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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2005-09-07 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Notice Announcing the Availability of Grant Funds

19,797 words·~90 min read·/register/2005/09/07/05-17826

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

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-851-802, A-485 805, A-588-851, A-791-808] Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 ½ inches) from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (under 4 ½ inches) (seamless pipe) from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and no response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the *Final Results of Review* section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone
(202)482-1391. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 2, 2005, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on seamless pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). The Department received notices of intent to participate from two domestic interested parties, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) and Koppel Steel Corporation (Koppel Steel) (collectively, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the domestic like product. We received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not receive any 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 expedited sunset reviews of these orders. Scope of the Orders The products covered by the orders are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the orders also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically included within the scope of the orders are seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The seamless pipes subject to the orders are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes is use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/ hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications. The scope of the orders includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of the orders. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of the orders. Specifically excluded from the scope of the orders are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods
(OCTG)are excluded from the scope of the orders, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being used in a covered application. If such information is provided, we will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in covered applications as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-161 specification is being used in a standard, line or pressure application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally we will require only the importer of record to certify to the end use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these cases are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 30, 2005, (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders are revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading “September 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on pipe fittings from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Czech Republic Nova Hut, A.S. 39.93 All Others 32.26 Japan Nippon Steel Corporation 106.07 Kawasaki Steel Corporation 106.07 Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. 106.07 All Others 70.43 Romania Metal Business International S.R.L. 11.08 S.C. Petrotub S.A. 11.08 S.C. Silcotub S.A. 15.15 Sota Communication Company 15.15 All Others 13.06 South Africa Iscor Ltd. 43.51 All Others 40.17 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4868 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-580-816) Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the eleventh administrative review of the antidumping order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE)from Korea. 1 This review covers five manufacturers and exporters (collectively, the respondents) of the subject merchandise: Dongshin Special Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongshin); Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS), and Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd.
(PSI)(collectively, the POSCO Group); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union). The period of review
(POR)for this review is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and Union made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). However, we preliminary determine that HYSCO did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than NV ( *i.e.* , sales were made at “zero” or *de minimis* dumping margins). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess HYSCO's appropriate entries at an antidumping liability of zero percent of the entered value and instruct CBP to assess Dongbu, Dongshin, the POSCO Group, and Union at the rates referenced in the “Preliminary Results of the Review” section of this notice. 1 Petitioners are the Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., United States Steel Corporation, and Nucor Corporation. Furthermore, we are rescinding the request for review of the antidumping order for SeAH Steel Corporation
(SeAH)because SeAH and its affiliates did not have exports or sales in the United States of subject merchandise manufactured or produced by SeAH during the POR. Because Dongshin failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we preliminarily determine to resort to adverse facts available to determine Dongshin's dumping margin. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding should also submit with them:
(1)a statement of the issues and
(2)a brief summary of the comments. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska (Union), Preeti Tolani (Dongbu), Victoria Cho (the POSCO Group), and Joy Zhang (HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-8362,
(202)482-0395,
(202)482-5075, and
(202)482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping order on CORE from Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea* , 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993) ( *Orders on Certain Steel from Korea* ). On August 3, 2004, we published in the **Federal Register** the notice of *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 46496 (August 3, 2004). On August 31, 2004, petitioners requested a review of Dongbu, Dongshin, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, SeAH, and Union. The Department initiated this review on September 22, 2004. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). During the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in which Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union participated, the Department disregarded sales below the cost of production
(COP)that failed the cost test. 2 Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by these companies of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review were made at prices below the COP. We instructed Dongshin, Dongbu, HYSCO, 3 the POSCO Group, and Union to respond to sections A-D of the initial questionnaire, 4 which we issued on November 1, 2004. 2 *Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 69 FR 54101, 54106-7 (September 7, 2004) ( *Preliminary Results from the 10th Review of CORE from KOREA); Notice of Final Result of the Tenth Administrative Review and New Shipper of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR 12443 (March 14, 2005) ( *Final Results from the10th Review of CORE from Korea* ) and accompanying *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* (10th Review Decision Memo) at 10. 3 In the previous segment the Department included a new shipper review of HYSCO. *See Preliminary Results from the 10th Review of CORE from KOREA* , 69 FR 54101 and *Final Results from the 10th Review of CORE from Korea* , 70 FR 12443. 4 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise Section B: Comparison Market Sales Section C: Sales to the United States Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value On April 7, 2005, the Department published an extension of preliminary results of the eleventh administrative review until August 31, 2005. *See Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17648 (April 7, 2005). Rescission of Administrative Review for SeAH On November 29, 2004, SeAH submitted a letter certifying that neither SeAH nor its affiliates exported or sold in the United States subject merchandise manufactured or produced by SeAH during the POR. We conducted an internal customs data query on August 1, 2005. The data query indicated that SeAH and its affiliates did not have entries of subject merchandise manufactured or produced by SeAH into the United States during the POR. *See* August 10, 2005, *Internal Customs Data Query* memorandum to the file from the team, which is available in the Central Records Unit
