances, further manufacturing the merchandise) to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We compared the selling activities performed in each channel and found the same selling functions ( *e.g.* , price negotiation/customer communications, sales calls, warranty services and freight/delivery arrangements) were performed at the same relative level of intensity in all channels of distribution. *See* October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at Attachment A 4-C. Accordingly, we find all CEP sales constitute one LOT, the CEP LOT, in the U.S. market. We then compared the CEP LOT to the NV LOT. The CEP LOT is based on the selling activities associated with the transaction between Mexinox and its affiliated importer, Mexinox USA; whereas the NV LOT is based on the selling activities associated with the transactions with unaffiliated customers in the home market. From our analysis, we found that the selling functions performed for home market customers are either performed at a higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions performed for the U.S. customer. For example, in comparing Mexinox's selling activities, we find there are more functions performed in the home market which are not a part of CEP transactions ( *e.g.* , technical assistance, sample analysis, prototypes and trial lots, price negotiation/customer communications, inventory maintenance, just-in-time deliveries, sales calls and visits, and warranty services). For selling activities performed in both markets ( *e.g.* , process customer orders, freight and delivery), we find that Mexinox performed each of these at a higher level of intensity in the home market than in the U.S. market. We note that CEP sales from Mexinox to Mexinox USA generally occur at the beginning of the distribution chain and more closely resemble that of an ex-factory sale. In contrast, all sales in the home market occur closer to the end of the distribution chain and involve smaller individual transaction volumes, which require more selling functions to be performed. *See* Mexinox's October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at A-30 through A-35 and Attachments A-4-A through A-4-C. *See also* Mexinox's July 14, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at 3 to 6. From the evidence on the record, we conclude that the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage than the CEP LOT. Since we found that the home market and U.S. sales were made at different LOTs, we examined whether an LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make an LOT adjustment to home market sales, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining an LOT adjustment. Because the data available do not form an appropriate basis for making an LOT adjustment, and because the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. Mexinox properly classified all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise as CEP transactions because such sales were made in the United States by Mexinox's affiliate, Mexinox USA, to unaffiliated purchasers. We based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and commissions, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These expenses included, where appropriate: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, inland insurance, ocean freight (for sales to Puerto Rico), U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. warehousing expenses. As directed by section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit costs, warranty expenses, and another expense not subject to public disclosure), inventory carrying costs, and other indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We used the adjustments as reported by Mexinox, except we recalculated the U.S. indirect selling expense ratio. *See* Analysis of Data Submitted by ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of S4 in Coils from Mexico (Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) from Angela Strom and Maryanne Burke to the File dated August 1, 2005. For sales in which the material was sent to an unaffiliated U.S. processor to be further processed, we made an adjustment based on the transaction-specific further-processing amounts reported by Mexinox. In addition, the U.S. affiliated reseller Ken-Mac performed some further manufacturing of some of Mexinox's U.S. sales. For these sales, we deducted the cost of further processing in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. In calculating the cost of further manufacturing for Ken-Mac, we relied upon Ken-Mac's reported cost of further manufacturing materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for further manufacturing general and administrative expenses (G&A), as reported in the May 23, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response and incorporated the revised financial expense ratio (INTEX). *See* the Department's Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Cost Calculation Memorandum) from Laurens Van Houten to the File and Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, both dated August 1, 2005. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Mexinox's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Mexinox's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. *See* , *e.g.* , Mexinox's May 23, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at Attachment A-28. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-length prices are excluded from our analysis because we consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* 19 CFR 351.102(b). Consistent with 19 CFR 351.403(c) and
(d)and agency practice, “the Department may calculate NV based on sales to affiliates if satisfied that the transactions were made at arm's length.” *See China Steel Corp. v. United States* , 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1365 (CIT 2003). To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all direct selling expenses, discounts and rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where prices to the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 2002). We found that one affiliated home market customer failed the arm's length test and, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded these sales from our analysis. *See* section 773(f)(2) of the Act. C. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded sales of certain products made at prices below the cost of production
(COP)in the most recently completed review of S4 in coils from Mexico ( *See* , *e.g.* , *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 6259 (February 10, 2004) ( *S4 in Coils from Mexico 2001-2002 Final Results* ), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review for Mexinox may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Mexinox. We recalculated Mexinox's G&A and INTEX as described in the Cost Calculation Memorandum and Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. We added material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We then computed weighted-average COPs during the POR, and compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales prices of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices net of billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and any applicable movement charges. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because:
(1)they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act; and
(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Our cost test for Mexinox revealed that, for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that, for certain models, more than 20 percent of the home market sales of those models were sold at prices below the COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV. D. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Mexinox's material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. E. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates and interest revenue, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, insurance, handling, and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses. As noted in the “Level of Trade” section of this notice, we also made an adjustment for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We used Mexinox's adjustments and deductions as reported, except for certain handling expenses and imputed credit expenses. We have recalculated the handling expenses incurred by home market affiliate, Mexinox Trading, and applied the revised ratio to those home market sales whereby Mexinox reported a handling expense. We based imputed credit expense on the short-term borrowing rate associated with the currency of each home market sale transaction at issue. *See* Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Both methodologies are consistent with past administrative reviews of this case. *See e.g.* , *S4 in Coils from Mexico 2002-2003 Final Results* . F. Price-to-CV Comparisons In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV if we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar merchandise. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act. Facts Available In accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, for these preliminary results we find it necessary to use partial facts available in those instances where the respondent did not provide certain information necessary to conduct our analysis. In our September 8, 2004, questionnaire at G-6, we requested that Mexinox provide sales and cost data for all affiliates involved with the production or sale of the merchandise under review during the POR in both home and U.S. markets. In its October 8, 2004, questionnaire response at A-2, Mexinox indicated that its affiliated reseller, Ken-Mac, sold subject merchandise in the United States during the POR. In its November 10, 2004, submission at KMC-2, Mexinox provided data related to Ken-Mac's resales of subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States, although Mexinox notified the Department that a small subset of sale transactions could not be traced to an original stock item or supplier. In its supplemental questionnaire response dated May 23, 2005, at 2, Mexinox reported those sale transactions (unattributed sales) where the origin of the original stock item could not be determined. Because of the unknown origin of a certain number of Ken-Mac resales, Mexinox has not provided all the information necessary to complete our analysis. Pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, it is appropriate to use the facts otherwise available in calculating a margin on Ken-Mac's unattributed sales. Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching a determination if “necessary information is not available on the record.” For these preliminary results, we have calculated a margin on Ken-Mac's unattributed sales by applying the overall margin calculated on Mexinox's other U.S. sales of subject merchandise to the weighted-average price of Ken-Mac's unattributed sales. This methodology is consistent with that employed in past administrative reviews of S4 in coils from Mexico. *See* , *e.g.* , *S4 in Coils from Mexico 2002-2003 Final Results* . Prior to applying the overall margin calculated on other sales/resales of subject merchandise to Ken-Mac's unattributed sales, we calculated the portion of the unattributed sales quantity that could be reasonably allocated to subject stainless steel merchandise purchased from Mexinox. We based our allocation on the relative percentage (by volume) of subject stainless steel merchandise that Ken-Mac had purchased from Mexinox as compared to the total stainless steel merchandise it had purchased from all vendors. *See* Mexinox's May 23, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at Attachment KMC-14. The Department finds that Mexinox, to the best of its ability, complied with the Department's request for information; thus, we have not used an adverse inference, as provided under section 776(b) of the Act, to calculate a margin on Ken-Mac's unattributed sales. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. 3.01 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 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 business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 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 of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument and 3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting case briefs and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such argument or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific *ad valorem* assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. The total customs value is based on the entered value reported by Mexinox, for all U.S. entries of subject merchandise initially purchased for consumption to the United States made during the POR. *See* Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the publication of the final results of review. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of S4 in coils from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for Mexinox will be the rate established in the final results of review;
(2)If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(3)If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, or the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate from the investigation (30.85 percent). *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico* , 64 FR 40560, 40562 (July 27, 1999). This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4254 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-825] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Allegheny Ludlum, North American Stainless, Local 3303 United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization (collectively, petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils
(S4)from Germany. The review covers exports of the subject merchandise to the United States of the collapsed parties, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH (ThyssenKrupp Nirosta), ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH (TKVDM), and ThyssenKrupp Nirosta Prazisionsband GmbH
(TKNP)(collectively, TKN). The period of review
(POR)is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. We preliminarily find that TKN made sales at less than normal value during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the United States Price
(USP)and normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the arguments:
(1)a statement of the issues,
(2)a brief summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including footnotes) and
(3)a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott, Tyler Weinhold, 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)482-2657,
(202)482-1121 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published an antidumping duty order on S4 from Germany on July 27, 1999. *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany* , 64 FR 40557 (July 27, 1999) (Antidumping Duty Order). On July 1, 2004, the Department published the “Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of S4 from Germany for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 30, 2004, petitioners requested an administrative review of TKN's sales for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. On August 30, 2004, we published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004). On September 8, 2004, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to TKN. TKN submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on September 29, 2004, and its response to sections B through D of the questionnaire on November 9, 2004. 1 On March 3, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting that TKN provide downstream sales data for certain affiliated parties in the home market. On March 7, 2005, TKN filed a letter asking that it be required to report downstream sales information for only two of the affiliated parties identified in the Department's March 3, 2005, letter, ThyssenKrupp Schulte GmbH
(TS)and EBOR Edelstahl GmbH (EBOR). The Department granted TKN's request and on March 28, 2005, TKN submitted home market sales information for TS and EBOR. On April 14, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which TKN responded on May 13, 2005. 2 On May 5, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D. TKN responded to this supplemental questionnaire on June 2, 2005. On June 23, 2005, TKN made an additional filing to its May 13, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response in which it provided information it had not been able to gather before May 13. We sent a final supplemental questionnaire to TKN on June 28, 2005, to which TKN responded on July 11, 2005. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. 2 Included in this supplemental questionnaire were questions regarding TKN's March 28, 2005, response regarding TS and EBOR. Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on March 28, 2005, we published in the **Federal Register** our notice of the extension of time limits for this review. *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strips in Coils from Germany: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 15616 (March 28, 2005). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as August 1, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( *e.g.* , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, *etc* .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81 3 , 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. 3 Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively. Excluded from the scope of the order are the following:
(1)Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled,
(2)sheet and strip that is cut to length,
(3)plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more),
(4)flat wire ( *i.e.* , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and
(5)razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold- reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. *See* chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d). Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness
(Hv)of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors. Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 4 4 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company. Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 5 5 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System
