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 · 2005-10-07 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Initiation of countervailing duty investigation

14,237 words·~65 min read·/register/2005/10/07/05-20197

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

BILLING CODE 3510-05-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-828] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Notice of Intent To Rescind Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 22, 2005, the Department of Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Brazil for the period March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005.
The Department intends to rescind this review after determining that one of the parties subject to this review did not have entries during the period of review
(POR)upon which to assess antidumping duties, and that the other party had no entries in addition to those that are already being examined in an ongoing new shipper review. Effective Date: October 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Kristin Najdi at
(202)482-0405 or
(202)482-8221, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Brazil for the period March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005. See *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation,* 70 FR 9918 (March 1, 2005). On March 31, 2005, United States Steel Corporation
(USSC)and Nucor Corporation (Nucor), domestic producers of the subject merchandise, made timely requests that the Department conduct an administrative review of Companhia Siderurgica Nacional
(CSN)and Companhia Siderurgica de Tubarao (CST). On April 22, 2005, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (the Act), the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See *Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 70 FR 20862 (April 22, 2005). On April 28, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to CSN and CST. Both CSN and CST requested rescission of this administrative review. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of HTSUS definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(2)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(3)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.012 percent of boron, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including *e.g.* , ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506). • SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: [In percent] C Mn
(max)P
(max)S
(max)Si Cr Cu Ni
(max)0.10-0.14 0.90 0.025 0.005 0.30-0.50 0.30-0.50 0.20-0.40 0.20 Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000-88,000 psi. • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: [In percent] C Mn P
(max)S
(max)Si Cr Cu
(max)Ni
(max)Mo
(max)0.10-0.16 0.70-0.90 0.025 0.006 0.30-0.50 0.30-0.50 0.25 0.20 0.21 Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: [In percent] C Mn P S Si Cr Cu Ni V
(max)Cb
(max)0.10-0.14 1.30-1.80 0.025 0.005 0.30-0.50 0.50-0.70 0.20-0.40 0.20 0.10 0.08 Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. • Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications. [In percent] C
(max)Mn
(max)P
(max)S
(max)Si
(max)Cr
(max)Cu
(max)Ni
(max)Nb
(min)Ca A1 0.15 1.40 0.025 0.010 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.005 Treated 0.01-0.70 Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thickness ≤ 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for “thicknesses” > 0.148 inches; account for 64 FR 38650; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. • Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either
(i)tensile strength between 540 N/mm 2 and 640 N/mm 2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or
(ii)a tensile strength between 590 N/mm 2 and 690 N/mm 2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 25 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above. • Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium. • Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum copper content of 0.20%. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Intent To Rescind Administrative Review On May 3, 2005, CSN submitted a letter to the Department indicating that it did not have any shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. On May 10, 2005, CST submitted a letter to the Department certifying that the only shipments or entries of subject merchandise it had during the POR are currently being reviewed by the Department as part of a new shipper review of CST for the period March 1, 2004, through August 31, 2004. The Department conducted an internal customs data query to confirm that CSN had no entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR, and that CST had no entries of subject merchandise other than those already being reviewed as part of the current new shipper review. The customs data showed no entries of subject merchandise by CSN during the POR, and no additional entries by CST that should be reviewed. On May 12, 2005, the Department asked the interested domestic parties to submit comments by May 19, 2005, on the requests for rescission. On May 19, 2005, Nucor filed comments objecting to the rescission of the administrative review for CSN, arguing that CSN had sales during this POR that are currently being examined as part of the first administrative review period. Nucor argued that those sales should be reviewed in the current period and that the Department should not limit its decision-making authority by rescinding the current review. Nucor also argued that CST did not certify that it had no sales during the current POR, and that although CST's sales are being reviewed under another proceeding, since CST was the only party that requested that review, it could withdraw its new shipper request subsequent to a rescission of the 2004-2005 proceeding. Should this occur, Nucor claimed it would be prejudiced by a lack of review of sales in either proceeding. Nucor also stated that it is developing evidence that CST was affiliated with other producers by ownership and control mechanisms through Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (“CVRD”) at the time of the investigation, and that Nucor will seek to have the new shipper review rescinded on this basis. Nucor concluded that it would be inappropriate and premature to rescind the 2004-2005 review. Nucor has not thus far submitted any evidence of this affiliation claim to the Department. On May 26, 2005, Nucor filed additional comments arguing that the Department should rescind the 2003-2004 review of CSN's sales and instead review them under the 2004-2005 proceeding. On June 3, 2005, CSN responded to Nucor's letter, noting that Nucor incorrectly identified the issue as to which review period the Department should assign CSN's U.S. sale, and pointing out that the purpose of administrative reviews is to determine the dumping duties to be assessed on entries of subject merchandise made during