(CRU)room B099 in the main Department of Commerce building. Dongshin Dongshin failed to respond to the initial questionnaire sent by the Department on November 1, 2004. On January 5, 2005, the Department sent a follow up letter to Dongshin inquiring whether it intended to respond to the Department's initial questionnaire and indicating that its failure to do so could result in the use of adverse facts available. Dongshin failed to respond to the questionnaire or to the January 5, 2005, letter. Dongbu On January 10, 2005, Dongbu submitted its sections A-C response to the initial questionnaire. On February 25, 2005, Dongbu submitted its section D response to the initial questionnaire. On June 9, 2005, Dongbu submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's May 17, 2005, questionnaire for sections A through D. On July 22, 2005, Dongbu submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's July 1, 2005 questionnaire for sections B through D. On August 17, 2005, Dongbu submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's August 3, 2005, supplemental questionnaire. Union On January 19, 2005, Union submitted its sections A-C responses to the initial questionnaire. On February 25, 2005, Union submitted its section D response to the initial questionnaire. On May 6, 2005, Union submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's April 8, 2005 questionnaire for sections A through C. On June 30, 2005, Union submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's June 3, 2005 questionnaire for section D. On August 17, 2005, Union submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's August 3, 2005, questionnaire for sections A through D. The POSCO Group On January 31, 2005, the POSCO Group submitted its sections A through D response to the initial questionnaire. On June 23, 2005, the POSCO Group submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's May 25, 2005, questionnaire for sections A through D. HYSCO On January 10, 2005, HYSCO submitted its sections A through C response to the initial questionnaire. On April 12, 2005, HYSCO submitted its section D response to the initial questionnaire. On May 5, 2005, HYSCO submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's April 8, 2005 questionnaire for sections A through C. On July 15, 2005, HYSCO submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's June 24, 2005 questionnaire for sections A through D. On August 9, 2005, HYSCO submitted a second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's July 22, 2005 and August 3, 2005 questionnaires for section D. Period of Review The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. Scope of the Order This order covers flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process including products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”). Excluded from this review are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this review are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this review are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Use of Adverse Facts Available In accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department has determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for purposes of determining the preliminary dumping margins for the subject merchandise sold by Dongshin. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides in relevant part: If an interested party
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administrating authority;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(I) and
(e)of section 782;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this subtitle; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(I), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of this title, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this subtitle. Moreover, section 776(b) of the Act provides in relevant part that: If the administering authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority, the administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under this subtitle, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. As explained above in the “Background” section of these preliminary results, Dongshin, despite the Department's repeated inquiries, failed to provide a response to the Department's initial questionnaire. Therefore, we have determined that Dongshin's failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire warrants the use of facts otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act. Furthermore, because of Dongshin's failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire and letter of January 5, 2005, we find that Dongshin failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information. Accordingly, the Department is using an inference that is adverse to Dongshin in the preliminary results pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Specifically, as described below, we are using the highest calculated margin in this proceeding as AFA. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)provides that “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870
(1994)and 19 CFR 351.308(d). However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for calculated margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it does not question the reliability of the margin for that time period. *See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July 11, 1996). With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's rate that was uncharacteristic of the industry, resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D & L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been invalidated); *see also F. Lli De Cecco di Filippo v. United States* , 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, for Dongshin we have resorted to adverse facts available and have used 17.70 percent, 5 the highest margin upheld in this proceeding, as the margin for these preliminary results because there is no evidence on the record indicating that such a margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available. *See Orders on Certain Steel from Korea* . 5 This rate was a calculated rate based on the weighted-average margin for Pohang Iron and Steel, the sole respondent in the investigation of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea. *See Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea* , 58 FR 37176, 37191-2 (July 9, 1993); *see also Amendment of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea* , 58 FR 41083, 41084 (August 2, 1993). Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all CORE products produced by the respondents, covered by the scope of the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to CORE sold in the United States. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade 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 listed in Appendix V of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent. Where sales were made in the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. market (theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the respondent, before making our fair-value comparisons. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CORE by the respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the Export Price
(EP)or Constructed Export Price
(CEP)to the NV, as described in the “Export Price/Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Export Price/Constructed Export Price We calculated the price of U.S. sales based on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. The Act defines the term “constructed export price” as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections
(c)and
(d)of this section.” (19 U.S.C. 1677a(b)). In contrast, section 772(a) of the Act defines “export price” as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection
(c)of this section.” (19 U.S.C. 1677a(a)). In determining whether to classify U.S. sales as either EP or CEP sales, the Department must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the U.S. sales process, and assess whether the reviewed sales were made “in the United States” for purposes of section 772(b) of the Act. In the instant case, the record establishes that Dongbu's, the POSCO Group's, Union's, and HYSCO's affiliates in the United States
(1)took title to the subject merchandise and