(UNS)as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 6 6 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( *e.g.* , carpet knives). 7 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 8 7 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. 8 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. Affiliation/Collapsing Section 351.401(f)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that certain persons found to be affiliated in accordance with Section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), may be treated as a single entity (collapsed), if certain circumstances exist. In previous administrative reviews of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Germany, the Department treated TKN and TKVDM as a single entity ( *i.e.* , collapsed them) because the two companies were affiliated, would not need to engage in major retooling to shift production of S4 from one company to the other and were capable, through their sales and production operations, of manipulating prices or affecting production decisions. *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 6716 (February 10, 2003) ( *2000-2001 Final Results* ), Memorandum to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany: July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001,” dated February 10, 2003, at comment 1, and *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 51199 (August 7, 2002); *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 6262 (February 10, 2004) ( *2001-2002 Final Results* ) and *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 75930 (December 20, 2004) ( *2002-2003 Final Results* ). As in prior administrative reviews, the record establishes that both TKN and TKVDM are affiliated based on their common control by ThyssenKrupp Stainlesss GmbH (TKS), another entity within the ThyssenKrupp group of companies. Section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act, provides that two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control of another entity are affiliated. A “person” may be an individual, corporation, or group. Further, as provided by 771(33) of the Tariff Act, “a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.” The Department has analyzed the information on the record of this administrative review regarding the affiliation of TKN and TKVDM and has determined preliminarily that TKN and TKVDM should be considered affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act. For a detailed discussion, *see* the Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany: Affiliation Issue regarding ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta Präzisionsband GmbH and ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH,” dated July 21, 2005 (Collapsing Memorandum). Moreover, the Department has determined preliminarily that TKN and TKVDM should be treated as a single entity or “collapsed” for the purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin. As explained in the Collapsing Memorandum, TKN and TKVDM have production facilities to produce similar or identical merchandise without substantial retooling and should be treated as a single entity in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). Additionally, in determining whether there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production, as contemplated by 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2), the Department considers the totality of the circumstances of the situation and may place more reliance on some factors than others. The totality of the circumstances here shows there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. Because the Department relied on both proprietary and non-proprietary information in making its preliminary finding, a more detailed description of the circumstances that led to the Department's finding is not possible here. A more complete discussion of these circumstances and the Department's decision can be found in the Collapsing Memorandum. In sum, applying the criteria set forth in the Collapsing Memorandum, we find that:
(1)TKN and TKVDM are affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act;
(2)a shift in production would not require substantial retooling of the facilities of either company; and
(3)there is a significant potential for price and production manipulation due to the significant degree of common ownership, interlocking board members, and the intertwined nature of operations between the two companies. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that TKN and TKVDM are affiliated and should be treated as a single entity or “collapsed” for the purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin for this administrative review. In addition to TKN and TKVDM, we also preliminarily find that TKN and TKNP should be treated as a single entity or “collapsed” for the purpose of this administrative review. During the POR, on October 1, 2003, TKN's Dahlerbrück Works were incorporated into a separate legal entity called TKNP. TKNP is wholly-owned by TKN. *See* TKN's September 29, 2004, questionnaire response at A-7, footnote 2 and at A-8. Section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act provides any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the voting stock or shares of any organization is affiliated with the entity it owns or controls. Section 771(33)(G) provides that any entity controlled by another entity is affiliated with the controlling entity. In this case, because TKN controls TKNP through its 100 percent ownership of TKNP, we have preliminarily found that the two entities are affiliated within the meaning of section 771(E) and
(G)of the Tariff Act. As noted above, prior to October 1, 2003, TKNP's operations were conducted as an integral part of TKN. *See id* . There is no evidence on the record that TKNP uses substantially different production processes now that it is incorporated as a separate legal entity. Although TKNP does not cast its own stainless steel sheet, it purchases hot-rolled, annealed, and pickled
(HRAP)or cold-rolled stainless steel sheet in coils from TKN and produces stainless steel sheet and strip in width and thickness ranges that span much of the width and thickness ranges that TKN can produce. *See* the Collapsing Memorandum. Thus, TKN and TKNP have production facilities to produce similar or identical merchandise that would not require substantial retooling and should be treated as a single entity in keeping with 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). In addition, as discussed in detail in the Collapsing Memorandum, the information on the record demonstrates there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Specifically, TKN's whole ownership of TKNP and the intertwined nature of the two companies' operations are indicative of a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. In summary, we find that:
(1)TKN and TKNP are affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33)(E) and
(G)of the Tariff Act;
(2)a shift in production would not require substantial retooling of the facilities of either company; and
(3)there is a significant potential for price and production manipulation due to the level of common ownership and the intertwined nature of operations between the two companies. As a result, the Department preliminarily finds that TKN and TKNP are also affiliated and also should be treated as a single entity or “collapsed” for the purpose of calculating an antidumping duty margin for this administrative review. Use of Partial Facts Available Regarding Downstream Sales by an Affiliated Home Market Reseller As part of its normal business practice, TKN sells all of its merchandise with physical defects to its affiliate, Nirosta Service Center (NSC). *See* TKN's July 11, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at 1. NSC may process this material or it may sell the material in its original condition. Merchandise that is not processed by NSC is sold in the same condition in which it was received into inventory. *See* TKN's November 9, 2004, questionnaire response at B-5 and TKN's May 13, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at B-2. In its April 14, 2005, supplemental questionnaire, the Department asked TKN to explain any circumstances wherein TKN re-classifies prime merchandise as non-prime merchandise based on time in inventory. In its May 13, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response, TKN replied that it generally re-classifies merchandise that has been in inventory for more than 12 months as non-prime. *See* TKN's May 13, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at B-3. TKN used NSC's invoicing system as the basis for its sales listing. In its May 13, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at B-2, TKN indicated that NSC maintains information in its inventory system on whether merchandise was considered prime or non-prime by TKN as well as information on physical defects. However, TKN indicated that NSC does not maintain this information in its invoicing system and that NSC's invoicing and inventory systems cannot be linked. TKN indicated that NSC's invoicing system does differentiate between merchandise reprocessed by NSC and merchandise sold in the original condition in which it was received in inventory. Therefore, since TKN used NSC's invoicing system as the basis for its sales listing, and since NSC's invoicing system does not differentiate between prime and non-prime merchandise, TKN has reported in its sales listing sales of merchandise reprocessed by NSC as prime and sales sold directly from NSC's inventory as non-prime. *See id* . at B-2. In its second supplemental questionnaire dated June 28, 2005, the Department asked TKN to revise its database such that only merchandise with physical defects was reported as non-prime. TKN replied in its July 11, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response that while information on whether merchandise was classified as prime or non-prime and on the types of defects was recorded in NSC's inventory system, there was no way to link electronically the inventory system to the invoicing system. *See* TKN's July 11, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at question 2. TKN also stated it did not have sufficient time to manually compile the required information from its invoices within the time granted to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. *See id* . Because TKN did not identify as prime merchandise sales of merchandise that was reclassified as non-prime based on time in inventory, TKN has not provided all of the information necessary to complete our analysis. Section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act provides that the Department will, subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching a determination if “necessary information is not available on the record.” Therefore, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, for these preliminary results we find it necessary to use partial facts available with regard to TKN's home market sales of non-prime material made through NSC. For these preliminary results, we have classified all of NSC's sales of non-prime merchandise as sales of prime merchandise for the purpose of conducting the margin calculation. The Department finds that TKN complied, to the best of its ability, with the Department's request for information. Therefore, we have not used an adverse inference, as provided under section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, in classifying NSC's sales. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of S4 in the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared U.S. price to normal value (NV), as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Because TKN made no “export price” transactions during the POR, we used only Constructed Export Price
