Rules and Regulations. Notice; request for comments

Agency: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Action: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject exempted fishing permit (EEP) application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The EEP, which would enable researchers to investigate the feasibility of using a raised footnote trawl to catch haddock and pollock while limiting cod and flounder by catch, would allow for exemptions from the FMP as follows: Gulf of Maine (GOM) Rolling Closure Areas II and IV; and the minimum mesh size for trawl gear. The Assistant Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determinations is made to issue the EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Assistant Regional Administrator proposes to recommend that an EFP is issued that would allow two commercial fishing vessels to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs
Citation: 71 FR (No. 91) · FR Doc. 06-4414 · FR Doc. E6-7207 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am

Summary

As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on sulfanilic acid from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, that revocation of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on sulfanilic acid from India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, and that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of the continuation of these AD and CVD orders. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2006.

Dates

Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2006.

Supplementary Information

Background On May 2, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the AD and CVD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), respectively. See Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). As a result of its reviews, the Department found that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidization, and notified the ITC of the margins of dumping and the subsidy rates likely to prevail were the orders revoked. See Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders , 70 FR 53164 (September 7, 2005) and Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid from India , 70 FR 53168 (September 7, 2005) (collectively, “ Final Results ”). On April 27, 2006, the ITC determined that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Sulfanilic Acid from China and India , 71 FR 24860 (April 27, 2006) (“ ITC Determination ”) and USITC Publication 3849 (April 2006), entitled Sulfanilic Acid from China and India (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-318 and 731-TA-538 and 561 (Second Review)). Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by the AD and CVD orders is all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid (sodium sulfanilate). Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used a a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additive. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry free flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic acid contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Sodium salt of sulfanilic acid (sodium sulfanilate) is a granular or crystalline material containing 75 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content. In response to a request from 3V Corporation, on May 5, 1999, the Department clarified that sodium sulfanilate processed in Italy from sulfanilic acid produced in India is within the scope of the AD and CVD orders on sulfanilic acid from India. See Notice of Scope Rulings , 65 FR 41957 (July 7, 2000). The merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 2921.42.22 and 2921.42.24.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these AD and CVD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy, and of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD and CVD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of these orders is the date of publication in the Federal Register of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of these orders not later than April 2011. These five-year (sunset) reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 4, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7228 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-588-824) Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary Intent to Rescind, In part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE”) from Japan. The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. This review covers imports of CORE from Kawasaki Steel Corporation (“Kawasaki”) and Nippon Steel Corporation (“Nippon Steel”). We have preliminarily found that there were no entries of CORE produced by Kawasaki. Therefore, we preliminarily determine to rescind this review with respect to Kawasaki. Further, we preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise sold by Nippon Steel have been made at less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of Nippon Steel's merchandise during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.106 and 351.212(b). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding should also submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, George McMahon, or James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4161, (202) 482-1167, or (202) 482-3965, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published an antidumping duty order on CORE from Japan on August 19, 1993. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , 58 FR 44163 (Aug. 19, 1993). On August 31, 2005, Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), a domestic producer of the subject merchandise, requested an administrative review (“AR”) of the antidumping order referenced above with respect to Kawasaki and Nippon Steel. See Letter from Nucor Corporation Requesting Administrative Review . On September 28, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty AR. * See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part * , 70 FR 56631 (Sept. 28, 2005). On November 19, 2005, the Department issued Sections A, B, C and D questionnaires to JFE Steel and its affiliate, Kawasho Corporation (collectively “JFE Steel”), and to Nippon Steel. Issuing the questionnaire to JFE Steel was an inadvertent error based on a slight difference between the request for initiation in this and the previous review. In the previous administrative review, Nucor requested an administrative review of “Kawasaki Steel Corp. (and any alleged successor-in-interest including JFE Steel Corp.)” Based on this request, we initiated for Kawasaki /JFE and sent JFE a questionnaire. In the present review, Nucor requested a review solely for “Kawasaki Steel Corporation” and we initiated the review solely for “Kawasaki Steel Corporation.” Because Nucor did not included a review request for “(any alleged successor-in-interest including JFE),” we did not initiate for Kawasaki/JFE, and should not have sent JFE a questionnaire. JFE Steel responded to the Department's questionnaire on November 28, 2006, requesting that the Department withdraw the questionnaire because no AR had been initiated with respect to JFE Steel. The Department agreed and withdrew the questionnaire. See “Intent to Rescind, in Part” section of this notice. In response to the questionnaire it received, Nippon Steel sent a letter to the Department stating it would not participate in the AR. See Letter from Nippon Steel Corporation , Dec. 9, 2005. The Department issued a letter Nippon Steel advising them that nonparticipation might result in the application of adverse faces available (“AFA”) pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). See Letter to Nippon Steel: Nonparticipation in Administrative Review (A-588-824) , Jan. 17, 2006. See “Adverse Facts Available” section of this notice. Intent to Rescind, in Part In response to the questionnaire, JFE Steel submitted letters to the Department arguing that because JFE Steel was not named in the Department's Notice of Initiation, it was not required to respond to the November 19, 2005, questionnaire and requesting that the Department withdraw its questionnaire. See Letter from JFE Steel , Nov. 28, 2005; Letter from JFE Steel , Dec. 9, 2005; and Letter from JFE Steel , Jan. 26, 2006. Nucor submitted a letter to the Department agreeing with JFE Steel that Nucor had not requested a review of JFE Steel and that JFE Steel does not need to respond to the questionnaire. Nucor also stated that information recently became available on the internet that demonstrates that Kawasaki ceased to be a producer and exporter of subject merchandise in 2003, and is no longer capable of exporting subject merchandise to the United States. See Letter from Nucor: Response to Comments by JFE Steel Corporation at 2-3, Dec. 19, 2005. As a result of Nucor's statements, the Department conducted a data query to determine whether there were any shipments of CORE produced by Kawasaki during the POR. The Department found that there were no entries by Kawasaki during the POR. Further, we found that there were no entries under the Kawasaki-specific 10-digit case number. See Memo to the File , Feb. 10, 2006. Additionally, the Department withdrew the questionnaire issued to JFE Steel and Kawasho Corporation. See Letter to JFE Steel , Feb. 10, 2006. Based on our analysis of the shipment data, we are treating Kawasaki as a non-shipper for the purpose of this review. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine to rescind this review, in part. See e.g. , Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review , 65 FR 12209 (March 8, 2000); Persulfates From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review , 65 FR 18963 (April 10, 2000). Scope of Order The products subject to this order include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 mm, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness, or if of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more, are of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e. , products which have been “worked after rolling”) -- for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the scope of the order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from the scope of the order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from the scope of the order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion- resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%%-60%%-20%% ratio. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan , 58 FR 44163 (Aug. 19, 1993). Exclusions due to Changed Circumstances Reviews The Department has issued the following rulings to date: Excluded from the scope of this order are imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99%% zinc, 0.5%% cobalt, and 0.5%% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 62 FR 66848 (Dec. 22, 1997). Also excluded from the scope of this order are imports of subject merchandise meeting all of the following criteria: (1) Widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99%% zinc, 0.5%% cobalt, and 0.5%% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99%% zinc, 0.5%% cobalt, and 0.5%% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 64 FR 14862 (Mar. 29, 1999). Also excluded from the scope of this order are: (1) Carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 mm in thickness and 43.6 mm or 16.1 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum, 20%% tin, 1%% copper, 0.3%% silicon, 0.15%% nickel, less than 1%% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys; and (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 mm in thickness and 20 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%% to 11%% tin, 9%% to 11%% lead, less than 1%% zinc, less than 1%% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45%% to 55%% lead, 38%% to 50%% polytetrafluorethylene (“PTFE”), 3%% to 5%% molybdenum disulfide and less than 2%% other materials. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 64 FR 57032 (Oct. 22, 1999). Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of doctor blades meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524 mm (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 mm (1.25 inches) and 50.80 mm (2.00 inches), a core hardness between 580 to 630 HV, a surface hardness between 900--990 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in percentage by weight: 0.90%% to 1.05%% carbon; 0.15%% to 0.35%% silicon; 0.30%% to 0.50%% manganese; less than or equal to 0.03%% of phosphorous; less than or equal to 0.006%% of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24%%; and the remainder of iron. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 65 FR 53983 (Sept. 6, 2000). Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 mm in thickness and 19.5 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15%% tin; 1 to 3%% lead; 0.7 to 1.3%% copper; 1.8 to 3.5%% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7%% chromium; less than 1%% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 66 FR 8778 (Feb. 2, 2001). Also excluded from the scope of the order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Carbon steel flat products measuring 0.975 mm in thickness and 8.8 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%%-11%% tin, 9%%-11%% lead, maximum 1%% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 13%%-17%% carbon, 13%%-17%% aromatic polyester, with a balance (approx. 66%%-74%%) of PTFE; and (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 1.02 mm in thickness and 10.7 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%%-11%% tin, 9%%-11%% lead, less than 0.35%% iron, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45%%-55%% lead, 3%%-5%% molybdenum disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40%%-52%%) of PTFE. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 66 FR 15075 (Mar. 15, 2001). Also excluded from this order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 mm or 2.75 mm (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 mm or 99 mm (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%%, manganese under 0.4%%, phosphorous under 0.04%%, and sulfur under 0.05%%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7%% copper, 12%% tin, 1.7%% lead, 0.3%% antimony, 2.5%% silicon, 1%% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum; and (2) carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 mm (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 mm or 94 mm (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%%, manganese under 0.4%%, phosphorous under 0.04%%, and sulfur under 0.05%%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7%% copper, 12%% tin, 1.7%% lead, 2.5%% silicon, 0.3%% antimony, 1%% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 66 FR 20967 (Apr. 26, 2001). Also excluded from this order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring a minimum of and including 1.10 mm to a maximum of and including 4.90 mm in overall thickness, a minimum of and including 76.00 mm to a maximum of and including 250.00 mm in overall width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 0.10%%, manganese under 0.40%%, phosphorous under 0.04%%, sulfur under 0.05%%, and silicon under 0.05%%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: under 2.51%% copper, under 15.10%% tin, and remainder aluminum as listed on the mill specification sheet. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 67 FR 7356 (Feb. 19, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Diffusion-annealed, non-alloy nickel-plated carbon products, with a substrate of cold-rolled battery grade sheet (“CRBG”) with both sides of the CRBG initially electrolytically plated with pure, unalloyed nickel and subsequently annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and iron substrate, with the nickel plated coating having a thickness of 0-5 microns per side with one side equaling at least 2 microns; and with the nickel carbon sheet having a thickness of from 0.004” (0.10 mm) to 0.030” (0.762 mm) and conforming to the following chemical specifications (%%): C ≤ 0.08; Mn ≤ 0.45; P ≤ 0.02; S ≤ 0.02; Al ≤ 0.15; and Si ≤ 0.10; and the following physical specifications: Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32 - 55 KSI; Elongation = 18%% minimum (aim 34%%); Hardness = 85 - 150 Vickers; Grain Type = Equiaxed or Pancake; Grain Size (ASTM) = 7-12; Delta r value = aim less than 0.2; Lankford value ≥1.2.; and (2) next generation diffusion-annealed nickel plate meeting the following specifications: (a) Nickel-graphite plated, diffusion-annealed, tin-nickel plated carbon products, with a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion-annealed tin-nickel plated carbon steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of mixture of natural nickel and graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers, nickel-graphite layer only > 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (b) nickel-graphite, diffusion-annealed, nickel plated carbon products, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion-annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and the iron substrate; with an additional layer of natural nickel-graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-graphite, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel-graphite layer ≥ 0.5 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (c) diffusion-annealed nickel-graphite plated products, which are cold-rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having the bottom side of the base metal first electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the top side of the strip then plated with a nickel-graphite composition; with the strip then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel-graphite and the iron substrate on the bottom side; with the nickel-graphite and nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (d) nickel-phosphorous plated diffusion-annealed nickel plated carbon product, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and phosphorus electrolytically plated to the top side of a diffusion-annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; another layer of the natural nickel-phosphorous then electrolytically plated on the top side of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-phosphorous, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-phosphorous, nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel-phosphorous layer ≥ 0.1 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (e) diffusion-annealed, tin-nickel plated products, electrolytically plated with natural nickel to the top side of a diffusion-annealed tin-nickel plated cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled strip initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of natural nickel then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin-nickel combination layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; and (f) tin mill products for battery containers, tin and nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel; then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; then an additional layer of natural tin electrolytically plated on the top side; and again annealed to create a diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; with the tin-nickel, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin layer ≥1 micrometer; tin layer alone ≥0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥1.0 micrometer. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 67 FR 47768 (Jul. 22, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99%% zinc, 0.5%% cobalt, and 0.5%% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99%% zinc, 0.5%% cobalt, and 0.5%% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 67 FR 57208 (Sept. 9, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Flat-rolled products (provided for in HTSUS subheading 7210.49.00), other than of high-strength steel, known as “ASE Iron Flash” and either: (A) having a base layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy applied by hot-dipping and a surface layer of iron-zinc alloy applied by electrolytic process, the weight of the coating and plating not over 40%% by weight of zinc; or (B) two-layer-coated corrosion-resistant steel with a coating composed of (a) a base coating layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy by hot-dip galvanizing process, and (b) a surface coating layer of iron-zinc alloy by electro-galvanizing process, having an effective amount of zinc up to 40%% by weight, and (2) corrosion resistant continuously annealed flat-rolled products, continuous cast, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.06%% by weight, manganese 0.20 or more but not over 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.023, silicon not over 0.03, aluminum 0.03 or more but not over 0.08, arsenic not over 0.02, copper not over 0.08 and nitrogen 0.003 or more but not over 0.008; and meeting the characteristics described below: (A) Products with one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a two-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer and a surface coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, with total coating thickness for both layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with scanning electron microscope (SEM) not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; (B) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a four-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer; with an inner middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, an outer middle surface coating layer of hard nickel and a topmost nickel-phosphorus-plated layer; with combined coating thickness for the four layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; (C) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, luster-agent-added nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; or (D) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, pure nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order , 68 FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2003). Also excluded from the scope of this order is merchandise meeting the following specifications: (1) Base metal: Aluminum Killed, Continuous Cast, Carbon Steel SAE 1008, (2) Chemical Composition: Carbon 0.08%% max. Silicon, 0.03%% max., Manganese 0.40%% max., Phosphorus, 0.020%% max., Sulfur 0.020%% max., (3) Nominal thickness of 0.054 mm, (4) Thickness tolerance minimum 0.0513 mm, maximum 0.0567 mm, (5) Width of 600 mm or greater, and (7) Nickel plate min. 2.45 microns per side. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, In Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan , 70 FR 2608 (Jan. 14, 2005). Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following 24 separate corrosion-resistant carbon steel coil products meeting the following specifications: Product 1 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.625 mm to 1.655 mm in thickness and 19.3 mm to 19.7 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy containing by weight 10%% or more but not more than 15%% of tin, 1%% or more but not more than 3%% of lead, 0.7%% or more but not more than 1.3%% of copper, 1.8%% or more but not more than 3.5%% of silicon, 0.1%% or more but not more than 0.7%% of chromium and less than or equal to 1%% of other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. Product 2 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in thickness and 8.6 mm to 9.0 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9%% or more but not more than 11%% of tin, 9%% or more but not more than 11%% of lead, less than 0.05%% phosphorus, less than 0.35%% iron and less than or equal to 1%% other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 13%% or more but not more than 17%% of carbon, 13%% or more but not more than 17%% of aromatic polyester, and the remainder (approx. 66-74%%) of PTFE. Product 3 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.01 mm to 1.03 mm in thickness and 10.5 mm to 10.9 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9%% or more but not more than 11%% of tin, 9%% or more but not more than 11%% of lead, less than 1%% zinc and less than or equal to 1%% other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 45%% or more but not more than 55%% of lead, 3%% or more but not more than 5%% of molybdenum disulfide, and the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38%% to 52%%) and less than 2%% in the aggregate of other materials. Product 4 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 43.4 mm to 43.8 mm or 16.1 mm to 1.65 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) clad with an aluminum alloy that contains by weight 19%% to 20%% tin, 1%% to 1.2%% copper, less than 0.3%% silicon, 0.15%% nickel and less than 1%% in the aggregate other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. Product 5 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.95 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 19.95 mm to 20 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9%% or more but not more than 11%% of tin, 9%% or more but not more than 11%% of lead, less than 1%% of zinc and less than or equal to 1%% in the aggregate of other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer consisting by weight of 45%% or more but not more than 55%% of lead, 3%% or more but not more than 5%% of molybdenum disulfide and with the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38%% to 52%%) and up to 2%% in the aggregate of other materials. Product 6 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 18.75 mm to 18.95 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35, and other materials less than 1%%; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%%, aromatic polyester 28 to 32%%, and other materials less than 2%% with a balance of PTFE. Product 7 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.21 mm to 1.25 mm in thickness and 19.4 mm to 19.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with lining of copper base alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1%%; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys. Product 8 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 21.5 mm to 21.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05%%, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) lead 33 to 37, aromatic polyester 28 to 32 and other materials less than 2 with a balance of PTFE. Product 9 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.99 mm in thickness and 7.65 mm to 7.85 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17 and aromatic polyester 13 to 17, with a balance of PTFE. Product 10 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in thickness and 13.6 mm to 14 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17, aromatic polyester 13 to 17, with a balance (approximately 66 to 74) of PTFE. Product 11 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.2 mm to 1.24 mm in thickness; 20 mm to 20.4 mm in width; consisting of carbon steel coils (SAE 1012) with a lining of sintered phosphorus bronze alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 5.5 to 7; phosphorus 0.03 to 0.35; lead less than 1 and other non-copper materials less than 1. Product 12 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 43.3 mm to 43.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of aluminum based alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight: tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. Product 13 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 24.2 mm to 24.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of aluminum alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. Product 14 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils, with thickness not less than 0.915 mm but not over 0.965 mm, width not less than 19.75 mm or more but not over 20.35 mm; with a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11%%, lead 9 to 11%%, zinc less than 1%%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1%% and balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 45 to 55%%, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) 3 to 5%%, other materials not over 2%%, balance PTFE. Product 15 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.915 mm or more but not over 0.965 mm; width not less than 18.65 mm or more but not over19.25 mm; with a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11%%, lead 9 to 11%%, zinc less than 1%%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1%%, balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%%, aromatic polyester 13 to 17%%, other materials other than PTFE less than 2%%, balance PTFE. Product 16 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.920 mm or more but not over 0.970 mm; width not less than 21.35 mm or more but not over 21.95 mm; with a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11%%, lead 9 to 11%%, zinc less than 1%%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1%%, balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%%, aromatic polyester 13 to 17%%, other materials (other than PTFE) less than 2%%, balance PTFE. Product 17 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.80 mm or more but not over 1.85 mm, width not less than 14.7 mm or more but not over 15.3 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.5 to 4.5%%, lead 21.0 to 25.0%%, zinc less than 3%%, iron less than 0.35%%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%%, balance copper. Product 18 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 14.5 mm or more but not over 15.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%%, lead 20 to 25%%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%%, balance copper. Product 19 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.75 mm or more but not over 1.8 mm; width not less than 18.0 mm or more but not over 18.6 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%%, lead 20 to 25%%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%%, balance copper. Product 20 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 13.6 mm or more but not over 14.2 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%%, lead 20 to 25%%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%%, with a balance copper. Product 21 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 11.5 mm or more but not over 12.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%%, lead 20 to 25%%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%%, balance copper. Product 22 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 11.2 mm or more but not over 11.8 mm, with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%%, silicon less than 0.3%%, nickel less than 0.15%%, other materials less than 1%%, balance aluminum. Product 23 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 7.2 mm or more but not over 7.8 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%%, silicon less than 0.3%%, nickel less than 0.15%%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%%, balance copper. Product 24 Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.72 mm or more but not over 1.77 mm; width 7.7 mm or more but not over 8.3 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%%, silicon less than 0.3%%, nickel less than 0.15%%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%%, balance copper. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan , 70 FR 5137 (Feb. 1, 2005). Adverse Facts Available On December 9, 2005, Nippon Steel responded to the Department's questionnaire with a letter stating they would not participate in the AR. On January 17, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Nippon Steel stating that nonparticipation could result in the application of AFA pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act. See Letter to Nippon Steel: Nonparticipation in Administrative Review (A-588-824) , Jan. 17, 2006. Since its December 9, 2005, letter, Nippon steel has not responded further to the questionnaire nor otherwise participated in this review. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall use facts available (“FA”) when a party withholds information that has been requested by the Department; does not provide the Department with information by the established deadline or in the form and manner requested by the Department; significantly impedes a proceeding; or provides such information but the information cannot be verified. Because of Nippon Steel's refusal to participate in this AR, the Department must make its determination based upon FA. In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be used in selecting from among facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870, (1994) (“SAA”), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-4199; Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States , 337 F.3d. 1373, 1380-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Nippon Steel's refusal to participate demonstrates that Nippon Steel has failed to act to the best of its ability, as described in section 776(b) of the Act. Thus, we have determined to apply an adverse inference in the selection of FA. When applying an adverse inference, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, a final investigation determination, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record (so-called “secondary information”). No preference among the four alternatives is suggested by section 776(b) of the Act; the only requirement is that secondary information relied upon must be corroborated “to the extent practicable” with information that is “reasonably” at the Department's disposal. In reviews, it is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g. , Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Partial Rescission: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania , 71 FR 7008, 7010-11 (Feb. 10, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Issue 1; Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 19504, 19506 (Apr. 21, 2003) ( citing Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 19546 (Apr. 22, 2002)). The U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) have consistently upheld this practice. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States , 298 F.3d 1330,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ( citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); NSK Ltd. v. United States , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation); Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States , 24 CIT 678, 682-84 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States , 360 F. Supp. 2d. 1339, 1347-48 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See, e.g. , Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances , 67 FR 55792 (Aug. 30, 2002); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value , 63 FR 8909 (Feb. 23, 1998). Additionally, the Department's practice has been to assign the highest margin determined for any party in the LTFV investigation or in any administrative review of a specific order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the Department. See, e.g. , Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F.3d 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce Nippon Steel's cooperation, the Department is assigning an AFA rate of 36.41 percent ad valorem , the highest rate determined in this proceeding, and the margin calculated for Nippon in the original LTFV investigation using information provided by Nippon. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan , 58 FR 44163 (Aug. 19, 1993) (“AD Orders from Japan”). Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate “secondary information” used for FA by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751of the Act, concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. Thus, information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as that used here, constitutes secondary information. See, e.g. , Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003) (“Anhydrous Sodium”) (unchanged in final). The SAA provides that to “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins. The only source for dumping margins is administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that period. See, Anhydrous Sodium , 68 FR at 44284. In this case, the Department is using a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, namely the investigation. Because this margin is being applied to the company for which it was originally calculated, the Department finds that using this rate is appropriate. In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal regarding whether circumstances exist that would render the chosen margin irrelevant. To do so, the Department conducted research in an attempt to find data to corroborate the secondary information. We were unable to find any useful information. See Memorandum to the File from Christopher Hargett through James Terpstra, “Research for Corroboration for Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review for Corrosion Resistant Steel Flat Products from Japan” (May 3, 2006). Further, there is no evidence indicating that the margin used as AFA in this review is not appropriate. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996) (discarding the highest margin because it was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expenses); D&L Supply Co. v. United States , 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). Absent any other information, we find the calculated rate from the investigation to be appropriate in this case. Therefore, the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied, and we determine that the 36.41 percent margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is appropriate as AFA and are assigning it to Nippon Steel. The preliminary dumping margin is as follows: Producer/manufacturer/exporter Dumping Margin (percent) Nippon Steel 36.41 Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing not later than 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Duty Assessment Upon publication of the final results of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because we are applying AFA to all exports of subject merchandise produced or exported by Nippon Steel, we will instruct CBP to assess the final percentage margin against the entered customs values on all applicable entries during the period of review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, as well as any companies for which we are rescinding the review based on claims of no shipments. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the All-Others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (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 original 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) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 36.41 percent, the “All-Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7223 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-848 Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Results and Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed the Department's remand determination and entered judgment in Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States of America , Slip Op. 05-166 (CIT Dec. 29, 2005) (“ Judgment ”), which challenged certain aspects of the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China , 67 Fed. Reg. 19,546 (April 22, 2002) (“ 99/00 Final Results ”), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“ Decision Memo ”). As explained below, in accordance with the order contained in the CIT's December 29, 2005, Judgment , the Department is amending the 99/00 Final Results to treat Jiangsu Hilong International Trade Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Hilong) and Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (Ningbo Nanlian) as unaffiliated, non-collapsed entities. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 4003, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1386. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department first collapsed Ningbo Nanlian and Jiangsu Hilong 1 in the 1997-1998 administrative review. Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Antidumping Duty and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Rescission of New Shipper Review , 65 Fed. Reg. 20,948 (Apr. 19, 2000). The Department continued to find that Ningbo Nanlian and Jiangsu Hilong were a single entity in the administrative review covering the 1999-2000 period. See 99/00 Final Results and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 20. 1 Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corporation (5) became Jiangsu Hilong International Trading Company Ltd. on January 10, 2001. On May 6, 2004, the CIT issued an order remanding the case to the Department and ordering the Department to explain why its findings warranted the collapsing of Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian. Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States , Slip Op. 04-47 (CIT May 6, 2004) (“ CPA Remand ”). The Department submitted its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand on November 2, 2004. See 99/00 Final Remand Results I . On September 13, 2005, the CIT issued its ruling on the Department's remand determination again remanding the case to the Department. See Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States of America , Slip Op. 05-123 (CIT Sept. 13, 2005) (“ CPA Remand II ”). Specifically, the CIT remanded the case for the Department to: (1)(a) Explain with specificity how the interactions between Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian indicate that one company has control over the other or both, especially how the invoices from Jiangsu Hilong to Hontex created a business relationship with Ningbo Nanlian during the period of review (POR), and (b) explain with specificity how Mr. Wei's contacts with Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian demonstrate control of either company on behalf of the other or control over both; or (c) if the Department is unable to provide substantial evidence supporting its collapsing decision, then the Department is instructed to treat Jiangsu Hilong and Ningbo Nanlian as unaffiliated entities, and assign separate company-specific antidumping duty margins to each using verified information on the record. See CPA Remand II . In its remand determination, the Department reviewed the record evidence and completed its Draft Results of Determination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Draft Results”) on November 23, 2005, and released these Draft Results for comment on November 25, 2005. The Department requested that parties submit comments on the Draft Results by close of business on December 1, 2005. No comments were received. The Department submitted the Final Results of Remand to the CIT on December 9, 2005. On December 29, 2005, the CIT affirmed the remand. No appeal to the United States Court of Appeals was filed. Amendment to the Final Determination Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision, effective as of the publication date of this notice, we are amending the 99/00 Final Results and establishing the following revised weighted-average dumping margins: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the PRC Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. 62.51 The antidumping duty rate for respondent Ningbo Nanlian was unchanged from the 99/00 Final Results , as the rate in the 99/00 Final Results for the Ningbo Nanlian/Jiangsu Hilong single entity was based solely on Ningbo Nanlian's sales. Because the Department did not initiate a review of Jiangsu Hilong for the 99/00 period of review (no such review was requested by any party), but only reviewed the company's information as part of the Ningbo Nanlian/Jiansgu Hilong single entity, the Department cannot calculate a margin for Jiangsu Hilong as a separate entity in this segment of the proceeding. The Department will issue assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: May 4, 2006. David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7232 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-588-707 Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE) from Japan manufactured and exported by Asahi Glass Fluoropolymers, Ltd. (Asahi), in response to a request from Asahi. This review covers the period August 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that Asahi sold the subject merchandise to the United States at prices below normal value during the period of review. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos at (202) 482-1757 or Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 24, 1988, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on PTFE from Japan. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan , 53 FR 32267 (August 24, 1988). On August 1, 2005, we published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order covering the period August 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 24, 2005, Asahi and AGC Chemicals America, Inc. (AGC), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales. On September 28, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a detailed analysis of the Department's calculation for this case see the Analysis Memorandum from the case analyst to the file dated May 3, 2006 (Analysis Memorandum). Scope of Order The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order is PTFE, filled or unfilled. The order excludes PTFE dispersions in water, fine powders, and reprocessed PTFE powder. PTFE is currently classifiable under subheading 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This order covers all PTFE, regardless of its tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the order remains dispositive. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of PTFE from Japan were made in the United States at less than normal value, we compared the United States price to the normal value. When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all comparable products sold in the home market that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Constructed Export Price For all sales to the United States, we calculated constructed export price (CEP), as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because all sales to unaffiliated parties were made after importation of the subject merchandise into the United States through the respondent's affiliate, AGC. We based CEP on the packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, net of billing adjustments. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit expenses) and indirect selling expenses. We made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for movement expenses and for CEP profit under section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home-Market Viability Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by Asahi in Japan was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Asahi's quantity of sales in the home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Calculation of Normal Value Because we were able to find contemporaneous home-market sales made in the ordinary course of trade for a comparison to all CEP sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign like product was sold for consumption in the home market. Home-market prices were based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses, as appropriate, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 by deducting home-market direct selling expenses from normal value. We also made an adjustment for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (see Level of Trade ). Level of Trade Asahi reported two channels of distribution in the home market, the large industrial-user (OEM) channel and the service-market (distributor) channel. We examined the differences in selling functions Asahi reported in its responses with regard to the two channels of distribution in the home market. We found that the selling activities associated with sales to OEMs differed significantly from activities associated with sales to distributors in terms of sales forecasting, distributor/dealer training, and use of direct sales personnel. Specifically, Asahi provides sales-forecasting services and direct sales personnel to its OEM customers but not to its distributor customers and Asahi provides distributor dealer training to its distributor customers but not to its OEM customers. Based on these differences we found that the two home-market channels constituted two different levels of trade. In the U.S. market, based on our overall analysis we found that there were significant differences between the selling activities associated with the CEP level of trade and those associated with each of the home-market levels of trade. For example, the CEP level of trade involved no advertising, sales promotion, market research, and technical assistance - selling activities offered at both home-market levels of trade. Therefore, we consider the CEP level of trade to be different from either home-market level of trade and at a less advanced stage of distribution than either home-market level of trade. Consequently, we could not match U.S. sales to sales at the same level of trade in the home market nor could we determine a level-of-trade adjustment based on Asahi's home-market sales of the foreign like product because the CEP level is not identical to either home-market level of trade. We also have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. Thus, for AGC's CEP sales, to the extent possible, we determined normal value at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale to the unaffiliated customer and made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin of 41.96 percent exists for Asahi for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held at the main Department building. We will notify parties of the exact date, time, and place for any such hearing. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be filed no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days from the date of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of the publication of the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. For Asahi's CEP sales we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Asahi for which Asahi did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of PTFE entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for Asahi will be the rate established in the final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not mentioned 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, then 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 producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash-deposit rate shall be 91.74 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Japan , 53 FR 25191 (July 5, 1988). These 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 entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 3, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7233 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-820) Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kavita Mohan or Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3542 or (202) 482-2769, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 31, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (HRS) from India covering shipments of HRS by Essar Steel Limited (Essar) to the United States for the period December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). On January 12, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of review. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006). The final results of review are currently due no later than May 12, 2006. Statutory Time Limits Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination in an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the preliminary determination), respectively. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review We have determined that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limit because the Department needs additional time to consider a complex issue relating to the U.S. price adjustment for countervailing duties imposed to offset export subsidies. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results by 60 days. We intend to issue the final results of review no later than July 11, 2006. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 5, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7227 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-201-827) Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Mexico AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated its sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain large diameter seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Japan and Mexico. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission (the Commission), in its sunset reviews, determined that revocation of the order on seamless pipe from Mexico would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa , 71 FR 24860 (April 27, 2006). Therefore, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(iii), the Department is revoking the antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Mexico. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 2005 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert James, AD/CVD Operations Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0649. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Orders The products covered by this order are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this investigation. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are: A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG), if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. C. Products produced to the A-335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications. D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application, i.e. , line and riser pipe that is (1) Used in a deepwater application, which means for use in water depths of 1,500 feet or more; (2) intended for use in and is actually used for a specific deepwater project; (3) rated for a specified minimum yield strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and (4) not identified or certified through the use of a monogram, stencil, or otherwise marked with an API specification ( e.g. , “API 5L”). With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct the U.S. Customs Service (U.S. Customs) to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, the Department will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-335 specification is being used in an A-106 application, it will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally the Department will require only the importer of record to certify to the end-use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, the Department may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Background On August 11, 2000, the Department published the antidumping duty order on large diameter (defined as greater than 4 1/2 inches) seamless pipe from Mexico. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Mexico , 65 FR 49227 (August 11, 2000). On May 2, 2005, the Department initiated, and the Commission instituted, sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on seamless pipe from Japan and Mexico. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). As a result of its review the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. See Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders , 70 FR 53159 (September 7, 2005). On April 6, 2006, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Mexico would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa , 71 FR 24860 (April 27, 2006) and USITC Publication 3850 (April 2006), entitled Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review). As a result of the determination by the Commission that revocation of this order is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, is revoking the order on seamless pipe from Mexico. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is August 11, 2005, i.e. , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of the antidumping duty order. The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after August 11, 2005, the effective date of revocation of the antidumping duty order. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of the order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. These five-year sunset reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: May 5, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7224 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-851-802, A-791-808) Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated its sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on small diameter seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania and South Africa. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission (the Commission) in its sunset reviews determined that revocation of the orders on seamless pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa , 71 FR 24860 (April 27, 2006). Therefore, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(iii), the Department is revoking the antidumping duty orders on seamless pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2005 for South Africa; August 14, 2005 for the Czech Republic. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert James, AD/CVD Operations Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0649. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Orders The products covered by the orders are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the orders also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically included within the scope of the orders are seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The seamless pipes subject to the orders are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes is use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/ hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications. The scope of the orders includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of the orders. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of the orders. Specifically excluded from the scope of the orders are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are excluded from the scope of the orders, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being used in a covered application. If such information is provided, we will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in covered applications as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-161 specification is being used in a standard, line or pressure application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally we will require only the importer of record to certify to the end use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Background On June 26, 2000, the Department published the antidumping duty orders on small-diameter (defined as less than or equal to 4 1/2 inches) seamless pipe from South Africa. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan; and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Japan and the Republic of South Africa , 65 FR 39360 (June 26, 2000). On August 14, 2000, the Department issued the antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from the Czech Republic. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small-Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic , 65 FR 49539 (August 14, 2000). On May 2, 2005, the Department initiated, and the Commission instituted, sunset reviews of the antidumping duties orders on seamless pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews , 70 FR 22632 (May 2, 2005). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the Commission of the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. See Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 1/2 inches) from the Czech Republic, Japan, Romania, and South Africa; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders , 70 FR 53151 (September 7, 2005). On April 6, 2006, the Commission determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on seamless pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa , 71 FR 24860 (April 27, 2006) and USITC Publication 3850 (April 2006), entitled Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-846-850 (Review). As a result of the determination by the Commission that revocation of these orders is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, is revoking the orders on small diameter seamless pipe from the Czech Republic and South Africa. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is June 26, 2005, for the antidumping duty order on South Africa, and August 14, 2005, for the antidumping duty order on the Czech Republic ( i.e. , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notices of the antidumping duty orders on the South Africa and the Czech Republic, respectively). The Department will notify CBP to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after June 26, 2005, and August 14, 2005, the effective dates of revocation of the respective antidumping duty orders. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. These five-year sunset reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: May 5, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7231 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-428-830) Notice of Extension of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Germany AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Natalie Kempkey, at (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-1698, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping order on stainless steel bar from Germany for the period March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005 ( See Stainless Steel Bar from Germany: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review , 71 FR 5811 (February 3, 2006) (“ Preliminary Results ”)). The current deadline for the final results of this review is June 5, 2006. Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Review Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue (1) the preliminary results of a review within 245 days after the last day of the month in which occurs the anniversary of the date of publication of an order or finding for which a review is requested, and (2) the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days and the final results to a maximum of 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not extend the time limit for the preliminary results) from the date of the publication of the preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limits. Due to the complexity of issues present in this administrative review, such as BGH's claim of a downward adjustment to normal value for home market commissions and the Department's upward adjustment to BGH's cost of manufacture, the Department needs more time to address these items and evaluate the issues more thoroughly. Therefore, we are extending the deadline for the final results of this review by 30 days. Accordingly, the final results will be issued no later than July 3, 2006. This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). Dated: May 5, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-7225 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration [I.D. 050806C] Magnuson-Stenves Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.