(2)invoiced and received payment from the unaffiliated U.S. customers for their sales of the subject merchandise to those U.S. customers. Thus, the Department has determined that these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP transactions. For Dongbu, the POSCO Group, Union, and HYSCO, we calculated CEP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. warehousing expenses, U.S. wharfage, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, loading expenses, other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S. customs duties, commissions, credit expenses, letter of credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the country of manufacture and the United States associated with economic activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. Where appropriate, we added interest revenue to the gross unit price. In order to ensure that we have accounted for all appropriate U.S. interest expenses ( *i.e.* both imputed and actual) without double-counting, we have utilized the following interest expense methodology. As in a previous review, in the U.S. indirect selling expenses, we have included net financial expenses incurred by the respondent's U.S. affiliates; however, we added U.S. interest expenses only after deducting U.S. imputed credit expenses and U.S. inventory carrying costs, so as to eliminate the possibility of double-counting U.S. interest expenses. 6 6 *See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review of Cold-Rolled
(CR)and Corrosion- Resistant
(CORE)Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea* , from Joseph A. Spetrini to Faryar Shirzad, Comment 1, (March 11, 2002) (Final Results of the 7th Administrative Review), on file in the CRU. Consistent with the Department's normal practice, we added the reported duty drawback to the gross unit price. We did so in accordance with the Department's long-standing test, which requires:
(1)that the import duty and rebate be directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another; and
(2)that the company claiming the adjustment demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of imported raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on the exports of the manufactured product. *See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Preliminary Results* , 65 FR 54197, 54202 (September 7, 2000) ( *Preliminary Results of the 6th Review of CORE from Korea* ). Normal Value Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, discounts, inland freight (offset, where applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and packing. Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for credit expenses (offset, where applicable, by interest income), warranty expenses, post-sale warehousing, and differences in weight basis. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home market indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs to offset U.S. commissions. We also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale observation resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of manufacturing
(COM)of the U.S. product, we based NV on constructed value (CV). *See* Policy Bulletin, Number 92.2, *Difmer 20% Rule* , July 29, 1992. For purposes of calculating the NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines “foreign like product” as merchandise which is either
(1)identical or
(2)similar to the merchandise sold in the U.S. When there are no identical products sold in the home market, the products which are most similar to the product sold in the U.S. are identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the actual physical differences between the products sold in the U.S. and the home market or third country market. *See* 19 CFR 351.411 and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit. Pursuant to section 351.412 of the Department's regulations, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the differences affect 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 will make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). We did not make an adjustment under section 351.412(e) of the Department's regulations because, as there was only one home market level of trade for each respondent, we were unable to identify a pattern of consistent price differences attributable to differences in levels of trade ( *see* 19 CFR 351.412(d)). Under section 351.412(f) of the Department's regulations, we are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO group, and Union because NV for these companies are at a more advanced level of trade than the U.S. CEP sales. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, *see* the August 31, 2005, company-specific calculation memoranda for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO group, and Union, which are on file in the CRU. Cost of Production/Constructed Value A. Calculation of COP We are investigating COP for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO group, and Union because during the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in which Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that failed the cost test. We calculated a company-specific COP for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market selling expenses, SG&A, and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on Dongbu's, the POSCO Group's, Union's and HYSCO's information as submitted. B. Major Input Rule Pursuant to section 773(f)(2) and
(3)of the Act and section 351.407(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department may value major inputs purchased from affiliated suppliers at the higher of the transfer price, the market price, or the affiliate's COP. HYSCO reported purchases of raw material input accounting for a significant portion of its total material cost from an affiliated supplier. We requested that HYSCO supply its affiliate supplier's COP information for the major material input. In HYSCO's letter dated July 12, 2005 and supplemental questionnaire response dated July 15, 2005, HYSCO indicated that, despite its repeated requests, its affiliated supplier has refused to provide the COP information. Where an interested party or any other person withholds necessary information that has been requested, the application of facts available is appropriate in reaching a determination, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. Under section 776(b) of the Act, we may use an inference adverse to the interests of an interested party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. In determining whether a respondent has acted to the best of its ability in seeking the COP information from its affiliate, the Department usually examines the nature of the affiliation, in addition to other facts. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 12744, 1275l (March 16, 1998) ( *Plate from Brazil* ). Given the nature of the affiliation, we determine that HYSCO made reasonable attempts to obtain the requested COP information from its affiliate. Therefore, we are not applying an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available. In prior cases, we have turned to other COP information on the record, if available, as non-adverse “gap-filling” facts available. However, the record contains no other information about the affiliated supplier's COP. In prior cases, when there is no such COP data on the record and no indication that the affiliated supplier's COP is higher than the transfer or market price, we have used the higher of the transfer price or the market price as facts available. *See Plate from Brazil at 12751; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 16880 (March 30, 2000) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 6. As facts available for the major input, we are using the market prices that HYSCO reported for its purchases of the major input from unaffiliated suppliers. *See* the August 31, 2005 *Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO* , on file in the CRU. C. Test of Home-Market Prices In determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales of the foreign like product and we examined whether
(1)within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and
(2)such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-market prices (not including VAT), less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. D. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we may disregard below COP sales in the determination of NV if these sales have been made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and were not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP for at least six months of the POR, we determined that sales of that model were made in “substantial quantities” for an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act. Where prices of a respondent's sales of a given product were below the per-unit COP at the time of sale and below the weighted-average per unit costs for the POR, we determined that sales were not at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In such cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for Dongbu, Union, the POSCO Group, and HYSCO. We disregarded individual below-cost sales of a given product of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the August 31, 2005 Calculation Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO; *Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. (POSCO), Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS), and Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd.