(CEP)sales in our comparisons. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by TKN covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on nine characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of preference): 1) grade; 2) cold/hot rolled; 3) gauge; 4) surface finish; 5) metallic coating; 6) non-metallic coating; 7) width; 8) temper; and 9) edge trim. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the product characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's September 8, 2004, questionnaire. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to U.S. sales, we compared these U.S. sales to constructed value (CV), pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act. Constructed Export Price
(CEP)In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections
(c)and (d). In accordance with subsection 772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for all of TKN's U.S. sales because it sold merchandise to affiliated companies in the United States, 9 which in turn sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. TKN reported that sales made through its affiliated importers, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta North America, Inc. (TKNNA), TK Specialty Steels Canada (TKSSC), and ThyssenKrupp VDM USA, Inc. (TKVDMUSA), consisted of two channels of distribution, back-to-back sales and inventory sales. *See* ThyssenKrupp Nirosta's November 9, 2004, questionnaire response at C-17 and TKVDM's November 9, 2004, questionnaire response at C-16. We have preliminarily found that TKN's U.S. sales are properly classified as CEP sales because these sales occurred in the United States and were made through TKN's U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated U.S. customers. 9 One of the affiliated companies through which TKN sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers was TK Specialty Steels Canada. We based CEP on the packed, delivered, duty paid or FOB warehouse prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for price or billing errors and early payment discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, war risk insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit costs, warranty expenses, and commissions), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act. Finally, for those sales in which material was sent to an unaffiliated U.S. processor to be further processed, we made an adjustment based on the transaction-specific further-processing amounts reported by TKN. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. As TKN'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 of the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-length prices (if any) were excluded from our analysis because we considered them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. If sales were not made at arm's-length, then the Department used the sale from the affiliated party to the first unaffiliated party. *See* 19 CFR 351.102. To test whether sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all early payment discounts, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where, for the tested models of subject merchandise, prices to the affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio could be calculated for an affiliated customer because identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices and, therefore, excluded them from our analysis. C. Cost of Production Analysis In the segment of this proceeding most recently completed at of the time of our initiation of this review, the Department disregarded certain sales made by TKN in the home market because these sales were made at less than their cost of production (COP). *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 6262 (February 10, 2004) and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 47039, 47041 (August 7, 2003). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product in the home market were made at prices below their COP in the current review period. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we initiated a cost investigation to determine whether sales made during the POR were at prices below their respective COP. D. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by TKN, except for the changes noted below. In accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Tariff Act, where TKN's reported transfer prices for purchases of nickel from an affiliated party were not at arm's-length, we increased these prices to reflect the prevailing market prices. *See* memorandum to Neal Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,” dated August 1, 2005 (COP/CV Adjustment memorandum). We also revised the interest expense ratio for TKN, TKVDM, and TKNP to exclude the short-term interest income related to accounts receivable and to include the net miscellaneous financial expense. *See id* . Finally, we revised TKVDM's general and administrative (G & A) expense rate to include other operating incomes and expenses. *See id* . E. Test of Home Market Prices We compared the weighted-average COP of TKN's home market sales to home market sales prices (net of billing adjustments, early payment discounts, and any applicable movement charges) of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act, whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. F. Results of the Cost Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of TKN's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because these below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of TKN's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because such sales were made:
(1)in substantial quantities within the POR ( *i.e.* , within an extended period of time) in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act, and
(2)at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act ( *i.e.* , the sales were made at prices below the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POR). We used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, if such sales existed, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act. G. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's length. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, and rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise ( *i.e.* , difmer) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for commissions, imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses; we offset imputed credit expenses by interest revenue. We also made an adjustment, where appropriate, for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. *See* “Level of Trade and CEP Offset” section below. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we made an adjustment ( *i.e.* , the commission offset) to account for commissions paid in one market but not the other. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act. H. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV on CV if we were unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match of such or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the Tariff Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication for TKN based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. Level of Trade and CEP Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is based on 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 CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. 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 a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. If the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in the levels between NV and CEP affect price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). *See, e.g., Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,* 62 FR 61731, 61733 (November 19, 1997). In implementing these principles in this review, we asked TKN to identify the specific differences and similarities in selling functions and support services between all phases of marketing in the home market and the United States. TKN reported home market sales made through four channels of distribution:
(1)mill direct sales,
(2)mill inventory sales,
(3)service center inventory sales, and