the POR, citing section 751(a)(2)(C) and the Department's consistent practice of rescinding all administrative reviews where no entries were made during the review period. CSN cited *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Final Results of Administrative Review,* 67 FR 6682 (Feb. 13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 30, in which the Department stated that its interpretation of the statute and regulations, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, does not support conducting an administrative review when the evidence on the record indicates that respondents had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. CSN also cited *Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review,* 70 FR 17656 (April 7, 2005) (“ *Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Preliminary Results* ”); *Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review,* 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005); * Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Administrative Review, * 69 FR 46510 (August 3, 2004); *Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Rescission of Administrative Review,* 69 FR 42967 (July 19, 2004); *Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part,* 69 FR 40859 (July 7, 2004); *Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 34646 (June 22, 2004); and *Allegheny Ludlum Corp.* v. *United States,* 346 F.3d 1368, 1374 (CIT 2003), in which the court upheld the Department's policy of rescinding administrative reviews where there are no entries during the POR. CSN pointed out that Nucor failed to identify even one case in which the Department conducted an administrative review in the absence of any POR entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an administrative review if we conclude that during the POR there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. The Department's practice, supported by substantial precedent, requires that there be entries during the POR upon which to assess antidumping duties. See, e.g. *Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Preliminary Results.* CSN certified that it had no entries of subject merchandise during the 2004-2005 POR, which the Department corroborated on the basis of official data from the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Further, the Department made a preliminary determination in the 2003-2004 administrative review to review CSN's U.S. sale of further manufactured merchandise made after the POR that is linked to an entry during that POR. See *Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,* 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005). The final results of that review are now being published with a signature date of October 3, 2005. CSN had no additional entries to review in the current POR. Finally, as CST had no entries in addition to those already being reviewed as part of a new shipper review, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the 2004-2005 administrative review. Public Comment An interested party may request a hearing within 20 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 34 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 20 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs, must be filed not later than 7 days from the case brief after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1)A statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. We will issue our final decision concerning the conduct of the review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: October 3, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-5539 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-828] Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From Brazil AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 6, 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel products from Brazil. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The merchandise covered by this order is certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel from Brazil as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice. The period of review (“POR”) is March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004. We invited parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results.* Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made an adjustment to the window period for home market sales. We also made a correction to further manufacturing costs in the United States based upon verification findings. However, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Kristin Najdi at
(202)482-0405 or
(202)482-8221, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 6, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results in this administrative review. On May 27, 2005, Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), a domestic interested party in accordance with section 771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), submitted comments. On June 3, 2005, we received a letter from Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (“CSN”), the foreign manufacturer and exporter of the subject merchandise in accordance with section 771(9)(A) of the Act, and Companhia Siderurgica Nacional, LLC (“CSN, LLC”), CSN's U.S. affiliate, responding to Nucor's comments. On July 7-8, 2005, the Department conducted a sales verification of CSN, LLC in Terre Haute, Indiana, followed by a cost verification on July 20-22, 2005. As stated in the *Preliminary Results,* the briefing schedule was extended due to these verifications. On August 24, 2005, we received a case brief from CSN and CSN, LLC, and on August 25, 2005, we received a case brief from Nucor. As per the Department's request, CSN and CSN, LLC resubmitted their case brief on August 26, 2005, incorporating revised bracketing. We received a rebuttal brief from CSN and CSN, LLC on August 29, 2005, and a rebuttal brief from Nucor on August 30, 2005. We asked Nucor to resubmit a revised rebuttal brief with corrected bracketing, which we received on September 2, 2005. No hearing was requested by the September 2, 2005, deadline given in the Department's August 15, 2005, memorandum advising parties of the briefing schedule. ( *See* Memorandum to the File from Kristin Najdi, Case Analyst: Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Hot- Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Brazil, Briefing Schedule—Notification of Parties). No public hearing was held. On July 12, 2005, because it was not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time period, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice extending the time limit for completion of the final results of this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Brazil,* 70 FR 39995 (July 12, 2005). Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(2)the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(3)none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.012 percent of boron, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: —Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including *e.g.* , ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506). —SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher. —Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. —Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. —Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent. —ASTM specifications A710 and A736. —USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: [In percent] C Mn
(max)P
(max)S
(max)Si Cr Cu Ni
(max)0.10-0.14 0.90 0.025 0.005 0.30-0.50 0.30-0.50 0.20-0.40 0.20 Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000-88,000 psi. —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: [In percent] C Mn P
(max)S
(max)Si Cr Cu
(max)Ni
(max)MO
(max)0.10-0.16 0.70-0.90 0.025 0.006 0.30-0.50 0.30-0.50 0.25 0.20 .021 Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: [In percent] C Mn P
(max)S
(max)Si Cr Cu Ni
(max)V
(max)cb
(max)0.10-0.14 1.30-1.80 0.025 0.005 0.30-0.50 0.50-0.70 0.20-0.40 0.20 0.10 0.08 Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications. [In percent] C
(max)Mn
(max)P
(max)S
(max)Si
(max)Cr
(max)Cu
(max)Ni
(max)Nb
(min)CA AL 0.15 1.40 0.025 0.010 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.005 Treated 0.01-0.70 Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thickness ≤ 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses > 0.148 inches; account for 64 FR 38650; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. —Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either
(i)tensile strength between 540 N/mm 2 and 640 N/mm 2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or
(ii)a tensile strength between 590 N/mm 2 and 690 N/mm 2 and an elongation percentage ≥ 25 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above. —Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium. —Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum copper content of 0.20%. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Change Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we made a correction to the window period for home market sales. We also made a correction to further manufacturing costs in the United States based upon verification findings. See the Decision Memorandum. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period of March 1, 2003, through February 29, 2004: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percentage) Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional 0.00 Assessment The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise produced by CSN. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposits The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act:
(1)For the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above;
(2)for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the final determination;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the final determination; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 42.12 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a final 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also is 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 written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 3, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Date of Sale Comment 2: General and Administrative Expenses Comment 3: Treatment of Non-Dumped Sales Comment 4: Expand Cost Reporting Period to Cover the 90/60 Window Period Comment 5: Window Period for Home Market Sales [FR Doc. E5-5540 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-851] Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2005. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that a request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), received before August 31, 2005, meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) of this new shipper review is February 1, 2005, through July 31, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker at
(202)482-0413, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 19, 1999, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 8308 (February 19, 1999). The notice of opportunity to request an administrative review on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC was published on February 1, 2005. *See Notice of opportunity to request administrative review of antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation* , 70 FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). 1 On August 23, 2005, we received a new shipper review request from an exporter Guangxi Eastwing Trading Co., Ltd. (“Guangxi Eastwing”) and its supplier Raoping CXF Foods, Inc. (“Raoping CXF”). 1 Therefore, a request for a new shipper review based on the semi-annual anniversary month, August, would be due to the Department by the last day in August 2005. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff act of 1930 (the “Act”) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Guangxi Eastwing certified that it did not export preserved mushrooms to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), Raoping CFX, the producer of the mushrooms exported by Guangxi Eastwing, provided a certification that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Guangxi Eastwing certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported preserved mushrooms to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Guangxi Eastwing also certified that its export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In addition to the certifications described above, Guangxi Eastwing submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)the date on which it first shipped preserved mushrooms for export to the United States;
(2)the volume of its first shipment; and
(3)the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted customs database queries to substantiate that Guangxi Eastwing's shipment of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and had been suspended for antidumping duties. Initiation of New Shipper Reviews Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we find that the request submitted by Guangxi Eastwing meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for shipments of preserved mushrooms from the PRC produced by Raoping CXF and exported by Guangxi Eastwing. The POR is February 1, 2005, through July 31, 2005. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). We intend to issue preliminary results of this review no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final result of this review no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Guangxi Eastwing has certified that it exported, but did not produce, the preserved mushrooms on which it based its request for a new shipper review. Therefore, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of preserved mushrooms that were produced by Raoping CXF and exported by Guangxi Eastwing until the completion of the new shipper review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: September 30, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-5542 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-449-804] Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler or Constance Handley at
(202)482-0189 or
(202)482-0631, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Latvia. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs
(LM)have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the export price
(EP)and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2005. Background On September 7, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on rebar from Latvia. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine* , 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001). On September 1, 2004, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request the third administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 53407 (September 1, 2004). On September 27, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), LM requested an administrative review. On September 30, 2004, also in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the petitioners 1 requested an administrative review of LM. On October 22, 2004, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004 (the POR). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 69 FR 62022 (October 22, 2004). 1 The petitioners in this case are the Rebar Trade Action Coalition
(RTAC)and its individual members -- Gerdau AmeriSteel, CMC Steel Group, Nucor Corporation, and TAMCO. On November 5, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to LM, specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B-D would be due on November 26, 2004, and December 13, 2004, respectively. 2 The Department received timely responses to Sections A-D of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated supplemental questionnaires. 2 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. (continued...)(...continued) Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On April 26, 2005, the Department published a notice of a sixty-day extension of the preliminary results of this administrative review. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 21397. On July 18, 2005, the Department published a notice extending the deadline for the preliminary results for an additional 60 days. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 41208. This second notice extended the deadline for the preliminary results to September 30, 2005. From August 23 through September 2, 2005, the Department verified LM's sales and cost questionnaire responses at LM's offices in Liepaja, Latvia. The Department will release its verification report under separate cover. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds ( *i.e.* , non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the *Export Price* and *Normal Value* sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison market that are identical with respect to the matching characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondent that fit the definition of the scope of the order and were sold in the comparison market during the POR fall within the definition of the foreign like product. We have relied on three criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: type of steel, yield strength, and size. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. Date of Sale LM used the commercial invoice date as the date of sale in its response. In order to determine whether the invoice date is the appropriate date of sale, we requested that LM submit extensive sales documentation for all U.S. sales during the POR. LM provided us with this information in two submissions dated June 7, 2005, and July 6, 2005. The company's submitted sales documentation included contract addenda and commercial invoices for all U.S. sales. After reviewing LM's submitted sales documentation, we have preliminarily determined that the date of the contract addendum is the date of sale because this date best reflects the determination of the material terms of sale. The use of contract date as the date of sale is consistent with the Department's use of contract date in *Hot-Rolled Steel from Thailand* , 3 in which the Department determined that the material terms of sale for the respondent's U.S. sales did not change between its final contract and final invoice. Because information in LM's contract addenda and invoices is business proprietary, we have explained the date of sale methodology in the analysis memorandum for this determination. *See* the *Memorandum from Shane Subler, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Constance Handley, Program Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum for Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs* , dated September 30, 2005 ( *Analysis Memorandum* ), for further explanation of the selected date of sale. For all home market sales, we have preliminarily used the invoice date as the date of sale based on information on the record. 3 * See Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Subject: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand * , dated April 13, 2004 ( *Hot-Rolled Steel from Thailand* ). Export Price We calculated an EP for all of LM's sales because the merchandise was sold directly by LM to the first unaffiliated purchaser for delivery to the United States, and because constructed export price
(CEP)was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included inland freight, domestic brokerage and handling expenses, and dunnage expenses. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate); that the time of the sales reasonably corresponds to the time of the sale used to determine EP; and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. We found that LM had a viable home market for rebar. As such, LM submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the *Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices* section below. B. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the final results of the second administrative review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by LM have been made at prices below the cost of production
(COP)during the third POR. As a result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for LM for the third POR. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. In accordance with the Department's standard practice, we relied on LM's submitted average COP calculations for the entire POR. Based on our findings at verification, we adjusted LM's submitted calculations for general and administrative (G&A) expenses, interest expenses, and indirect selling expenses. *See the Analysis Memorandum* . 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COPs for LM to its home-market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test We disregarded below-cost sales where
(1)20 percent or more of LM's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, because such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act; and
(2)based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that LM made sales below cost, and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices We determined NV for LM as follows. We made adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS)pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments for LM's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expenses) and adding U.S. imputed credit expenses. In LM's case, the calculation of imputed credit expenses results in a negative number because all of LM's U.S. sales are prepaid. Therefore, the adjustment for U.S. imputed credit reduces NV. In addition, based on findings at verification, we adjusted the reported dates of payment and imputed credit fields for specific sales. *See the Analysis Memorandum* for details on adjustments to these specific sales. Imputed Credit At verification, we found that LM did not have any short-term loans in lats during the POR. Furthermore, we found that LM did not correctly calculate the U.S. dollar interest rate used in its imputed credit expense calculation for U.S. sales. Therefore, LM did not have verified interest rates for either its U.S. or home market sales. As a result, we have preliminarily recalculated LM's home market and U.S. imputed credit expenses by using published short-term interest rates in both lats and dollars. To calculate a surrogate interest rate for home market and U.S. imputed credit expenses, we have followed the guidelines of *Policy Bulletin 98.2* (Policy Bulletin) 4 to select a surrogate interest rate. The *Policy Bulletin* states that the Department must select surrogate interest rates that are reasonable, readily obtainable, and representative of usual commercial behavior. *See Policy Bulletin* at 5. With respect to the calculation of a surrogate U.S. dollar interest rate, the *Policy Bulletin* states, 4 *See Import Administration Policy Bulletin from Carlo Lavanga, Office of Policy, to Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Topic: Imputed credit expenses and interest rates* , dated February 23, 1998 ( *Policy Bulletin* ). For dollar transactions, we will generally use the average short-term lending rates calculated by the Federal Reserve to impute credit expenses. Specifically, we will use the Federal Reserve's weighted-average data for commercial and industrial loans maturing between one month and one year from the time the loan is made. 5 5 *See Policy Bulletin* at 6. Therefore, we have used a POR-average of the interest rates on nonfinancial commercial paper with a thirty-day maturity. These rates are published on the website of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm). The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a government agency that regulates commodity and financial futures, defines commercial paper as “Short-term promissory notes issued in bearer form by large corporations, with maturities ranging from 5 to 270 days.” 6 Therefore, the use of thirty-day nonfinancial commercial paper rates published by the Federal Reserve complies with the *Policy Bulletin's* requirement to use short-term lending rates on commercial and industrial loans with a maturity of between one month and one year. We have selected the thirty-day rate because it is reflective of the circumstances of sales in this proceeding. For further discussion on proprietary information related to the selection of the thirty-day nonfinancial commercial paper rate, *see* the *Analysis Memorandum* . 6 *See* http://www.cftc.gov/opa/glossary/opaglossary_co.htm. For the calculation of home market imputed credit expenses, we have followed the *Policy Bulletin's* guidelines for calculating an interest rate when the respondent received no loans in the currency of home market transactions. The *Policy Bulletin* at page 6 states, “For foreign currency transactions, we will establish interest rates on a case-by-case basis using publicly available information, with a preference for published average short-term lending rates.” Therefore, in the home market, we have preliminarily used a POR-average of the one-month Riga Interbank Offer Rate (RIGIBOR), which is published on the Web site of the Bank of Latvia, Latvia's central bank, at http://www.bank.lv/eng/main/finfo/nt/rgbidrgbor/. The Bank of Latvia defines RIGIBOR as a money market index based on the quotes of the seven largest Latvian banks participating in the Latvian money market. This meets the *Policy Bulletin's* criteria of using surrogate interest rates that are easily obtainable, reasonable, and reflective of commercial behavior. We note that in *Silicon Metal from Brazil* , 7 the Department also used a short-term money market rate as a surrogate for home market interest rates because “this suggests that it is derived from a comprehensive market for short-term debt instruments.” The underlying U.S. and Latvian interest rates used in the calculation are located at Attachments 1 and 2 of the *Analysis Memorandum* . 7 *See Memorandum from Bernard Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Faryar Shizad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Subject: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of Silicon Metal from Brazil - 7/1/1999 through 6/30/2000; Final Results* (February 12, 2002) ( *Silicon Metal from Brazil* ). D. Level of Trade Adjustment In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the EP transaction. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than EP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. In conducting our level-of-trade analysis, we examine the types of customers, the channels of distribution, and the selling practices of the respondent. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that are different for different categories of sales, the functions and activities should be dissimilar. We found the following. For both the home market and U.S. market, LM reported one channel of distribution: direct sales. The company reported three customer categories in the home market:
(1)traders;
(2)end users; and
(3)service centers. For all three customer categories, LM performed the following selling activities: negotiations with customers, order processing, packing, and delivery services. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that LM's home market sales through these three channels of distribution constitute a single LOT. LM reported one customer category in the U.S. market: traders. In comparing the company's U.S. sales to its home market sales, we found that the selling functions performed by LM were very similar in the U.S. and Latvian markets. For U.S. sales, LM conducts negotiations with the traders, processes orders, and arranges delivery to the port. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that U.S. sales and home market sales were made at the same level of trade. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004: Producer Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage) Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs 8.84 The Department will disclose calculations performed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of the sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. In addition, based on proprietary information in a June 17, 2005, memorandum placed on the record of the proceeding by the Department, we have adjusted the calculation of the importer-specific duty assessment rate. For an explanation of the adjustment to the calculated assessment rate, *see* the *Analysis Memorandum* . Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of rebar from Latvia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate listed above for LM will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if a 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 period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 17.21 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 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 entities 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 30, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-5569 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-844, C-560-819] Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India (C-533-844) and Indonesia (C-560-819) AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Initiation of countervailing duty investigation. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is initiating countervailing duty investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain lined paper products from India and Indonesia receive countervailable subsidies. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maura Jeffords and Eric B. Greynolds (India) or Indonesia, David Layton or David Neubacher (Indonesia) AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0371 and
(202)482-5823,(202) 482-3146 and
(202)482-6071,(202) or 482-0371 and
(202)482-5823, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation of Investigations The Petitions Between September 9 and September 26, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received Petitions, and amendments to the Petitions, (“the Petitions”) filed in proper form by Association of American School Suppliers (“Petitioner”). In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (effective January 1, 1995) (“the Act”), Petitioner alleges that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain lined paper products (“certain lined CLPP paper” or “subject merchandise”) from India and Indonesia receive countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury, to an industry in the United States. On September 21, 2005, the Department issued a memo clarifying that the official filing date of the Petitions was September 9, 2005. *See Memorandum from the Team to Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Barbara Tillman: Decision Memorandum Concerning Filing Date of Petitions* , September 21, 2005, (explaining that the proper file date is September 9, 2005, as it was filed at the ITC after the noon deadline on the previous day). The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(E) and
(F)of the Act, and have demonstrated sufficient industry support in accordance with section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act. *See infra* , “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions.” Scope of Investigation S *ee Appendix I* . Comments on Scope of Investigations During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with Petitioner to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27295, 27323 (1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this initiation notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 - Attn: James Terpstra. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Governments of India and Indonesia for consultations with respect to the Petitions. The Department held consultations with the Government of Indonesia on September 23, 2005. The points raised in the consultations are described in the consultation memorandum to the file dated September 26, 2005, and in the Government of Indonesia's September 22, 2005, and September 26, 2005, submissions to the Department, both of which are on file in the CRU. The Government of India declined the Department's invitation for consultations. 1 1 *See* Memorandum to the File from Maura Jeffords Regarding Subject Consultations and the Government of India (GOI), Sept. 22, 2005. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:
(1)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(2)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:
(1)poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or
(2)determine industry support using a statistically valid sample. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the Act directs the Department to look to producers and workers who account for production of the domestic like product. The ITC, which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to the law. *See USEC, Inc. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1 (CIT 2001) (citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States* , 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988)). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” ( *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, India Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). Based on our analysis of the information submitted in the Petitions we have determined that there is a single domestic like product, certain lined paper products, which is defined further in the “Scope of the Investigations” section in Appendix I, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. Our review of the data provided in the petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioner has established industry support representing at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry, requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition, the Department received no opposition to the Petitions from domestic producers of the like product. Therefore, the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the domestic producers who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the Petitions. Thus, the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist* and *India Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Industry Support). The Department finds that Petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in sections 771(9)(E) and
(F)of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigations that it is requesting the Department initiate. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist and India Initiation Checklist* . Injury Test Because India and Indonesia are each a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India and Indonesia materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causations With regard to India and Indonesia, Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulative imports of the subject merchandise. Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the decline in its customer base, market share, domestic shipments, prices and profit. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, India Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III (Injury). Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that
(1)alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and
(2)is accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioner supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the countervailing duty petitions on certain lined paper products from India and Indonesia and found that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating countervailing duty investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain lined paper products from India and Indonesia receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, *see Indonesia Initiation Checklist* and *India Initiation Checklist* . We are including in our investigations the following programs alleged in the Petitions to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in India and Indonesia: I. India: A. *Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (“DEPS”)* B. *Export Processing Zones and Export Oriented Units* 1. Duty Free Import of Capital Goods and Raw Materials 2. Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax Paid on Domestically-Sourced Materials 3. Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil Sourced from Domestic Companies C. *Pre-Shipment and Post Shipment Export Financing* D. *Income Tax Exemption Schemes under Sections 10A, 10B and 80 HHC* E. *Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (“EPCGS”)* G. *Market Access Initiative* H. *Market Development Assistance* I. *Status Certificate Program* J. *State Programs* 1. State of Gujarat Sales Tax Program 2. State of Maharashtra Sales Tax Program II. Indonesia A. *Provision of Logs at Less Than Adequate Remuneration* 1. Provision of Fiber at Preferential Rates 2. Government Ban on Log Exports B. *Subsidized Funding for Reforestation (Hutan Tanaman Industria or HTI Program)* C. *Accelerated Depreciation* We are not including in our investigation the following programs alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in Indonesia: A. *Non-Enforcement of Banking Regulations at Conglomerate-Owned Financial Institutions* Petitioner alleges that the Government of Indonesia's non-enforcement of its laws intended to ensure prudent lending and the solvency of lending institutions permitted financial institutions controlled by forest industry conglomerates to provide credit to producers of the subject merchandise which would not have otherwise been available. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Sinar Mas/APP's affiliated bank, Bank Internasional Indonesia (BII), made loans to its affiliates that exceeded the legal loan exposure limit of the bank to any one affiliated company. Petitioner provided insufficient information regarding the existence of a financial contribution or specificity. B. *Government Protection from Bankruptcy* Sinar Mas/APP had amassed an estimated debt of $13.4 to $13.9 billion in high yield bonds and loans from several domestic and international financial institutions and Export Credit Agencies (ECAs). In March 2001, Sinar Mas/APP unilaterally ceased all of its debt payments. Of this estimated debt, $1.3 billion was owed to BII. In May 2001, the BII and the Sinar Mas/APP debt owed to the bank were placed under the control of the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), a government entity created under the Indonesian Ministry of Finance. In assuming the Sinar Mas/APP debt, IBRA received a lien on all Sinar Mas/APP assets, which gave the agency first rights to Sinar Mas/APP assets. Because IBRA never attempted to exercise its liens, Petitioner alleges that IBRA provided a shield for Sinar Mas/APP preventing foreign creditors from collecting on the estimated $12.6 billion or forcing Sinar Mas/APP into bankruptcy. Sinar Mas/APP continued to operate without any changes to ownership. Petitioner provided insufficient information regarding the existence of a financial contribution or specificity. C. *Invalidation of Bonds Through Court Action* Sinar Mas/APP sued in Indonesian court to invalidate bonds it had issued with an estimated value of $550 million. The bonds were registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange commission, underwritten by Morgan Stanley, and held by international investors. The District Court of Kuala Tungkal ruled that the bonds were invalid on the grounds that they were concocted by the foreign institutions to earn excessive fees. Therefore, the court ruled that Sinar Mas/APP did not have to repay the $550 million in bonds or the accrued interest to its creditors. Petitioner provided insufficient information regarding the financial contribution or specificity. Moreover, according to the information provided by Petitioner, the financial institutions still have the option of appealing the Indonesian court decision. Therefore, the judicial process in this claim has not finished its course. D. *Tax Holidays, Import Duty Exemption and Other Tax Benefits* The Department found in *Indonesian Textiles* 2 that the Indonesian Ministry of Finance may grant industries a variety of tax benefits, such as tax holidays, exemption from capital stamp duties and different levels of exemption from corporate taxes. The industries approved for the tax benefits are deemed “priority” industries by the Ministry of Finance and also are listed on two priority lists called Daftar Skala Priorities (DSP). 2 *See Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations; Certain Textile Mills Products and Apparel from Indonesia* , 49 FR 49672 (December 12, 1984) ( *Indonesian Textiles* ). We do not plan to investigate these alleged subsidies because they were recurring subsidies which occurred in 1983, 22 years ago, and there has been no new information provided by Petitioner to indicate that these programs are still in existence. E. *Working Capital Export Credits* Beginning in June 1983, Indonesian state and private banks offered working capital export credits to domestic companies exporting goods other than gas and oil. The banks decided which companies could borrow and the interest rate to charge. The Department preliminarily found this to be a countervailable subsidy. We do not plan to investigate these alleged subsidies because they were recurring subsidies which occurred in 1983, 22 years ago, and there has been no new information provided by Petitioner to indicate that these programs are still in existence. Other A. *Provision of Capital on Preferential Terms Prior to the Indonesian Financial Crisis* In its September 9th filing, Petitioner alleged that preferential financing was provided to the forest industry during the 1990's and included information regarding loans to Bob Hasan's Kalimanis Group. In its September 22nd submission, Petitioner stated that it did not know whether any members of the Bob Hasan Group produced or exporter subject merchandise, and reserved the right to provide additional information. Therefore, we are not including this allegation in our investigation at this time. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the Government of India and Government of Indonesia. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of these initiations, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain lined paper products from India and Indonesia are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. *See* section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(I) of the Act. Dated: September 29, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies, 1 composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets, 2 including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or “tear-out” size), and are measured as they appear in the product ( *i.e.* , stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of this petition whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated , included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing thereto. 1 For purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic. 2 There shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper. Specifically excluded from the scope of this petition are: • unlined copy machine paper; • writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to products commonly known as “tablets,” “note pads,” “legal pads,” and “quadrille pads”), provided that they do not have a front cover (whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper; • three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include subject paper; • index cards; • printed books and other books that are case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap; • newspapers; • pictures and photographs; • desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not limited to such products generally known as “office planners,” “time books,” and “appointment books”); • telephone logs; • address books; • columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily suited for the recording of written numerical business data; • lined business or office forms, including but not limited to: preprinted business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books; • lined continuous computer paper; • boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not limited to products commonly known as “fine business paper,” “parchment paper, “ and “letterhead”), whether or not containing a lined header or decorative lines; • Stenographic pads (“steno pads”), Gregg ruled, 3 measuring 6 inches by 9 inches; 3 “Gregg ruling” consists of single- or double-margin vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the left of the book. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are the following trademarked products: • Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly TM . 4 4 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • Zwipes TM : A notebook or notebook organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes TM . 5 5 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • FiveStar®Advance TM : A notebook or notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1” wide elastic fabric band. This band is located 2-3/8” from the top of the front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks FiveStar®Advance TM . 6 6 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. • FiveStar Flex TM : A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM . 7 7 Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope. Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 8 The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. 8 During the investigation additional HTS codes may be identified. [FR Doc. E5-5541 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of partially closed meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet Tuesday, November 1, 2005 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee is composed of ten members appointed by the Director of NIST; who are eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, education, and management consulting. The purpose of this meeting is to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include presentations on American Competitiveness and the U.S. Electronics Sector, Nanotechnology, the Current State of Aquaculture and International Economic Challenges. A discussion scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. and to end at 4 p.m. on November 1, 2005, on ATP budget issues will be closed. Agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. All visitors to the National Institute of Standards and Technology site will have to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Donna Paul no later than Friday, October 28, and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Ms. Paul's e-mail address is *donna.paul@nist.gov* and her phone number is 301/975-2162. DATES: The meeting will convene Tuesday, November 1, at 9 a.m. and will adjourn at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, November 1, 2005. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Employees' Lounge, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under SUMMARY paragraph. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Paul, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4700, telephone number
(301)975-2162. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on December 27, 2004, that portions of the meeting of the Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee which involve discussion of proposed funding of the Advanced Technology Program may be closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), because that portion will divulge matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency actions. Dated: October 3, 2005. William Jeffrey, Director. [FR Doc. 05-20197 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 9
3 references not yet in our index
  • 346 F.3d 1368
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
  • 688 F. Supp. 639
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Initiation of countervailing duty investigation
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.212
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.305
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.203
U.S.C.§ 552b
F. App'x346 F.3d 1368
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
F. Supp.688 F. Supp. 639
Cites 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.