(PSI)- (collectively, the POSCO Group); and Calculation Memorandum for Union* which are on file in the CRU. E. Calculation of CV In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, including interest expenses, U.S. packing costs, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the actual 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. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home-market selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in CEP comparisons. Arm's Length Sales The POSCO Group reported sales of the foreign like product to an affiliated reseller/service center. Dongbu and HYSCO also reported that they made sales in the home market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, *i.e.* , sales at arm's length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we found sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. *Id.* Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist: Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Dongbu 2.42% Dongshin 17.70% HYSCO 0.0 The POSCO Group 4.13% Union 2.19% The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will announce the due date of the case briefs at a later date. Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issue, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due date of the rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. In instances where entered value was not reported, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106 (c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on export prices. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CORE for Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of these reviews, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* , the cash deposit will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior review, or the original less than fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the underlying investigation. *See Orders on Certain Steel from Korea* . These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4867 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-588-850, A-201-827) Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (Large Diameter SSLPP) from Japan and Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and no response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews for these orders. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the *Final Results of Reviews* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Saliha Loucif or David Goldberger, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1779 and
(202)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On May 2, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Large Diameter SSLPP from Japan and Mexico, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). *See also Procedures for Conducting Five-year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders* , 63 FR 13516, 13522 (March 20, 1998). On May 17, 2005, the Department received the Notice of Intent to Participate from United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) (the domestic interested party), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's Regulations. The domestic interested party claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(c) of the Act, as a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler of the subject merchandise in the United States. On June 1, 2005, we received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested party within the 30-day deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's Regulations. On the same day, Tubos de Aceros de Mexico, S.A. (TAMSA), the sole respondent in the investigation of Large Diameter SSLPP from Mexico, and the only known producer of subject merchandise in Mexico, submitted a waiver of participation. 1 In the sunset reviews of Large Diameter SSLPP from Mexico and Japan, the Department has not received any notice of intent to participate nor substantive response from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(c)(2) of the Department's Regulations, the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these orders. 1 During the course of its investigation, the Department determined that Tubos de Aceros de Mexico, S.A. (TAMSA) was the sole producer of Large Diameter SSLPP in Mexico. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Mexico* , 65 FR 5587 (February 4, 2000). Scope of the Orders The products covered by this order are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and the American Petroleum Institute
(API)5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A333 or ASTM A334 specifications. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A795) are used for the conveyance of water. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A106, ASTM A53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A161, ASTM A192, ASTM A210, ASTM A252, ASTM A501, ASTM A523, ASTM A524, and ASTM A618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are: A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG), if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. C. Products produced to the A335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications. D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application, i.e., line and riser pipe that is
(1)used in a deepwater application, which means for use in water depths of 1,500 feet or more;
(2)intended for use in and is actually used for a specific deepwater project;
(3)rated for a specified minimum yield strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and
(4)not identified or certified through the use of a monogram, stencil, or otherwise marked with an API specification ( *e.g.* , API 5L). With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, the Department will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by the petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-335 specification is being used in an A-106 application, it will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally the Department will require only the importer of record to certify to the end-use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, the Department may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Final Results* (Decision Memo) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 30, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “September 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on Large Diameter SSLPP from Japan and Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted Average Margin (percent) Japan Nippon Steel Corporation 107.80 Kawasaki Steel Corporation 107.80 Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.