(4)service center processed sales. *See* TKN's November 9, 2004, questionnaire response at B-21, TKVDM's November 9, 2004, questionnaire response at B-21, and the March 28, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response for TS and EBOR at B-17. For all channels, TKN performs similar selling functions such as negotiating prices with customers, setting credit terms and collecting payment, arranging freight to the customer, conducting sales calls and visits, and processing customer orders. *See, e.g.* , TKN's September 29, 2004, questionnaire response at Exhibit 3. The remaining selling activities did not differ significantly by channel of distribution. Because channels of distribution do not qualify as separate levels of trade when the selling functions performed for each customer class or channel are sufficiently similar, we determined that one level of trade exists for TKN's home market sales. *See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 67 FR 78417 (December 24, 2002). In the U.S. market, TKN made sales of subject merchandise through TKNNA, TKSSC, and TKVDMUSA. As stated above, TKN reported that sales made through these affiliated importers consisted of two channels of distribution, back-to-back sales and inventory sales. *See* ThyssenKrupp Nirosta's November 9, 2004, questionnaire response at C-17 and TKVDM's November 9, 2004, questionnaire response at C-16. All U.S. sales were CEP transactions and TKN performed the same selling functions in its sale to the affiliated importer in each instance. *See, e.g.* , TKN's September 29, 2004, questionnaire response at Exhibit 3. Therefore, the U.S. market has one LOT. When we compared CEP sales (after deductions made pursuant to section 772(d) of the Tariff Act) to home market sales, we determined that for CEP sales TKN performed fewer customer sales contacts, technical services, delivery services, and warranty services. In addition, the differences in selling functions performed for home market and CEP transactions indicate that home market sales involved a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. In the home market TKN provides marketing further down the chain of distribution by providing certain downstream selling functions that are normally performed by the affiliated resellers in the U.S. market ( *e.g.* , technical advice, sales calls and visits, *etc* .). Based on our analysis, we determined that CEP and the starting price of home market sales represent different stages in the marketing process, and are thus at different LOTs. Therefore, when we compared CEP sales to HM sales, we examined whether a LOT adjustment may be appropriate. In this case TKN sold at one LOT in the home market; therefore, there is no basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs. Further, we do not have the information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns of TKN's sales of other similar products, and there is no other record evidence upon which such an analysis could be based. Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment and the LOT of TKN's home market sales is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of CEP sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act, as claimed by TKN. We based the amount of the CEP offset on home market indirect selling expenses, and limited the deduction for home market indirect selling expenses to the amount of indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act. We applied the CEP offset to NV, whether based on home market prices or CV. Currency Conversions We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) TKN 8.10 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. *See* 19 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 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 of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. TKN has reported entered values for its sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales of that importer. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct Customs to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to Customs within fifteen days of publication of the final results of review. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of S4 from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: 1) The cash deposit rate for TKN will be the rate established in the final results of review;2) If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 3) 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 the “all others” rate of 13.48 percent from the LTFV investigation. *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany* , 67 FR 15178 (March 29, 2002). This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4260 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Dartmouth College, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes This is a decision consolidated pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, Franklin Court Building, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 05-023. Applicant: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai G 2 20 U-TWIN with XL30 ESEM FEG. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 38881, July 6, 2005. Order Date: February 17, 2004. *Docket Number:* 05-027. Applicant: Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Quanta 200 ESEM. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 38881, July 6, 2005. Order Date: September 8, 2004. *Docket Number:* 05-028. Applicant: University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, WI 53706-1544. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Technai 12 TWIN. *Manufacturer* : FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 70 FR 38881, July 6, 2005. Order Date: October 1, 2004. *Comments:* None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is a conventional transmission electron microscope
(CTEM)and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States either at the time of order of each instrument OR at the time of receipt of application by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E5-4248 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and
(4)of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Suite 4100W, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 05-033. Applicant: Seton Hall University, 400 South Orange Avenue, South Orange, NJ 07079. Instrument: Excimer Laser, Model ThinFilmStar. Manufacturer: Tuilaser, AG, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used to study the pulsed laser deposition of thin films and their subsequent characterization using high dielectric constant oxides and similar materials. It will also be used to investigate pulsed laser depostion as a tool to deposit metal nanoparticle thin films, colossal magnetoresistive materials and polymers. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: July 25, 2005. Gerald A. Zerdy, Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E5-4250 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-837] Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”'). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, as well as inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tipten Troidl or David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1767 or 202-482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). On January 6, 2005, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), and on January 14, 2005, we received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of International Steel Group Inc. (“ISG”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). On January 19, 2005, the Department received requests for a one-day extension of the deadline and notices of intent to participate on behalf of United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) and IPSCO Steel Inc. (“IPSCO”). Due to circumstances beyond their control, IPSCO and U.S. Steel were prevented from delivering and filing their notice of intent to participate with the Department within the 15-day deadline. Therefore, the Department determined it appropriate to grant their extension request. Each of the domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as domestic producers of a domestic like product. The Department received a complete substantive response on behalf of ISG, 1 IPSCO and Nucor (collectively, “domestic interested parties”) within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this CVD order. 1 On April 20, and May 6, 2005, ISG notified the Department that as a result of a name change, ISG's official name is now Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. The Department determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)©) of the Act, that the sunset review of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Korea is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, on April 25, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this review until not later than August 1, 2005. 2 2 *See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea; Extension of Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 70 FR 22843 (May 3, 2005). Scope of the Order The merchandises covered by the CVD order is certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:
(1)Universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat- rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of this order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of this order are high strength, low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight; and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from this order:
(1)Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non- metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion-resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 1, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rate listed below: Manufacturer/exporters Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent) Dongkuk Steel Mill, Ltd. 2.36 All others 3 2.36 3 Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCO”) was excluded from the order on the basis of a *de minimis* net subsidy rate of 0.82 percent. *See Notice of Amended Final Determinations: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plated From India and the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000). Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order: This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4253 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-818] Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department"') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, as well as inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tipten Troidl or David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1767 or 202-482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). On January 6, 2005, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), and on January 14, 2005, we received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of International Steel Group Inc. (“ISG”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). On January 19, 2005, the Department received requests for a one-day extension of the deadline and notices of intent to participate on behalf of United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) and IPSCO Steel Inc. (“IPSCO”). Due to circumstances beyond their control, IPSCO and U.S. Steel were prevented from delivering and filing their notice of intent to participate with the Department within the 15-day deadline. Therefore, the Department determined it appropriate to grant their extension request. Each of the domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as domestic producers of a domestic like product. The Department received a complete substantive response on behalf of ISG, 1 IPSCO and Nucor (collectively, “domestic interested parties”) within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). On February 25, 2005, subsequent to the Department granting an extension to the Government of India (“GOI”), 2 the Department received a substantive response on behalf of the GOI. The Department did not receive a substantive response from any other respondent interested parties. On March 7, 2005, the Department received rebuttal comments from the domestic interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this CVD order. 1 On April 20, and May 6, 2005, ISG notified the Department that as a result of a name change, ISG's official name is now Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 2 *See* Letter from Kelly Parkhill, Director Industry and Support Analysis, to Mr. V.S. Seshadri, Minister Counselor, Embassy of India, February 14, 2005. The Department determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C) of the Act, that the sunset review of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from India is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, on April 25, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this review until not later than August 1, 2005. 3 3 *See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea; Extension of Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 70 FR 22843 (May 3, 2005). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the CVD order is certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:
(1)Universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat- rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of this order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross- section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within the scope of this order. Also, specifically included in the scope of this order are high strength, low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight; and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from this order:
(1)Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non- metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion-resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memorandum”) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 1, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit room B-099, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rate listed below: Manufacturer/exporters Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent) Steel Authority of India (“SAIL”) 12.82 All other producers/manufacturers/exporters 12.82 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4257 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-560-806] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty order (“CVD”) on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Indonesia (70 FR 75) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tipten Troidl or David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1767 or
(202)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Indonesia pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the following domestic interested parties: Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), International Steel Group Inc. (“ISG”), IPSCO Steel Inc. (“IPSCO”), and United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) (collectively, “domestic interested parties”) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department received a complete substantive response collectively from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(I). However, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any government or respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited review of this CVD order. On May 3, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an *Extension of Final Results* , extending the final results until August 1, 2005. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea; Extension of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Order,* May 3, 2005 (70 FR 22843) (“ *Extension of Final Results* ”). Scope of the Order The products covered by the countervailing duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon- quality steel:
(1)universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat- rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in this scope are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in this scope are high strength, low alloy
(HSLA)steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro- alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements,
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of these investigations unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from these investigations:
(1)products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion- resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 1, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below: Producers/Exporters Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent) P.T. Krakatau Steel 47.72 All Others 15.90 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4258 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-827] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Italy: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Italy pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005) . On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, as well as inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tipten Troidl or David Goldberger, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1767 or
(202)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Italy pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 75 (January 3, 2005). The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the following domestic interested parties: Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (“Mittal”) (formerly International Steel Group Inc.), IPSCO Steel Inc. (“IPSCO”), and United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) (collectively, “domestic interested parties”) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Moreover, the Department received one complete collective substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department also received responses from: ILVA S.p.A. (“ILVA”), the European Commission (“EC”), and the Government of Italy (“GOI”) (collectively, “respondent interested parties”). The Department found that ILVA's imports did not fulfill the 50-percent threshold that the Department considers to be an adequate response under 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). Therefore, on March 23, 2005, the Department issued a memorandum finding the respondent's response inadequate. *See* March 23, 2005, Memorandum for Ronald K. Lorentzen through Kelly Parkhill from Hilary E. Sadler, Subject: Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Italy: Determination of Adequacy of Response (“Adequacy Response Memorandum”). Because the Department found that the respondent interested parties' responses were inadequate, the Department conducted an expedited review of this CVD order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). The Department determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C) of the Act, that the sunset review of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Italy is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, on April 25, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this review until not later than August 1, 2005. 1 1 *See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and Korea; Extension of Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 70 FR 22843 (May 3, 2005). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the CVD order is certain hot-rolled carbon- quality steel:
