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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-05-31 · Antitrust Modernization Commission · Notices

Notices. Request for public comment

14,018 words·~64 min read·/register/2006/05/31/06-4997·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION Request for Public Comment AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission requests comments from the public regarding specific questions relating to the issues selected for Commission study. DATES: Comments are due by June 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: By electronic mail: *comments@amc.gov.* By mail: Antitrust Modernization Commission, Attn: Public Comments, 1120 G Street, NW., Suite 810, Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. Telephone:
(202)233-0701; e-mail: *info@amc.gov.* Internet: *http://www.amc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Antitrust Modernization Commission was established to “examine whether the need exists to modernize the antitrust laws and to identify and study related issues.” Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1856. In conducting its review of the antitrust laws, the Commission is required to “solicit the views of all parties concerned with the operation of the antitrust laws.” *Id.* By this request for comments, the Commission seeks to provide a full opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input regarding certain issues selected for Commission study. From time to time, the Commission may issue additional requests for comment on issues selected for study. Comments should be submitted in written form. Comments should identify the topic to which it relates. Comments need not address every question within the topic. Comments exceeding 1500 words should include a brief (less than 250 word) summary. Commenters may submit additional background materials (such as articles, data, or other information) relating to the topic by separate attachment. Comments should identify the person or organization submitting the comments. If comments are submitted by an organization, the submission should identify a contact person within the organization. Comments should include the following contact information for the submitter: An address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available). Comments submitted to the Commission will be made available to the public in accordance with Federal laws. Comments may be submitted either in hard copy or electronic form. Electronic submissions may be sent by electronic mail to *comments@amc.gov.* Comments submitted in hard copy should be delivered to the address specified above, and should enclose, if possible, a CD-ROM or a 3 1/2 inch computer diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. The Commission prefers to receive electronic documents (whether by e-mail or on CD-ROM/diskette) in portable document format (.pdf), but also will accept comments in Microsoft Word format. The AMC has issued this request for comments pursuant to its authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1758, 1856; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., § 10(a)(3). Topic for Comment The Commission requests comment on the following topic. Criminal Remedies 1. Some observers have opined that application of 18 U.S.C. 3571(d) consistent with the Constitution may be difficult in all but the most unusual circumstances after *United States* v. *Booker,* 543 U.S. 220 (2005), given *Booker* 's requirement that the gain or loss be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Should 18 U.S.C. 3571(d) be amended so that it is not applicable in Sherman Act prosecutions? If Section 3571(d) were made inapplicable to Sherman Act prosecutions, should the maximum fine under the Sherman Act be increased? If so, what should be the revised fine amount? 2. In responding to the first question, please also comment on the following: a. What is the practical difficulty of proving gain or loss from an antitrust violation beyond a reasonable doubt? b. If evaluation of the amount of gain or loss requires or warrants expert testimony, can it be said as a matter of law that gain or loss cannot, in such a case, be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? c. Why do businesses agree, post- *Booker,* to pay fine amounts in excess of the $10 million (now $100 million) statutory maximum? d. Is the threat of criminal prosecution of a greater number of individuals employed by a business, or of more serious sentences for the business's individuals, a factor that leads some businesses to agree to pay fine amounts in excess of the $10 million or $100 million maxima? Dated: May 24, 2006. By direction of the Antitrust Modernization Commission. Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director and General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. [FR Doc. E6-8313 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-YH-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department of Commerce also received a request to revoke one antidumping duty order in part. DATES: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of 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)482-4697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2002), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. The Department also received timely requests to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey with respect to two exporters. INITIATION OF REVIEWS: In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than April 30, 2007. Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period to be Reviewed RUSSIA: Magnesium Metal A-821-819 10/4/04 - 3/31/06 PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation Solikamsk Magnesium Works THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Brake Rotors 1 A-570-846 4/1/05 - 3/31/06 National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation or China National Automotive Industry Import & Export Corporation, and manufactured by any company other than Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (“Laizhou CAPCO”) Laizhou CAPCO, and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou CAPCO Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., or Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd. Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd., and manufactured by any company other than Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., or Shenayang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltda., China National Industrial Machinery Import & Export Company Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Factory Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Company Qingdao Gren Co. Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. Zibo Luzhou Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd. Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd. Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. Shangdong Huanri Group Co., Ltd. Shangdong Huanri Group General Company Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. Zibo Golden Harvest Machinery Limited Company Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. Xianghe Xumingyuan Auto Parts Co., Ltd. Xiangfen Hengtai Brake System Co., Ltd. Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd. Qingdao Rotec Auto Parts Co., Ltd. Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co. Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co. Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd. Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 2 A-570-875 4/1/05 - 3/31/06 Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd. Jinan Meide Corporation Myland Industrial Co., Ltd. SFTEC TURKEY: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars A-489-807 4/1/05 - 3/31/06 Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colokaglu Dis Ticaret A.S. Diler Demir Celik Endustri ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S. and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S. and Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S. HABAS Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S.and Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S. Countervailing Duty Proceeding None. Suspension Agreements None. 1 If one of the named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of brake rotors from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part. 2 If one of the named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporters are a part. During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v.United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: May 24, 2006. Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8388 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-274-804] Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Stephanie Moore
(202)482-5973 or
(202)482-3692, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 1, 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and alloy steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago, covering the period October 1, 2004, to September 30, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 72107 (December 1, 2005). The preliminary results of this review are currently due no later than July 3, 2006. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination in an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Consistent with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the 245-day period to 365 days if it is not practicable to complete the review within a 245-day period. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable. Specifically, we need additional time to thoroughly consider the responses to the supplemental questionnaires the Department has sent to the respondents. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 days to October 31, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than October 31, 2006. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 24, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8391 Filed 5-30-06; 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: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has received a timely request to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a review for Shanghai Strong International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Strong). EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin C. Begnal or Scot T. Fullerton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1442 or
(202)482-1386, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received a timely request from Shanghai Strong on March 24, 2006, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. *See Notice of Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 62 FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(A), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), in its request for review, Shanghai Strong certified that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation
(POI)and that since the initiation of the investigation it has never been affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Jiangsu Hongda Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Hongda), Shanghai Strong's producer, certified that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI and that since the initiation of the investigation it has never been affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Shanghai Strong submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)the date on which it first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States and the date on which the subject merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption;
(2)the volume of its first shipment; and
(3)the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. On March 29, 2006, we requested from U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)the entry package for Shanghai Strong, and on April 21, 2006, we received from CBP the entry documentation. However, we found certain discrepancies between the documentation provided by Shanghai Strong in its request for a new shipper review and the entry package we received from CBP. 1 On May 1, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the time limit to initiate this new shipper review by 30 days in order to provide Shanghai Strong an opportunity to explain or resolve the inconsistencies in the entry documentation. 2 On May 3, 2006, we received a revised Entry Summary (CF7501) from Shanghai Strong for this shipment, and on May 5, 2006, we spoke with Ms. Yingchao Xiao, of Lee & Xiao, counsel to Shanghai Strong, who informed us that Shanghai Strong's importer's customs broker had made a mistake while filing the entry documentation for this shipment, prompting a revision. 3 On May 9, 2006, we requested from CBP the revised entry package for Shanghai Strong, and received the entry package from CBP on May 12, 2006. 4 We found that the discrepancy between the information provided by Shanghai Strong in its request for a new shipper review and the original entry package provided by CBP was resolved with the revised information provided by both Shanghai Strong on May 3, 2006, and by CBP on May 12, 2006. 1 *See* Memorandum to the File, from Michael Quigley, Case Analyst, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Re: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Entry Packages from U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Shanghai Strong International Co., Ltd. (May 1, 2006). 2 *See* Letter from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, to Yingchao Xiao of Lee & Xiao, counsel to Shanghai Strong, Re: Extension of Initiation Date of New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (May 1, 2006). 3 *See* Memorandum to the File from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Subject: Telephone Conversation with Counsel for Shanghai Strong International Trading Co., Ltd. (May 12, 2006). 4 *See* Memorandum to the File from Erin Begnal, Case Analyst, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, Re: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Entry Packages from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) (May 12, 2006). Initiation of Reviews In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we are initiating a new shipper review for Shanghai Strong. See Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, New Shipper Initiation Checklist, dated May 23, 2006. The Department will conduct this new shipper review according to the deadlines set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the period of review (“POR”) for a new shipper review, normally initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper review of Shanghai Strong will be September 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. In cases involving non-market economies, the Department requires that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate demonstrate that it operates free of *de jure* and *de facto* government control over the company's export activities. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991); *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); *see also Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401,1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Shanghai Strong, including a separate rates section. The review will proceed if the response provides sufficient indication that Shanghai Strong is not subject to either *de jure* or *de facto* government control with respect to its exports of freshwater crawfish tail meat. However, if the exporter does not demonstrate the company's eligibility for a separate rate, then the company will be deemed not separate from the PRC-wide entity, which exported during the POI. An exporter unable to demonstrate the company's eligibility for a separate rate does not meet the requirements of CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii) and its new shipper review will be rescinded. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Rescission of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 53669 (September 2, 2004); *see also Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 61581 (November 12, 1999). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e), we will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a single entry bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for certain entries of the merchandise exported by Shanghai Strong. We will apply the bonding option under 19 CFR 351.107(b)(1)(i) only to entries from the producer/exporter combination for which Shanghai Strong has requested a new shipper review, *i.e.* , Jiangsu Hongda/Shanghai Strong. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(b)(1) of the Department's regulations. Dated: May 23, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8390 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-891] Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Time Limits for New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review in Conjunction with Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 1, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) agreed to waive the time limits in section 351.214(i) of the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations so that the Department may conduct the new shipper review of hand trucks and certain parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), for the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005, concurrently with the administrative review for the same period. Therefore, we will conduct the administrative and new shipper reviews concurrently. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Nichole Zink, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3874 or
(202)482-0049, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 30, 2005, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision Products, Inc. (the petitioners) requested an administrative review of several companies. Between December 30, 2005, and January 3, 2006, the Department received several additional administrative review requests from certain PRC exporters and one U.S. importer of subject merchandise. On February 1, 2006, the Department initiated the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On February 3, 2006, the Department initiated a new shipper review on Since Hardware, pursuant to its request for a new shipper review filed on December 27, 2005. *See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 5810 (Feb. 3, 2006). The Department received a letter from Since Hardware on May 1, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), to:
(i)waive the time limits for the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and
(ii)allow the Department to conduct Since Hardware's new shipper review concurrently with the separate administrative review of the order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof. Postponement of New Shipper Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3) and Since Hardware's letter, we will conduct this new shipper review concurrently with the December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005, administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC. Therefore, the preliminary results of the antidumping new shipper review, as well as the administrative review, will be due 245 days from December 31, 2005, the last day of the anniversary month of the order. *See* section 751 (a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213(h). Thus, the deadline for the preliminary results of this new shipper review, as well as the administrative review, is September 5, 2006. This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2) and 771(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3). Dated: May 24, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration [FR Doc. E6-8386 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-839] Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind, and Partial Rescission 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 certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. This review covers imports of certain polyester staple fiber from one producer/exporter. We have preliminarily found that sales of the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-1174 and
(202)482-3813, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 25, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published an antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”). *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan* , 65 FR 33807 (May 25, 2000). On May 2, 2005, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 22631 (May 2, 2005). On May 31, 2005, Wellman, Inc.; Invista, S.a.r.L.; and DAK Fibers, LLC (collectively, “the petitioners”) requested administrative reviews of Huvis Corporation (“Huvis”); Saehan Industries, Inc. (“Saehan”); Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. (“Daehan”); and Dongwoo Industry Company (“Dongwoo”). On May 31, 2005, Huvis requested an administrative review. On June 30, 2005, the Department published a notice initiating the review for the aforementioned companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 37749, 37756 (June 30, 2005). The period of review (“POR”) is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. On July 6, 2005, we issued antidumping questionnaires in this review. On August 15, 2005, the petitioners withdrew their request for review of Saehan. On August 22, 2005, the petitioners withdrew their request for review of Dongwoo. On September 9, 2005, the Department received notice that Daehan had ceased operations and had no shipments of the merchandise under review during the POR. *See Memorandum to the File: Questionnaire Response from Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd* . (Mar. 15, 2006). On July 6, 2005, we instructed Huvis to respond to the cost section of the questionnaire because we had disregarded certain below-cost sales in the most recently completed administrative review. *See Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination to Revoke Order in Part* , 69 FR 61341, 61343 (Oct. 18, 2004). We received sections A through D questionnaire responses from Huvis on August 17, 2005, September 2, 2005, and September 16, 2005. In October 2005, and March 2006, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Huvis. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires in November 2005, and March 2006, respectively. In February 2006, we requested Huvis to revise its reported model matching characteristics, as described in the “Product Comparisons” section, below. We received Huvis's response in February 2006. Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the product covered is PSF. PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.20 is specifically excluded from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Partial Rescission and Intent to Rescind As noted above, the petitioners withdrew their requests for review of Saehan and Dongwoo. Because these withdrawals were timely filed and no other party requested a review of these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to Saehan and Dongwoo. As noted above, the Department was notified by Daehan officials that this company ceased operations and had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. The Department confirmed using CBP data that Daehan did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Daehan. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), during April 2006, we verified the information provided by Huvis in Korea using standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings on May 23, 2006. *See Memorandum to the File* , “Verification Report - Huvis Corporation” dated May 23, 2006. This report is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 in the main Department building. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether the respondent's sales of PSF to the United States were made at less than normal value (“NV”), we compared export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by the respondent in the home market covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. For further details, see the “Normal Value” section, below. We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the home market. Where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market, we compared sales made within the window period, which extends from three months prior to the POR until two months after the POR. *See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review (“PSF from Korea: 4th Review Preliminary Results”)* , 70 FR 32756, 32757 (June 6, 2005) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (“PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results”)* , 70 FR 73435 (Dec. 12, 2005)). As directed by section 771(16) of the Act, where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Further, as provided in section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where we could not determine NV because there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value (“CV”). Since the investigation, and throughout the administrative reviews of this antidumping duty order, classification of PSF products with certain physical characteristics within the model matching hierarchy has been highly contentious. ( *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea (“LTFV Investigation: PSF from Korea”* ), 65 FR 16880 (Mar. 30, 2000), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , Comment 10; *Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 63616 (Oct. 15, 2002), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , Comment 13; *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review* , 68 FR 59366 (Oct. 15, 2003), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , Comment 2; *PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results* , and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , Comment 1. In this review, the Department received new information in Huvis's supplemental questionnaire response regarding the physical characteristics of certain PSF products. *See Nov. 29, 2005 Supplemental Questionnaire Response* , Appendix 13. These events led the Department to reconsider whether the product matching characteristics established in the investigation accurately reflect the physical characteristics of the PSF product under review. For this administrative review and the concurrent administrative review of PSF from Taiwan (A-583-833), the Department requested comments regarding the adequacy of the model match criteria to reflect the physical characteristics of the merchandise under review. *See* letter from Julie H. Santoboni to Interested Parties, *RE: 2004-2005 Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan* , dated Nov. 9, 2005, which is on file in the Department's CRU; *see also Memorandum to File: Modifications to the Department's Nov. 9, 2005 Letter to Interested Parties* , dated Nov. 10, 2005. On November 16, 2005, we received comments from the petitioners, Huvis, and Far Eastern Textile (“FET”). On November 28, 2005, we received rebuttal comments from Dongwoo; the petitioners; FET; Consolidated Fibers, Inc. (“Consolidated Fibers”); and Huvis. On December 8, 2005, we received additional rebuttal comments from FET. The comments we received and the facts and information on the record of this review lead us to preliminarily conclude that relying on the model matching criteria established in the *LTFV Investigation: PSF from Korea* does not provide the best product comparisons because the criteria do not adequately reflect the physical differences exhibited by specialty PSF products. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of the Final Determination: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 60776, 60779 (Nov. 8, 1999). Cf. *LTFV Investigation: PSF from Korea* , Comment 10 (recognizing possibility of changing model match criteria as more was learned about PSF, due to the complexities and difficulties in establishing the initial criteria); *Structural Steel Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 6837 (Feb. 9, 2005), and accompanying *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* , Comment 1 (“It is appropriate to consider changes when additional expertise and knowledge with regard to the market demands and market realities of the products subject to the scope indicate that such changes allow more accurate comparison of U.S. and normal value products.”). Therefore, to account for the new information regarding physical characteristics of PSF and to increase product matching accuracy, the Department has preliminarily amended the matching criteria that were established in the original investigation. Accordingly, for the preliminary results, we matched the merchandise under review based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order: loft; specialty fibers; type; grade; cross section; finish; and denier. *See* letter from Julie H. Santoboni to Huvis Corporation, *RE: 2004-2005 Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan* , dated Feb. 2, 2006, which is on file in the Department's CRU. Export Price For sales to the United States, we calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the cost, insurance, and freight (“CIF”); ex-dock duty paid (“EDDP”) - free-on-board (“FOB”); EDDP - cost and freight (“C&F”); or EDDP - CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following movement expenses: inland freight from the plant to port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. customs duty. We increased EP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Huvis provided documentation demonstrating that it received duty drawback under Korea's individual-rate system. *See Sept. 2, 2006 Sections B-D Questionnaire Response (“Sept. 2006, Sections B-D Questionnaire Response”* ), at Appendices C-7 and C-8. In prior investigations and administrative reviews, the Department has examined Korea's individual-rate system and found that the government controls in place generally satisfy the Department's requirements for receiving a duty drawback adjustment ( *i.e.* , that