(SMI)107.80 All Others 68.80 Mexico TAMSA 15.05 All Others 15.05 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's Regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders 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 these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4847 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-588-835 Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Recission of Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Oil Country Tubular Goods
(OCTG)from Japan in response to requests by the United States Steel Corporation, a petitioner in the original investigation (petitioner). United States Steel Corporation requested administrative reviews of JFE Steel Corporation (JFE), Nippon Steel Corporation (Nippon), NKK Tubes
(NKK)and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. (SMI). This review covers sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of August 1, 2003 through July 31, 2004. We have preliminarily determined that NKK and SMI had no reviewable sales of subject merchandise during the period of review
(POR)and that the review of these two companies should be rescinded. We have also preliminarily determined that adverse facts available should be applied to the remaining respondents, neither of which participated in this administrative review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the *Preliminary Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Kimberley Hunt, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3148 or
(202)482-1272, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND On August 11, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Japan in the **Federal Register** (60 FR 41058). On August 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order (69 FR 46496). On August 31, 2004, the Department received a timely request for review from petitioner covering JFE, Nippon, NKK and SMI. 1 On September 22, 2004, we published a notice initiating an administrative review of the antidumping order on OCTG from Japan. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 69 FR 56745. 1 The Department found SMI and Sumitomo Corporation
(SC)to be affiliated in a previous review. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Japan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 48589, 48591 (September 7, 1999). Neither SMI nor SC has placed information on the record of this review suggesting that the basis for this finding has changed. The Department issued Sections A, B and C of its original questionnaire on November 12, 2004. 2 On November 18, 2004, SMI responded that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On December 15 and 20, 2004, respectively, Nippon and JFE stated that they did not intend to participate in the administrative review and would not be submitting a response to the Department's questionnaire. On December 20, 2004, NKK submitted a no-shipment certification and asked for an expeditious rescission of the review. 2 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation 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
(NME)cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production
(COP)of the foreign like product and the constructed value
(CV)of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On May 5, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review until August 31, 2005. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan* , 70 FR 23844 (May 5, 2005). PERIOD OF REVIEW This review covers the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. SCOPE OF THE ORDER The merchandise covered by this order consists of oil country tubular goods, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing, tubing, and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute
(API)or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The products subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.21.30.00, 7304.21.60.30, 7304.21.60.45, 7304.21.60.60, 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. ANALYSIS Partial Rescission of Administrative Review for NKK and SMI In response to our original questionnaire of November 12, 2004, both SMI and NKK submitted no-shipment certifications. The petitioner did not comment on the no-shipment claim. In order to corroborate the no-shipment statement, the Department requested information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Such information showed entries of subject merchandise produced by both NKK and SMI during the POR. The Department issued letters to NKK and SMI asking for an explanation regarding these entries. NKK responded by stating that all shipments appearing in the CBP information were non-subject merchandise. SMI responded that it and its affiliate Sumitomo Corporation
(SC)had again reviewed their records and that, other than temporary importation under bond
(TIB)entries, neither SMI nor SC sold any subject OCTG to customers in the United States during the POR.NKK submitted documentation demonstrating that the only entries for consumption in question involved OCTG specifically excluded from the scope of the order. Additionally, NKK included a general explanation of the steps it had followed to ensure the accuracy of the no-shipment certification previously submitted. The Department also asked NKK for additional information regarding imports from NKK Corporation, which the Department had previously found to be affiliated with NKK. In response, NKK stated that it had searched its sales database again and confirmed that it had no exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. NKK also confirmed that it had no knowledge of or reason to know of any entries for consumption of subject merchandise manufactured by NKK Corporation during the POR. In accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review of NKK. We have based our preliminary decision regarding NKK on the letters and documentation from NKK supporting its certification that it had no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR, on our examination of the CBP database for imports of entered merchandise produced by NKK and NKK Corporation, and on our review of entry documentation. There is no information on the record to indicate that NKK or NKK Corporation had knowledge that its merchandise was being sold to the United States during the POR. As a result, we find that NKK had no sales of subject merchandise during the POR covered by this administrative review. SMI stated it did not sell any OCTG subject to the order for export to the United States during the POR. SMI further stated that it had reviewed its records and asked its affiliate, SC, to again review its records. SMI conclusively stated that it is not aware of any shipments of OCTG produced by SMI that may have been entered for consumption during the POR other than under TIB, which was subsequently exported from the United States. In response to the Department's request for additional information, SMI stated that OCTG is sold to the U.S. market exclusively through trading companies. SMI stated that it reviewed its records of OCTG shipments before and during the POR and concluded that it did not sell subject merchandise to any of the companies listed as importers in the CBP information. SMI claims that it has no information about these shipments and no way to get information about these shipments. Finally, SMI stated that it did sell non-subject merchandise directly to customers in the United States. SMI also asked SC to review once again its records and again stated that SMI did not sell OCTG covered by the antidumping order to the United States during the POR. In addition, SMI submitted a letter commenting on the information on the record of the review and stated that there is no evidence on the record that SMI knew, or had reason to believe, that any subject merchandise manufactured by SMI would be entered into the United States during the POR. In accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to both SMI and SC. We have based our preliminary determination regarding SMI on the letters and documentation from SMI and SC supporting their certification that they had no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR, and on our examination of information obtained from CBP. There is no information on the record to indicate that SMI or SC had knowledge that its subject merchandise was being resold to the United States during the POR. As a result, we find that neither SMI nor SC had sales during the POR that are subject to this administrative review. The Department may still verify the information submitted by SMI and SC before the final results of this review. Application of Facts Available Pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), if necessary information is not available on the record, or if an interested party or any other person
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In this case, JFE's and Nippon's stated decision not to participate in the review constitutes a refusal to provide the information necessary to conduct the Department's antidumping analysis, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Moreover, respondents' non-participation significantly impedes the review process. *See* section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Therefore, the Department must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Absent any response on the record from respondents, sections 782(d) and
(e)do not apply. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. *See also* the *Statement of Administrative Action* (SAA), accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870, which specifically states that a failure to respond to the questionnaire may lead the Department to conclude that the company has not been responsive and to thus proceed on the basis of facts otherwise available. By refusing to respond to the Department's questionnaire, JFE and Nippon have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. Neither JFE nor Nippon expressed concerns regarding the proposed deadlines, nor requested additional time. Without information from these two companies, the Department is unable to perform any company-specific analysis or calculate dumping margins for the POR. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted with respect to JFE and Nippon. We note that, in selecting an adverse facts available
(AFA)rate, the Department's practice has been to assign respondents who fail to cooperate with the Department the highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation or in any administrative review. *See Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As AFA, the Department is assigning the rate of 44.20 percent. This has been the only affirmative margin calculated in this proceeding since the investigation's preliminary determination. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan* , 60 FR 6506 (February 2, 1995). It is also the rate applied in the final determination of the investigation of sales at LTFV. In the LTFV investigation, respondents Nippon and SMI did not respond to the Department's questionnaire and did not otherwise cooperate to the best of their ability, therefore the Department applied best information available
(BIA)(now referred to as FA). *See* LTFV investigation. This rate has been used as the AFA rate in the investigation and in subsequent reviews. We preliminarily determine that it is thus appropriate to apply the AFA rate of 44.20 to Nippon and JFE for purposes of these preliminary results. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department applies facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The SAA clarifies that the petition is “secondary information,” and states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. We have previously examined the reliability of the 44.20 percent rate and found it to be reliable. This rate was originally taken from the petition; it was based upon the difference between the U.S. price of a representative OCTG product sold by a Japanese company and the constructed value for that product. The Department considers information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's aberrational business expense that resulted in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D & L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present here. Our review of the information in the original petition pertaining to the price of the product and the major inputs and processes used for the production of the final merchandise did not indicate that the analysis of the OCTG market in the petition is no longer appropriate to use as a basis for facts available. Furthermore, nothing on the record of this review supports the determination that the highest margin rate from the petition in the underlying investigation does not represent reliable and relevant information for AFA purposes. Therefore, in this proceeding, the highest margin from the petition is the most appropriate information on which to base a margin for these uncooperative respondents. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 54838 (September 11, 2000). Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any previous segment of this administrative proceeding ( *i.e.* , the rate of 44.20 percent from the original investigation) is in accord with the requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be corroborated ( *i.e.* , that it be shown to have probative value). PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF REVIEW We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) JFE Steel Corporation 44.20 Nippon Steel Corporation 44.20 PUBLIC COMMENT Pursuant to section 351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless the deadline is extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)a statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Also, pursuant to section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Department specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. *See* section 351.213(h) of the Department's regulations. DUTY ASSESSMENT Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer or customer of the subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer- or customer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, if the Department's final results include the rescission of this review with respect to SMI and NKK, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries from SMI and NKK at the rate applicable at the time of entry. CASH DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of OCTG from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)for JFE and Nippon, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, including NKK and SMI (if this review is rescinded), the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 44.20 percent. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan* , 60 FR 155 (August 11, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. NOTIFICATION TO IMPORTERS This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4864 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-806, A-570-815) Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the People's Republic of China (“China”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of a Notice of Intent to Participate, adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and lack of response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the *Final Results of Reviews* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary E. Sadler, Esq. or Maureen Flannery, Office 8, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On May 2, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from India and China. 1 On May 12, 2005, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from Nation Ford Chemical Company (“NFC”), the domestic interested party, within the deadline specified in section 315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. NFC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a producer of the domestic-like product in the United States. On May 31, 2005, the Department received a complete substantive response from NFC within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. We did not receive responses from any respondent interested parties to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department determined to conduct expedited reviews of these orders. 1 *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005) (“Initiation Notice”). Scope of the Orders: Imports covered by this antidumping duty order are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid. Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content. The Department conducted a scope ruling regarding 3V Corporation and determined that sodium sulfanilate processed in Italy from sulfanilic acid from India was within the scope of this order. *See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anticircumvention Inquiries* , 65 FR 41957 (July 7, 2000). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received: All issues raised in these reviews 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 30, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in 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/index.html, under the heading “September 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews: We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from India and China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted Average Margin (percent) *India* All Indian Manufacturers and Exporters 114.80 2 *China* China National Chemicals I&E Corporation, Hebei Branch 19.14 China-wide rate 85.20 2 The Department published its final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value (“LTFV”) with respect to imports of sulfanilic acid from India on January 8, 1993 (58 FR 3251). In this determination, the Department published a weighted-average dumping margin for all manufacturers/producers/exporters of 114.8 percent. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. However, consistent with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act, which prohibits assessing antidumping duties on the portion of the margin attributable to an export subsidy, we established an estimated antidumping duty deposit rate of 71.09 percent for duty deposit purposes. The Department issued its antidumping duty order on sulfanilic acid from India on March 2, 1993. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Sulfanilic Acid from India, 58 FR 12025 (March 2, 1993). The Department has not conducted an administrative review of this order since its imposition. Dated: August 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4866 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-856 Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from the People's Republic of China (“China”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of a Notice of Intent to Participate, adequate substantive response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party, and lack of response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked are identified in the *Final Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4340. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 2, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from China. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005) (“Initiation Notice”). On May 17, 2005, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from Buffalo Color Corporation (“Buffalo Color”), a domestic interested party, within the deadline specified in section 315.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Buffalo Color claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product. On June 1, 2005, the Department received a complete substantive response from Buffalo Color within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. We did not receive a response from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department determined to conduct an expedited review of this order. Scope of the Order The products subject to this order are the deep blue synthetic vat dye known as synthetic indigo and those of its derivatives designated commercially as “Vat Blue 1.” Included are Vat Blue 1 (synthetic indigo), Color Index No. 73000, and its derivatives, pre-reduced indigo or indigo white (Color Index No. 73001) and solubilized indigo (Color Index No. 73002). The subject merchandise may be sold in any form (e.g., powder, granular, paste, liquid, or solution) and in any strength. Synthetic indigo and its derivatives subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 3204.15.10.00, 3204.15.40.00 or 3204.15.80.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 30, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html, under the heading “September 2005.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers Weighted Average Margin (percent) Wonderful Chemical Industrial Ltd./Jiangsu Taifeng Chemical Industry Company, Ltd. 129.60 China National Chemical Construction Jiangsu Company 79.70 China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Cooperation Corp 129.60 Shanghai Yongchen International Trading Company Ltd. 79.70 Hebei Jinzhou Import & Export Corporation 79.70 Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation 79.70 Chongqing Dyestuff Import & Export United Corporation 79.70 Wuhan Tianjin Chemicals Imports & Exports Corp., Ltd. 79.70 China-wide Rate 129.60 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 in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4865 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-533-821) Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Preeti Tolani or Tipten Troidl, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0395 and
(202)482-1767, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information On January 31, 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review on the countervailing duty order of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, covering the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than September 2, 2005. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period specified, the administering authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results by up to 120 days. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable for the following reason. On July 19, 2005, the Department issued a New Subsidy Allegation memorandum, where we initiated on one new program and agreed to examine two additional programs that the Department has investigated in other India CVD proceedings. *See* July 19, 2005, New Subsidy Allegation memorandum from the team to Melissa G. Skinner, Office Director (“New Subsidy Allegation Memorandum”). Conducting the analyses for each program would require the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information pertaining to these programs. The Department gave respondent parties 37 days to provide the requested information on these programs. The current due date is August 25, 2005, with no extensions. Given the number and complexity of issues in this case, and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than December 31, 2005. However, December 31 falls on Saturday and January 2 is a federal holiday, and it is the Department's long-standing practice to issue a determination the next business day when the statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday, or any other day when the Department is closed. *See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended* , 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). Accordingly, the deadline for completion of the preliminary results is January 3, 2006. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. Dated: August 31, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4863 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-580-842) Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order: Structural Steel Beams from South Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing (“CVD”) duty order on structural steel beams from South 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 22632 (May 2, 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 (in this case, no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct 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: September 7, 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, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1767 or
(202)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 2, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on structural steel beams from South Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from the following domestic interested parties: the Committee for Fair Beam Imports and its individual members including Nucor Corp. (“Nucor”), Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. (“Nucor-Yamato”), Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“SDI”), and TXI-Chaparral Steel, Inc. (“TXI”) (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 sections 771(9)(C) and
(E)of the Act, as an ad-hoc association which is comprised of domestic producers of the subject merchandise. 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 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. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this CVD order are doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These products (“Structural Steel Beams”) include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (W shapes), bearing piles (HP shapes), standard beams (S or I shapes), and M-shapes. All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise in 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 30, 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) Kangwon Industries 3.88 Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 1.34 All Others 3.87 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 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4869 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-533-807) Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on sulfanilic acid 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 22632 (May 2, 2005). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and an inadequate response (in this case, no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department decided to conduct 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 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 the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 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
(101)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 2, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). The Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of National Ford Chemical Company (“NFC”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). NFC claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of sulfanilic acid. The Department received a complete substantive response from NFC 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 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 order. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by the CVD order are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid (sodium sulfanilate). The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry free flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic acid contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Sodium salt of sulfanilic acid (sodium sulfanilate) is a granular or crystalline material containing 75 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content. The merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 2921.42.22 and 2921.42.24.20. HTSUS subheadings for sulfanilic acid and sodium salts of sulfanilic acid have changed since the issuance of this order. The petitioner asserts that the HTSUS subheading for sulfanilic acid was 2921.42.24.20 in 1993 and has remained at 2921.42.22 since 1994. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the 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 30, 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 countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rate listed below: Producers/Exporters Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent) All Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters 43.71 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 30, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-4857 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Docket Number: 050830232-5232-01 Implementation of Grants to Manufacturers of Certain Worsted Wool Fabrics Established Under Title IV of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 AGENCY: Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. ACTION: Notice Announcing the Availability of Grant Funds. SUMMARY: This Notice announces the availability of grant funds in calendar year 2005 for manufacturers of certain worsted wool fabrics. The purpose of this notice is to provide the general public with a single source of program and application information related to the worsted wool grant offerings, and it contains the information about the program required to be published in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Applications by eligible U.S. producers of certain worsted wool fabrics must be received or postmarked by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Standard Time on October 7, 2005. Applications received after the closing date and time will not be considered. ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted to the Industry Assessment Division, Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 3001, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230,
(202)482-4058. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bennett, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-4058. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Electronic Access:* The full funding opportunity announcement for the worsted wool fabrics program is available through FedGrants at **http://www.grants.gov** . The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number is 11.113, Special Projects. *Statutory Authority:* Section 4002(c)(6) of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-429, 118 Stat. 2603) (the “Act”). *Program Description:* Section 4002(c)(6)(A) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide grants to persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who were, during calendar years 1999, 2000, and 2001, manufacturers of two categories of worsted wool fabrics. The first category are manufacturers of worsted wool fabrics, containing 85 percent or more by weight of wool, with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 micron (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS)heading 9902.51.11); the total amount of available funds is $2,666,000, to be allocated among such manufacturers on the basis of the percentage of each manufacturers' production of worsted wool fabric included in HTS 9902.51.11. The second category are manufacturers of worsted wool fabrics, containing 85 percent or more by weight of wool, with average fiber diameters of 18.5 micron or less (HTS heading 9902.51.12); the total amount of available funds is $2,666,000, to be allocated among such manufacturers on the basis of the percentage of each manufacturers' production of worsted wool fabric included in HTS 9902.51.12. *Funding Availability:* The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under section 4002(c)(6)(A) of the Act to provide grants to manufacturers of certain worsted wool fabrics. Funding for the worsted wool fabrics grant program will be provided by the Department of the Treasury from amounts in the Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (the “Trust Fund”). The total amount of grants to manufacturers of worsted wool fabrics described in HTS 9902.51.11 shall be $2,666,000 in each of calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007. The total amount of grants to manufacturers of worsted wool fabrics described in HTS 9902.51.12 shall also be $2,666,000 in each of calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007. *Eligibility Criteria:* Eligible applicants for the worsted wool fabric program include persons (including firms, corporations, or other legal entities) who were, during calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001, manufacturers of worsted wool fabric of the kind described in HTS 9902.51.11 or 9902.51.12. Any manufacturer who becomes a successor-of-interest to a manufacturer of the worsted wool fabrics described in HTS 9902.51.11 or HTS 9902.51.12 during 1999, 2000 or 2001 because of a reorganization or otherwise, shall be eligible to apply for such grants. *Applications to Receive Allocations:* An applicant must have produced worsted wool fabric of a kind described in HTS 9902.51.11 or 9902.51.12 in the United States in each of calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001. Applicants must provide:
(1)company name, address, contact and phone number;
(2)Federal tax identification number;
(3)the name and address of each plant or location in the United States where worsted wool fabrics of the kind described in HTS 9902.51.11 or HTS 9902.51.12 was woven by the applicant;
(4)the quantity of worsted wool fabric production described in HTS 9902.51.11 or 9902.51.12, as appropriate, woven in the United States in each of calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001; and
(5)the value of worsted wool fabric production described in HTS 9902.51.11 or 9902.51.12, as appropriate, woven in the United States in each of calendar years 1999, 2000 and 2001. This data must indicate actual production (not estimates) of worsted wool fabric of the kind described in HTS 9902.51.11 or 9902.51.12. At the conclusion of the application, the applicant must attest that “all information contained in the application is complete and correct and no false claims, statements, or representations have been made.” Applicants should be aware that, generally, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3729, persons providing a false or fraudulent claims, and, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, persons making materially false statements or representations, are subject to civil or criminal penalties, respectively. Information that is marked “business confidential” will be protected from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. *Other Application Requirements:* Complete applications must include the following forms and documents: CD-346, Applicant for Funding Assistance; CD-511, Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying; SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance; and SF-424B, Assurances - Non-Construction Programs. The CD forms are available via web site: **http://www.osec.doc.gov/forms/direct.htm** The SF forms are available via web site: **http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/grants_forms.html** . This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 269, 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0039, 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. *Allocation Procedures:* Section 4002(c)(6)(A) of the Act requires that each grant be allocated among eligible applicants on the basis of the percentage of each manufacturers' production of the fabric described in HTS 9902.51.11 or HTS 9902.51.12 for calendar years 1999, 2000, and 2001, compared to the production of such fabric by all manufacturers who qualify for such grants. Following the closing date of the receipt of applications, the Department shall calculate the appropriate allocation of the allotted funds among eligible applicants in accordance with the statutory procedures. Award decisions shall be final and not subject to appeal or protest. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs”. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notifications for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, which are contained in the **Federal Register** Notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389), are applicable to this solicitation. It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866. *Administrative Procedure/Regulatory Flexibility:* Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 USC 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 USC 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. Dated: September 2, 2005. James C. Leonard III, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles and Apparel. [FR Doc.05-17826 Filed 9-2-05; 2:43 pm]
Connectionstraces to 17
Traces to 17 documents
CFR
5 references not yet in our index
  • 113 F.3d 1220
  • 216 F.3d 1027
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • Pub. L. 108-429
  • 118 Stat. 2603
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice Announcing the Availability of Grant Funds
C.F.R.§ 351.218
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.308
U.S.C.§ 1677a
C.F.R.§ 351.411
C.F.R.§ 351.412
C.F.R.§ 351.403
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
F. App'x113 F.3d 1220
F. App'x216 F.3d 1027
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Cites 22 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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