(1)Universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat- rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of this order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in this scope are high strength, low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions, are products in which:
(1)iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements,
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of these investigations unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from these investigations:
(1)products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion- resistant steels (i.e., USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 1, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below: Producers/Exporters Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent) ILVA S.p.A. 2.38 Palini & Bertoli *De minimis* All Others 2.38 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 1, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4259 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 041029298-5209-04; I.D. 052004A] RIN 0648-AS38 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fishing Capacity Reduction Program; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; California, Washington, and Oregon Fisheries for Coastal Dungeness Crab and Pink Shrimp AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of fee effective date. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this establishing the effective date of fees for repaying the $35,662,471 reduction loan financing the Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction program. DATES: The groundfish program fee payment collection will begin on September 8, 2005. ADDRESSES: Send questions about this notice to Michael L. Grable, Chief, Financial Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Grable,
(301)713-2390. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Sections 312(b)-(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b) through (e)) is the general authority for fishing capacity reduction programs. In particular, section 312(d) authorizes industry fee systems for repaying reduction loans which finance reduction program costs. Subpart L of 50 CFR part 600 is the framework rule generally implementing section 312(b)-(e). Sections 1111 and 1112 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1279f and 1279g) generally authorizes loans financing reduction programs. Enacted on February 20, 2003, section 212 of Division B, Title II, of Public Law 108-7 (section 212) specifically authorizes a fishing capacity reduction program for that portion of the limited entry trawl fishery under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan whose permits, excluding those registered to whiting catcher-processors are endorsed for trawl gear operation. This is the program's reduction fishery. The groundfish reduction program's objective was to reduce the number of vessels and permits endorsed for the operation of groundfish trawl gear. The program also involved corollary fishing capacity reduction in the California, Oregon, and Washington fisheries for Dungeness crab and pink shrimp. These are the program's fee-share fisheries. All post-reduction fish landings from the reduction fishery and the six fee-share fisheries are subject to the groundfish program's fee. The object of this notice is to establish the effective date of the fee which fish sellers must pay and fish buyers must collect on all fee fish landed from these seven fisheries. NMFS implemented the groundfish program by **Federal Register** notification (rather than by the more usual regulatory method). NMFS proposed the implementing notice on May 28, 2003 (68 FR 31653) and published the final notice on July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42613). Please refer to the final notice for groundfish program details. NMFS allocated the $35,662,471 reduction loan to the reduction fishery and to each of the six fee-share fisheries as follows: 1. Reduction fishery, $28,428,719; and 2. Fee-share fisheries: a. California coastal Dungeness crab fishery, $2,334,334, b. California pink shrimp fishery, $674,202, c. Oregon coastal Dungeness crab fishery, $1,367,545, d. Oregon pink shrimp fishery, $2,228,845, e. Washington coastal Dungeness crab fishery, $369,426, and f. Washington pink shrimp fishery, $259,400. Each of these allocations became a reduction loan subamount repayable by fees from the fishery to which the subamount relates. On November 4, 2003, NMFS published another **Federal Register** document (68 FR 62435) advising the public that NMFS would, in one month, tender the groundfish program's reduction payments to the 91 accepted bidders. On December 4, 2003, NMFS required all accepted bidders to permanently stop all further fishing with the fishing vessels and permits whose fishing privileges they had relinquished in return for reduction payments. Subsequently, NMFS: 1. Disbursed $45,662,471 in reduction payments to 91 accepted bidders; 2. Revoked the relinquished Federal permits; 3. Advised California, Oregon, and Washington about the relinquished state permits or licenses; 4. Arranged with the National Vessel Documentation Center for permanent revocation of the reduction vessels' fishery trade endorsements; and 5. Notified the U.S. Maritime Administration to prohibit placement of the reduction vessels under foreign registry or the operational authority of foreign countries. On November 16, 2004, NMFS published a **Federal Register** document (69 FR 67100) proposing regulations to implement the groundfish program's industry fee system. In response to public comment about this proposed rule, NMFS modified it and published a second proposed rule in the **Federal Register** on April 8, 2005 (70 FR 17949). NMFS published in the **Federal Register** on July 13, 2005 (70 FR 40225), the final rule to implement the industry fee system for repaying the groundfish program's reduction loan. The regulations implementing the program are located at § 600.1012 of 50 CFR part 600's subpart M. II. Purpose This document's purpose is to establish, in accordance with the framework rule's § 600.1013(d), the date from and after which the fee is effective. III. Notice Groundfish program fee payment and collection will begin on September 8, 2005. From and after this date, all groundfish program fish sellers must pay the groundfish program fee in accordance with the applicable regulations. From and after this date, all groundfish program fish buyers must collect the groundfish program fee in accordance with the applicable regulations. From and after this date, all groundfish program fish buyers must deposit, disburse, record, and report groundfish program fee matters in accordance with the applicable regulations. The initial fee applicable to the groundfish program's reduction fishery and to each of its six fee-share fishery is as follows: Fishery Fee Rate Reduction fishery 5.00% California coastal Dungeness crab 1.24% California pink shrimp 5.00% Oregon coastal Dungeness crab 0.55% Oregon pink shrimp 3.75% Washington coastal Dungeness crab 0.16% Washington pink shrimp 1.50% Fish sellers and fish buyers must pay and collect the groundfish program's fee in the framework rule manner common to all fishing capacity reduction programs. Consequently, groundfish program fish sellers and fish buyers should read the framework rule's § 600.1013 to understand how fish sellers must pay, and fish buyers must collect, the groundfish program fee. Generally, fish buyers must deposit and disburse, and keep records and report about, the groundfish program fee in the framework rule manner common to all buybacks. Nevertheless, the groundfish program rule makes specific changes in the framework rule deposit, disbursement, records, and reports requirements. Consequently, groundfish program fish buyers should read both the framework rule's § 600.1014 and the groundfish program rule's paragraph
(i)to understand the full deposit, disbursement, records, and reports provisions to which the groundfish program's collected fees are subject. The following table identifies the various 50 CFR Part 600 rules involved in or affecting the groundfish program fee: Description Subpart Section Reduction Framework Rule L 600.1012 through 600.1016 Groundfish Program Fee Rule M 600.1102 The applicable framework rule sections involve the following reduction loan and fee matters which are common to all reduction programs: Section Matter Section 600.1012 Loan obligation, principal amount, interest rate, payment term, and penalties for non-payment and non-collection. Section 600.1013 Fee amount, fee rate, how fish sellers pay the fee, and how fish buyers collect the fee. Section 600.1014 How fish buyers deposit collected fees, disburse collected fees to NMFS, keep fee records, and make fee reports. Section 600.1015 Late charges for fee payment, collection, deposit, and/or disbursement. Section 600.1016 NMFS enforcement of all fee provisions. The groundfish program fee rule has only one section (600.1102), but all of the section's paragraphs specifically involve or affect the groundfish program's reduction loan or the fees which will repay the loan. The groundfish program fee rule involves the following reduction loan and fee matters specific to the groundfish program fee: Section Matter
(a)The rule's purpose.
(b)Definition of terms which the rule uses.
(c)Reduction loan amount.
(d)Reduction loan sub-amounts for the reduction fishery and each of the six fee-share fisheries.
(e)Interest accrual inception.
(f)Interest rate.
(g)Repayment term.
(h)Subjection of the groundfish program reduction loan to § 600.1012 of the framework rule and subjection of groundfish program fee payment and collection to § 600.1013 of the framework rule.