(1)the rebates received were directly linked to import duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the subject merchandise, and
(2)there were sufficient imports to account for the rebates received). * See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of the Eleventh Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea * , 71 FR 7513 (Feb. 13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum, Comment 2. We examined the documentation submitted by Huvis in this administrative review and confirmed that it meets the Department's two-prong test for receiving a duty drawback adjustment. Accordingly, we are allowing the reported duty drawback adjustment on Huvis's U.S. sales. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of PSF in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and
(C)of the Act, because the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for comparison. B. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) (“ *CTL Plate* ”). In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 1 including selling functions, 2 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. *Id* . 1 The marketing process in the United States and comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. *CTL Plate* , 62 FR at 61732. In performing this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of the respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale appears to occur. 2 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. *CTL Plate* , 62 FR at 61732. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 3 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. *See Micron Tech, Inc. v. United States, et al.* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (interpreting Congressional intent, in accordance with this methodology). 3 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. *See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in *PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results* ). When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sales to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. *See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in *PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results* ). In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data show that the difference in LOT affects price comparability, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Huvis reported that it made direct sales to distributors and end users in both the home market and to the United States. *See August 17, 2005 Section A Questionnaire Response (“Aug. 2005 Section A Questionnaire Response* ”), at 8. Huvis has reported a single channel of distribution and a single level of trade in each market, and has not requested a LOT adjustment. *See Sept. 2006 Sections B-D Questionnaire Response* , at 16. We examined the information reported by Huvis regarding its marketing process for making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including the type and level of selling activities performed, and customer categories. Specifically, we considered the extent to which sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, and warranty services varied with respect to the different customer categories ( *i.e.* , distributors and end users) within each market and across the markets. Based on our analyses, we found a single level of trade to the United States, and a single, identical level of trade in the home market. Thus, it was unnecessary to make a LOT adjustment for Huvis in comparing EP and home market prices. C. Sales to Affiliated Customers Huvis made sales in the home market to an affiliated customer. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to the affiliated customer to those of unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, we included in our margin analysis only sales to an affiliated party that were made at arm's length. *See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in *PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results* ). D. Cost of Production Analysis As discussed in the “Background” section above, we disregarded some sales by Huvis in a previous review because they were made at prices below the cost of production. Under section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the previously disregarded below-cost sales provide reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent made sales of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Whenever the Department has this reason to believe or suspect, we are directed by section 773(b) of the Act to determine whether, in fact, there were below-cost sales. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), we disregard sales from our calculation of NV that were made at less than the COP if they were made in substantial quantities over an extended period of time at prices that would not permit recovery of costs within a reasonable period. We find that the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities,” when 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department normally considers sales to have been made within an extended period of time when made during a period of one year. Finally, prices do not permit recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time if the per unit COP at the time of sale is below the weighted average per unit COP for the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 1. Calculation of COP We calculated the COP on a product-specific basis, based on the sum of the respondent's costs of materials and fabrication for the merchandise under review, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, interest expenses, and the costs of all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product packed and in a condition ready for shipment, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on COP information submitted in Huvis's cost questionnaire responses ( *See March 20, 2006 Supplemental Questionnaire Response* , at Appendix S-49), except for the following adjustments. Consistent with the previous administrative review, we adjusted Huvis's reported cost of manufacturing to account for purchases of modified terephthalic acid (“MTA”) and qualified terephthalic acid (“QTA”) from affiliated parties at non-arm's-length prices. In doing so, we preliminarily find that MTA and QTA are interchangeable for the following reasons:
(1)the production processes of MTA and QTA are essentially the same;
(2)Huvis has stated it may, in certain instances, use a type of terephtalic acid (“TPA”) different from the one normally used in production of a particular chip without significant changes to the end product; and
(3)Huvis's decision to use MTA or QTA in the production process is driven by plant proximity to the chemical supplier. *See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in *PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results* ). Huvis did not provide market price information for QTA. *See* Memorandum from Team to the File, *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum - Huvis Corporation* (May 23, 2006) (“ *Huvis Calculation Memorandum* ”), which is on file in the Department's CRU. Huvis excluded business restructuring expenses from its net SG&A expense calculation. *See Aug. 2005 Section A Questionnaire Response* , at Appendix A-9; Sept. 2005 Sections B-D Questionnaire Response, at Appendix D-12. For the preliminary results, we have included these expenses because it is the Department's normal practice not to consider business restructuring to be an unusual or extraordinary event. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results and Recision in Part of Antidumping Administrative Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drillpipe From Argentina* , 68 FR 13262 (Mar. 19, 2003), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , Comment 4; *Silicomanganese from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 62 FR 1320, 1322 (Jan. 9, 1997) (unchanged in *Silicomanganese From Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 37869, 37870-71 (July 15, 1997)); *Huvis Calculation Memorandum* . In its net interest expense calculation, Huvis offset its interest expenses by deposits for retirement insurance. For the preliminary results, we have excluded this offset because it is not related to interest income incurred on short-term investments of working capital. *See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results* , and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , Comment 5; *see also Huvis Calculation Memorandum* . Huvis calculated its interest expenses based on its unconsolidated financial statements. Our practice, however, is to calculate interest expenses based on consolidated financial statements. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Furfuryl Alcohol from Thailand* , 70 FR 71085 (Nov. 25, 2005) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , Comment 4. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have recalculated Huvis's interest expenses using Huvis's consolidated financial statements. *See Huvis Calculation Memorandum* . 2. Test of Home Market Prices On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP figures for the POR to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. According to our practice, the prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges and indirect selling expenses. *See, e.g., PSF from Korea: 4th Review Preliminary Results* , 70 FR at 32758 (unchanged in *PSF from Korea: 4th Review Final Results* ). In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made
(1)within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. 3. Results of COP Test We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales and used the remaining sales of the same product, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1). E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices We calculated NV based on the price to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for inland freight from the plant to the customer. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments, where appropriate, by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales ( *i.e.* , bank charges) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., bank charges). *See* 19 CFR 351.410(c). For some of its home market sales, Huvis reported that payments were made within an open account system, *i.e.* , periodic payments were made on outstanding account balances. *See November 29, 2006, Supplemental Questionnaire Response* , at 17. For these open account sales, Huvis calculated the payment date using an average payment period for each customer. *Id.* , at Appendix 18. For one of Huvis's home market customers, we have adjusted the credit period for open account sales to better reflect sales account activity during the POR. For two of Huvis's home market customers, we have adjusted the credit period for open account sales as a result of verification findings. For two of Huvis's home market customers, we have adjusted the credit period for open account sales to reflect the information submitted by Huvis in its March 20, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response. We also recalculated credit expenses for home market sales that were incurred in U.S. dollars using Huvis's reported U.S. interest rate. *See Huvis Calculation Memorandum* . Preliminary Results of the Review We find that the following dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Huvis Corporation 2.02 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. See section 751(a)(3) of the Act. Assessment Rates and Cash Deposit Requirements Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In its *Sept. 2006, Sections B-D Questionnaire Response* , Huvis submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of record for certain of its POR sales. We examined the customs entry documentation submitted by Huvis and tied it to the U.S. sales listing. We noted that Huvis was indeed the importer of record for certain sales. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer-specific assessment rates, we have treated Huvis as the importer of record for certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported entered value of the U.S. sales and we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis (i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. 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 companies included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed companies did not know their 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). For Saehan and Dongwoo, the Department is instructing CBP to liquidate any entries from these companies during the POR and to assess antidumping duties at the rate in effect at the time of entry. If the Department rescinds this review for Daehan, and in the event any entries were made during the POR through intermediaries under the CBP case number for Daehan, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all others rate in effect on the date of entry, consistent with the May 6, 2003 clarification discussed above. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis, i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);
(2)for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 percent, the “all others” rate established in *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision* , 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 2003). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 23, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8389 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-427-820] Stainless Steel Bar from France: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 23, 2006, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2004 - 2005 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from France. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Ugitech S.A. (Ugitech). The period of review is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger or Terre Keaton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4136 or
(202)482-1280, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The review covers one manufacturer/exporter: Ugitech. The period of review is March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005. On January 23, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from France (71 FR 3463) ( *Preliminary Results* ). We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results of review. Ugitech and the petitioners 1 filed case briefs on March 1, 2006, and rebuttal briefs on March 8, 2006. Neither party requested a hearing. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 1 The petitioners include the following companies: Carpenter Technology Corporation; Crucible Specialty Metals Division, Crucible Materials Corporation; and Electroalloy Corporation, a Division of G.O. Carlson, Inc. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections. The SSB subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” ( *Decision Memo* ) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 23, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the *Decision Memo* , is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memo* are identical in content. Changes from the Preliminary Results Based on the information submitted and our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for Ugitech. Specifically, in the comparison market program, we corrected a programming error associated with the arm's-length test, which caused all of the sales to one home market customer, who was affiliated with Ugitech for only a portion of the POR, to be excluded from the comparison sales data base, rather than only those sales made while it was affiliated with Ugitech. In the margin program, we revised our calculation of the importer-specific assessment rate, which was improperly calculated due to a unit conversion error. ( *See* page 2 of the *Decision Memo* ). Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage exists: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Ugitech S.A 9.68 Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c), we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , is not less than 0.50 percent *ad valorem* ). We calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all the U.S. sales examined and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined. 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 the company included in these final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know 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 Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for Ugitech will be 9.68 percent;
(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 less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.90 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 23, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix-List of Issues *Comment 1:* Levels of Trade in the Home Market *Comment 2:* Whether to Allow Certain Additions to the U.S. Sales Price *Comment 3:* Whether to Collapse Certain Grade Codes for Product Matching *Comment 4:* Whether to Recalculate U.S. Inventory Carrying Expenses for the Further Manufactured U.S. Sales [FR Doc. E6-8387 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-807] Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Amended Final Results Pursuant to Court Decision AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 13, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade
(CIT)sustained the final remand redetermination made by the Department of Commerce (the Department) pursuant to the CIT's remand of the final results of the 2002-2003 administrative review of certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. *See Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. v. United States* , 2006 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 36; Slip Op. 2006-36 (Mar. 13, 2006) (Colakoglu Remand). In this remand, the Department recalculated the margin for Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret (collectively “Colakoglu”), a Turkish exporter/producer of subject merchandise, to use Colakolgu's reported “order” date as the U.S. date of sale. Because all litigation in this matter has now concluded, the Department is issuing its amended final results in accordance with the CIT's decision. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone
(202)482-0656 or
(202)482-0498, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 8, 2004, the Department published its final results, covering the period of review from April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003. *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 64731 (Nov. 8, 2004) ( *Final Results* ), as corrected by *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Corrected Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 68883 (Nov. 26, 2004). In May 2004, Colakoglu contested the Department's date-of-sale methodology for its U.S. sales. On September 27, 2005, the CIT remanded this issue to the Department for further review based on the Department's request to reconsider this issue. *See Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. v. United States* , 394 F.Supp.2d 1379 (CIT 2005). On November 18, 2005, the Department issued the draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand (draft results) for comment by interested parties. In the draft results, the Department explained that upon reconsideration of the date-of-sale methodology used for Colakoglu, it found that the material terms of sale for Colakoglu's U.S. sales were established at the order date. Therefore, the Department stated that it would recalculate the margin using Colakoglu's reported order date as the date of sale. On November 28, 2005, the Department received comments on the draft results from Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation (collectively “the petitioners”). On November 30, 2006, the Department received rebuttal comments from Colakoglu. On January 13, 2006, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand to the CIT. After analyzing the comments submitted by interested parties, the Department continued to find that the appropriate date of sale for Colakolgu's U.S. sales for the time period in question was the order date. On March 13, 2006, the CIT found that the Department complied with the CIT's remand order and sustained the Department's remand redetermination. *See Colakoglu Remand* . On March 24, 2006, consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in *Timken Co. v. United States* , 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the CIT's decision was “not in harmony” with the Department's November 2004 *Final Results* . *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review* , 71 FR 14835 (Mar. 24, 2006). No party appealed the CIT's decision. Because there is now a final and conclusive decision in the court proceeding, we are issuing amended final results to reflect the results of the remand determination. Amended Final Results of Review We are amending the final results of the 2002-2003 review on the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey to reflect a revised weighted-average margin of 4.91 percent for Colakoglu for the period April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003. Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because Colakoglu did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the export prices. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. 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 23, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8385 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-810] Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, an adequate response from respondent interested parties, and respondent interested parties' arguments regarding post-investigation privatization of Usinor, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). As a result of our analysis, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuance or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3692 or
(202)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). On November 9, 2005, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), and on November 16, 2005, on behalf of Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (“Mittal Steel USA”) and Ispat-Inland (“Ispat”); United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”); and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“USW”) (collectively, “domestic interested parties”). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and
(D)of the Act, as domestic producers of a like product and a union engaged in the production of subject merchandise in the United States. The Department received substantive responses from the domestic interested parties as well as from Arcelor S.A. (“Arcelor”), successor-in-interest to Usinor Sacilor; Duferco Coating SA and Sorral SA (“Duferco Sorral”); the European Union (“EU”); and the Government of France (“GOF”) (collectively, “respondent parties”), within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(I). As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department is conducting a full sunset review of this CVD order. The Department determined that the sunset review of the CVD order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France is extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 1995). ( *See* section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act). Therefore, on February 28, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of this full sunset review until no later than May 22, 2006, 90 days from the original scheduled date, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results and Final Results of Full Sunset Review* , 71 FR 10011 (February 28, 2006). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 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, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. Included in this order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular 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 this 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. Excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%%-60%%-20%% ratio. The HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 22, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Preliminary Results of Review The Department preliminarily determines that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked is 0.16 percent *ad valorem* . Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than July 11, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 (c)(1)(i). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310 (c). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than July 16, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 (d). The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than September 27, 2006. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 22, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-8393 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Announcing a Meeting of the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board (ISPAB) will meet Thursday, June 8, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., and Friday, June 9, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. All sessions will be open to the public. The Advisory Board was established by the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-235) and amended by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347) to advise the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of NIST on security and privacy issues pertaining to federal computer systems. Details regarding the Board's activities are available at *http://csrc.nist.gov/ispab/.* DATES: The meeting will be held on June 8, 2006 and June 9, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Doubletree Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Agenda —Welcome and Overview —Briefing on Security and Privacy Profiles under the Federal Enterprise Architecture Program —Board Discussion and Recommendation on the NIAP Program —Privacy Office Panel Discussion —OMB Briefing on FISMA Reporting and Privacy Responsibilities —Agenda Development for September 2006 ISPAB Meeting —Wrap-Up Note that agenda items may change without notice because of possible unexpected schedule conflicts of presenters. Public Participation The Board agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed thirty minutes, for oral comments and questions from the public. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Members of the public who are interested in speaking are asked to contact the Board Secretariat at the telephone number indicated below. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the Board at any time. Written statements should be directed to the ISPAB Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930. It would be appreciated if 25 copies of written material were submitted for distribution to the Board and attendees no later than June 2, 2006. Approximately 15 seats will be available for the public and media. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pauline Bowen, Board Secretariat, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930, telephone:
(301)975-2938. Dated: May 22, 2006. Hratch G. Semerjian, Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-8379 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-CN-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Time and Date: 10 a.m., Friday, June 16, 2006. Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. Status: Closed. Matters to be Considered: Rule Enforcement Review. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-4997 Filed 5-25-06; 4:06 pm]
Connectionstraces to 16
Traces to 16 documents
CFR
11 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 107-273
  • 116 Stat. 1856
  • 116 Stat. 1758
  • 543 U.S. 220
  • 291 F.3d 806
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • 394 F. Supp. 2d 1379
  • 893 F.2d 337
  • Pub. L. 100-235
  • Pub. L. 107-347
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Request for public comment
U.S.C.§ 3571
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.221
C.F.R.§ 351.305
U.S.C.§ 1675
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.302
C.F.R.§ 351.107
C.F.R.§ 351.412
SCOTUS543 U.S. 220
F. App'x291 F.3d 806
F. App'x117 F.3d 1401
Cites 27 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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