(i)Subjection of groundfish program fee collection, deposit, disbursement, records, and reports to § 600.1014 of the framework rule, except for a specified departures from the § 600.1014 requirements. Although fish sellers and, particularly, all fish buyers should carefully read the applicable regulations for full fee payment, collection, deposit, disbursement, recording, and reporting requirements, the following is a brief and informal synopsis: The first ex-vessel fish buyers of fee fish must withhold the fee from the trip proceeds which the fish buyers would otherwise have paid to the fish sellers who harvested and first sold the fee fish to the fish buyers. Fish buyers collect the fee when they withhold it from trip proceeds, and fish sellers automatically pay the fee when the fish buyers withhold it before paying the net trip proceeds to the fish sellers. Fish buyers must calculate the fee to be collected by multiplying the applicable fee rate (depending on whether the fee fish is from the reduction fishery or from one or more of the six fee-share fisheries) times the fee fish's full delivery value. Delivery value is the fee fish's full fair market value, including all in-kind compensation or other goods or services exchanged in lieu of cash. Fish buyers must deposit collected fees not less frequently than at the end of each month. The deposit account must be at a Federally insured institution. The deposit account may also include the fish buyers general operating funds, but only if it separately accounts for all collected fees (both in the aggregate and for each of the seven fee paying fisheries). Fish buyers may neither pledge nor assign collected fee deposits. Fish buyers may not use collected fee deposits for any purpose whatsoever other than aggregating them for disbursement to NMFS. Fish buyers must disburse to NMFS all collected fee deposits not less frequently than necessary for NMFS to have received the disbursement by the 14th calendar day after the last calendar day of each month if the collected fee deposits then total $100 or more. If collected fees do not total $100 or more at the time fish buyers must disburse them, fish buyers may delay disbursement until either the next month in which collected fee deposits exceed $100 or the end of the calendar year of deposit (regardless of amount), whichever comes first. Fish buyers must accompany each disbursement with a fee collection report on NMFS's report form and completed in the manner NMFS specifies. All fish buyers must maintain for at least three years detailed records of fee collection, deposit, and disbursement. along with the landing records required to audit fee payment and collection. Paragraph (i)(4) of the groundfish program's fee rule (50 CFR 600.1102) specify the fee payment and collection records which fish buyers must maintain. Fee payment and fee collection are mandatory, and there are substantial penalties for failing to pay and collect fees in accordance with the applicable regulations. In addition to applying these penalties, NMFS will also enforce the collection of all fee payment and collection by adding late charges and bring legal actions for collection enforcement against any fish seller or fish buyer who fails to pay, collect, deposit, and/or disburse the fee in accordance with the regulations. NMFS will audit ex-vessel landing records and fish buyer records for the purpose of determining and enforcing compliance. To provide more accessible services, streamline collections, and save taxpayer dollars, fish buyers may disburse collected fee deposits to NMFS by using a secure Federal system on the Internet known as Pay.gov. Pay.gov enables fish buyers to use either their checking accounts or their credit cards to electronically disburse their collected fee deposits to NMFS. Fish buyers who have access to the Internet should consider using this quick and easy collected fee disbursement method. Fish buyers may access Pay.gov by going directly to Pay.gov's Federal website at: *https://www.pay.gov/paygov/* . Fish buyers who do not have access to the Internet or who simply do not wish to use the Pay.gov electronic system, must disburse their collected fee deposits to us by sending their checks to our lockbox. Our lockbox's address is: NOAA Fisheries Pacific Coast Groundfish Buyback P. O. Box 979059 St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 Fish buyers' must not forget to include with their disbursements the fee collection report applicable to each disbursement. The fee collection report tells NMFS how much of the disbursement it must apply to each of the seven reduction loan subamounts. Fish buyers using Pay.gov will find an electronic fee collection report form to receive information and accompany electronic disbursements. Fish buyers who do not use Pay.gov must include a hard copy fee collection report with each of their disbursements. See the attachment to this notice. Fish buyers not using Pay.gov may also access the NMFS website for an Excel spreadsheet version of the fee collection report at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/* . NMFS will, before the fee's effective date, separately mail a copy of this notice, along with detailed fee payment, collection, deposit, disbursement, recording, and reporting information and guidance, to each fish seller and fish buyer of whom NMFS has notice. The fact that any fish seller or fish buyer might not, however, receive from NMFS a copy of the notice or of the information and guidance does not relieve the fish seller or fish buyer from his fee obligations under the applicable regulations. This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Assistant Administrator for NMFS, finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be unnecessary. Actual notice of the regulatory action was provided to, and comments were received from the public during the rulemaking process. This action merely establishes the start date of the groundfish program's industry fee system which was made effective in a previous final rule in accordance with the framework rule's § 600.1013(d). No new requirements are implemented by this action. Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , are not applicable. This action contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved these information collections under OMB control number 0648-0376. NMFS estimates that the public reporting burden for these requirements will average: Two hours for submitting a monthly fish buyer fee collection report; and Two hours for making a fish buyer/fish seller report when one party fails to either pay or collect the fee. These response estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, and no person is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, an information collection subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. Authority: Pub. L. 107-206, Pub. L. 108-7, 16 U.S.C. 1861a (b-e), and 50 CFR 600.1000 *et seq.* Dated: August 3, 2005. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. BILLING CODE 3510-22-S EN08AU05.093 [FR Doc. 05-15643 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 20
Traces to 20 documents
CFR
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Sales used in calculating normal value; transactions between affiliated parties.§ 351.403
- In general.§ 351.401
- Levels of trade; adjustment for difference in level of trade; constructed export price offset.§ 351.412
- Definitions.§ 351.102
- Differences in physical characteristics.§ 351.411
- Differences in circumstances of sale§ 351.410
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Continued suspension of liquidation.§ 356.8
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Processing of applications by the Department of Commerce.§ 301.5
- Sunset reviews under section 751(c) of the Act.§ 351.218
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
statutes-at-large
register
9 references not yet in our index
- 243 F.3d 1301
- 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339
- Pub. L. 89-651
- 15 CFR 301
- 50 CFR 600
- Pub. L. 108-7
- 50 CFR 600.1102
- Pub. L. 107-206
- 50 CFR 600.1000
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of fee effective date
Pub. L.Pub. L. 89-651
Cites 29 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources