Notices. Notice of intent; request for information

67,555 words·~307 min read·/register/2006/09/11/06-7540

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

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-122-822) Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely requests, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products

(CORE)from Canada for the period of review

(POR)August 1, 2004 through July 31, 2005. The review covers two respondents, Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco and Company, Ltd. (collectively Dofasco), and Stelco Inc. (Stelco). The Department preliminarily determines that Dofasco and Stelco made sales to the United States at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on entries of Dofasco and Stelco's merchandise during the period of review. The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Reitze or Douglas Kirby, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0666 and 202-482-3782, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on CORE from Canada on August 19, 1993. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada* , 58 FR 44162 (August 19, 1993), as amended by *Amended Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Orders: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada* , 60 FR 49582 (September 26, 1995) ( *Amended Final and Order* ). On August 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on CORE from Canada. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, the Department received a properly filed, timely request for an administrative review of Dofasco and Stelco from the United States Steel Corporation

(USSC)(a petitioner in the original investigation), as well as from Dofasco, a producer/exporter of CORE from Canada. On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated a review of Dofasco and Stelco. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On December 20, 2005, Dofasco withdrew its request for an administrative review for the current period of review; however, since petitioner had requested a review of Dofasco and Stelco, the Department is not rescinding the administrative review. On October 26, 2005, the Department issued sections A through E of the questionnaire to Dofasco. 1 Dofasco submitted its section A response on December 22, 2005, and submitted its sections B through D response on January 17, 2006. The Department issued a section A through C supplemental questionnaire on April 28, 2006. On May 17, 2006, the Department issued its section D supplemental questionnaire. Dofasco submitted its sections A through C supplemental questionnaire response on May 25, 2006, and Dofasco submitted its section D supplemental response on June 14, 2006. On July 21, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Dofasco. On August 3, 2006, Dofasco submitted its response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. On October 26, 2005, the Department issued sections A through E of the questionnaire to Stelco. Stelco submitted its section A questionnaire response on December 5, 2005, and its sections B through D response on December 20, 2005. On April 27, 2006, the Department issued its sections A through C supplemental questionnaire to Stelco. On May 18, 2006, the Department issued a section D supplemental questionnaire to Stelco. On May 11, 2006, Stelco submitted its response to the Department's sections A through C supplemental questionnaire. On June 1, 2006, Stelco submitted its response to the Department's section D supplemental questionnaire. On July 21, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Stelco. On July 28, 2006, Stelco submitted its response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire. On April 4, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review from May 3, 2006 to August 31, 2006. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 16761 (April 4, 2006). Scope Of The Order The product covered by the order is certain corrosion-resistant steel, and 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 in the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs' purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Included in the order are corrosion-resistant 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 the order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from the 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 the 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. Analysis Affiliation and Collapsing For these preliminary results, we have collapsed Dofasco, Sorevco, and Do Sol Galva Ltd.

(DSG)and treated them as a single respondent, as we have done in prior segments of the proceeding. *See Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada* , 58 FR 37099, 37107 (July 9, 1993), for our analysis regarding collapsing Dofasco and Sorevco. There have been no changes to the pertinent facts such as, for example, ownership structure, that warrant reconsideration of our decisions to collapse these companies. As noted on page A-9 of Dofasco's Section A questionnaire response dated December 22, 2005, Sorevco still operates as a 50-50 joint venture between Dofasco and Ispat Sidbec. DSG is a galvanizing line operated as a limited partnership between Dofasco and Arcelor. As in the prior review; 1) DSG remains a partnership between Dofasco (80 percent ownership interest), and the European steel producer Arcelor (20 percent ownership interest); 2) Dofasco continues to operate DSG, which is located at the Dofasco Hamilton plant, and to treat this line as its number five galvanizing line; and 3) all of the DSG production workers are still employed by Dofasco. *See* pages A-6 and A-9 of Dofasco's Section A questionnaire response dated December 22, 2005. For all intents and purposes, DSG is effectively another production line run on Dofasco's property. *See Certain Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 55138, 55139 (September 13, 2004) ( * Preliminary Results of 10 th Review * ) (unchanged in *Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 13458 (March 21, 2005) ( * Final Results of 10 th Review * )), for our analysis regarding collapsing DSG. Consistent with past segments of this proceeding, in these preliminary results, we have not collapsed Dofasco and its toll producer DJ Galvanizing Ltd. Partnership

(DJG)(formerly DNN Galvanizing Ltd. Partnership (DNN)). *See e.g* , *Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 53621, 53622 (September 9, 2005) ( * Preliminary Results of 11 th Review * ), unchanged in the *Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 13582 (March 16, 2006) ( * Final Results of 11 th Review * ). There have been no material changes in the business relationship between Dofasco and DJG during this POR to warrant reconsideration of this finding. Therefore, for CORE that is processed by DJG before it is exported to the United States, we will, for assessment and cash deposit purposes, instruct CBP to: 1) apply Dofasco's rate on merchandise supplied by Dofasco, Sorevco, or DSG; 2) apply the company-specific rate on merchandise supplied by other previously reviewed companies; and 3) apply the “all others” rate for merchandise supplied by companies which have not been reviewed in the past. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all products produced by respondents that are covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and that were sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with sections 771(16)(B) and

(C)of the Act, where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's October 26, 2005 antidumping questionnaire. Date of Sale Based on our analysis of the questionnaire responses, we are using the same dates of sale that we have used in the past proceedings. *See* , *e.g.* , * Final Results of 11 th Review * . Neither Dofasco nor Stelco reported any changes in their sales processes that would warrant changing their reported dates of sale. For a complete discussion of our date of sale analysis for Dofasco and Stelco, *see Memorandum from Douglas Kirby (AD/CVD Financial Analyst) through Thomas Gilgunn (Program Manager) to the File; Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Analysis of Dofasco Inc. (Dofasco) and Sorevco for the Preliminary Results* , (August 31, 2006) ( *Dofasco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* ), and *Memorandum to the File, from Joshua Reitze through Thomas Gilgunn (Program Manager) re: Analysis of Stelco for the Preliminary Results* , dated August 31, 2006 ( *Stelco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* ), on file in the Central Record Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building (CRU). Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price

(EP)or the constructed export price

(CEP)to NV, as described in the “U.S. Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. U.S. Price In accordance with Section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP when the subject merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, and CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. Also, as discussed below, we conclude that certain Dofasco sales are EP, and that all of Stelco's sales are EP. In accordance with Section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP when the subject merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. Dofasco Dofasco reported four channels of distribution to the United States. *See* Dofasco's December 22, 2005 section A questionnaire response at A-18 through A-19. We have classified Dofasco's Channel 1 (direct shipments) and 4 (direct shipments through commission agents) sales as EP sales. As in prior reviews, we find that Dofasco makes these sales directly to the unaffiliated customer in the United States without the involvement of any affiliated party in the United States (Channel 1) or makes the sale directly to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States (Channel 4). Accordingly, we are treating Channel 1 and 4 sales as EP sales for Dofasco. *See* , *e.g.* , * Final Results of 11 th Review * . All of Dofasco's sales in the United States through its affiliate, Dofasco USA (DUSA), were reported as channel 2 (shipped directly to the U.S. customer) or channel 3 (shipped indirectly to the U.S. customer) sales. Dofasco reported its U.S. sales through DUSA to be CEP sales because they were made for the account of Dofasco by DUSA. *See* Dofasco's December 22, 2005 section A questionnaire response at A-18 through A-19. Therefore, consistent with our determination in prior reviews, we are classifying Dofasco's channels 2 and 3 sales as CEP sales. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 2566 (January 16, 2004) ( * Final Results of 9 th Review * ) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at *Comment 1* , and * Final Results of 10 th Review * at *Comment 5* . Stelco We have classified all of Stelco's U.S. sales as EP sales. As in prior reviews, we find that Stelco makes these sales directly to the unaffiliated customer in the United States without the involvement of any affiliated party in the United States (Channel 1). * See Preliminary Results of 11 th Review * , unchanged in the * Final Results of 11 th Review * . Accordingly, we are treating these respective sales as EP sales for Stelco. Calculation Of Export Price And Constructed Export Price *Dofasco's EP* : The Department calculated Dofasco's starting price as its gross unit price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, making adjustments where necessary for billing adjustments and early payment discounts pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act. Where applicable, the Department also made deductions for movement expenses (foreign inland freight, domestic brokerage, and international freight) pursuant to section 772(c) of the Act. *Dofasco's CEP* : The Department calculated Dofasco's starting price as its gross unit price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, making adjustments where necessary for billing adjustments and early payment discounts, pursuant to section 772(c)(1) of the Act. Where applicable, the Department made deductions for movement expenses (foreign inland freight, international freight, U.S. movement, U.S. customs duty and brokerage, and post-sale warehousing) in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and section 351.401(e) of the Department's regulations. In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and

(2)of the Act, we also deducted, where applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses, including warranty, credit expenses, U.S. commissions, and U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S. inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States and Canada associated with economic activities in the United States. We also deducted CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. As in prior reviews, certain Dofasco sales have undergone minor further processing in the United States as a condition of sale. The Department has deducted the price charged to Dofasco by the unaffiliated contractor for this minor further processing from gross unit price to determine U.S. price, consistent with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. *See Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 53105, 53106 (September 9, 2003), unchanged in * Final Results of 9 th Review * , 69 FR 2566, and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at *Comment 4* . *Stelco's EP* : The Department calculated Stelco's starting price as its gross unit price to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, taking into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment discounts, pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act. Where applicable, the Department made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses (foreign inland freight, domestic brokerage, and international freight) pursuant to section 772(c) of the Act. Normal Value Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. *See* section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined for both Dofasco and Stelco that the quantity of sales in their home market exceeded five percent of their sales of CORE to the United States. *See* section 351.404(b) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP or CEP. *See* “ Level of Trade” section below. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test We used sales to affiliated customers in the home market only where we determined such sales were made at arm's-length prices ( *i.e.* , at prices comparable to the prices at which the respondent sold identical merchandise to unaffiliated customers). *See* section 351.403(c) of the Department's regulations. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and rebates, and packing. *See id* . In accordance with the Department's practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-length prices. *See* section 351.403(c) of the Department's regulations; *Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Where the affiliated party transactions did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. Because the aggregate volume of the sales to these affiliates is less than 5 percent of total home market sales, we did not request downstream sales. See section 351.403(d) of the Department's regulations. Price to Price Comparisons For those product comparisons for which there were HM sales of like product in the ordinary course of trade, we based NV on home market prices to affiliated (when made at prices determined to be arms-length) or unaffiliated parties, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for differences in direct selling expenses, in accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 351.410 of the Department's regulations. We relied on our model match criteria in order to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product based on the reported physical characteristics of the subject merchandise. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. *See* section 771(16) of the Act. *Dofasco* : When comparing Dofasco's Canadian sales to its EP sales, the Department calculated Dofasco's starting price as its gross unit price, taking into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment discounts, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 351.401(c) of the Department's regulations, we added other revenue ( *e.g.* , inland freight revenue), where applicable. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses ( *e.g.* , inland freight and warehousing), when appropriate. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we deducted home market packing and added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 351.410(c-d) of the Department's regulations, we deducted home market direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit, warranty, and royalty) and added U.S. direct selling expenses. Pursuant to section 351.410(e) of the Department's regulations, we offset any commissions paid on EP sales to the United States by deducting home market indirect selling expenses up to U.S. commissions. In comparing Dofasco's EP sales to Canadian sales made at a different LOT, where we found a pattern of price difference, we made an LOT adjustment to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. *See* “Level of Trade” below. We made further adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. When comparing Dofasco's Canadian sales to its CEP sales, the Department calculated Dofasco's starting price as its gross unit price, taking into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment discounts, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 351.401(c) of the Department's regulations, we added other revenue ( *e.g.* , inland freight revenue), where applicable. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses ( *e.g.* , inland freight and warehousing), when appropriate. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we deducted home market packing and added U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 351.410(c-d) of the Department's regulations, we deducted home market direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit, warranty, technical services, and advertising) and added U.S. direct selling expenses. We made further adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Cost Of Production Analysis The Department disregarded certain Dofasco and Stelco sales that failed the cost test in the most recently completed review. * See Preliminary Results of 11 th Review * and * Final Results of 11 th Review * . We, therefore, have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below the cost of production (COP). Thus, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether Dofasco's and Stelco's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP. We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market with model-specific COP figures in the POR. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and financial expenses and packing. In our sales-below-cost analysis, we used home market sales and COP information provided by Dofasco and Stelco in their questionnaire responses. *See* Dofasco's January 17, 2006 section D Questionnaire Response; *see also* Stelco's December 19, 2005 section D Questionnaire Response. We compared the weighted-average COPs to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined 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 in the normal course of trade, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act. 2 On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any movement charges, discounts and rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses. *See Treatment of Adjustments and Selling Expenses in Calculating the Cost of Production (“COP”) and Constructed Value (“CV”)* Import Policy Bulletin (March 25, 1994). 2 Section 773(b)(2)(ii)(B-C) of the Act defines extended period of time as a period that is normally 1 year, but not less than 6 months, and substantial quantities as sales made at prices below the cost of production that have been made in substantial quantities if

(i)the volume of such sales represents 20 percent or more of the volume of sales under consideration for the determination of normal value, or

(ii)the weighted average per unit price of the sales under consideration for the determination of normal value is less than the weighted average per unit cost of production for such sales. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act. Because we compared prices to average costs in the POR, we also determined that the below-cost prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. In certain instances, we found that more than 20 percent of Dofasco's and Stelcos' home market sales of a given model(s) during the POR were at prices below the COP, and, in addition, the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We therefore excluded the below cost sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used constructed value

(CV)as the basis for NV when we could not determine NV because there were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, including the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home market. Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, SG&A expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. *Dofasco* : We used CV as the basis for NV for sales in which there were no usable contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We added reported materials, labor, and factory overhead costs to derive the cost of manufacture (COM), in accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act. We then added interest expenses, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing expenses to derive the CV (and added U.S. credit for comparison to EP), in accordance with sections 773(e)(2) and

(3)of the Act. We calculated profit based on the total value of sales and total COP reported by Dofasco in its questionnaire response, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we deducted comparison market credit expenses from CV (and added U.S. credit) to calculate the foreign unit price in dollars (FUPDOL), pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Since Dofasco did not report its selling expenses, G&A expenses, and profit that we used for CV on an LOT basis, we were unable to identify a CV LOT. 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 LOT as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* section 351.412(c)(2) of the Department's regulations. 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 (November 19, 1997) ( *South African Plate Final* ). In order to determine whether the comparison 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), 3 including selling functions, 4 class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 3 The marketing process in the United States and in the comparison markets begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or consumer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered the narrative responses of each respondent to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 4 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of this preliminary determination, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, technical service, freight and delivery, and inventory maintenance. 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), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales made in the comparison market at the same LOT as the CEP sales. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of the sales in the comparison market. In *Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“ *Micron Technology* ”), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the statute unambiguously requires Commerce to remove the selling activities set forth in section 772(d) of the Act from the CEP starting price prior to performing its LOT analysis. As such, for CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting price of the sales, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act. Consistent with *Micron Technology* , the Department will adjust the U.S. LOT of Dofasco's CEP sales, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as articulated by section 351.412 of the Department's regulations. 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 or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales to Canadian sales made at a different LOT, and where we found patterns of price differences, we made an LOT adjustment to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make a level of trade adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See South African Plate Final* , 62 FR at 61732-33. Dofasco LOT Analysis We obtained information from Dofasco regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of distribution. *See* Dofasco's December 22, 2005 section A Questionnaire Response. In the current review, as in the previous review, Dofasco claimed that sales in both the home market and the U.S. market were made at different LOTs. *See* Dofasco's December 22, 2005 section A Questionnaire Response at A26 to 28. In the previous review, we concluded that Dofasco did sell at different LOTs. * See Memorandum from Douglas Kirby (AD/CVD Case Analyst) through Sean Carey (Acting Program Manager) to the File; Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada: Analysis of Dofasco Inc. (Dofasco) and Sorevco for the Final Results * , (March 16, 2006) ( * Dofasco Final Analysis Memorandum 11 th Review * ), on file in the CRU. We examined the selling activities associated with sales reported by Dofasco to three distinct channels of distribution (automotive, construction, and service centers) in the home market. *See Dofasco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* . We find that home market sales to the construction and service center customer categories were similar with respect to selling and marketing, technical service, freight services, and inventory. Therefore, we find that these customer categories constituted a distinct level of trade (LOTH2). We find that home market sales to automotive customer category differed significantly from LOTH2 sales with respect to sales process, freight services, and technical service, and therefore, constitute a distinct level of trade (LOTH1). Thus, based upon our analysis of the home market, we find that LOTH1 and LOTH2 constitute two different levels of trade in the home market. Dofasco reported EP sales through two channels of distribution: Channel 1 including sales to automotive, service centers, and construction, and Channel 4 sales to construction. *See* Dofasco's December 22, 2005 section A Questionnaire Response at A-19 and A-20. We examined the selling activities associated with sales to construction and service center categories through these channels and found them to be similar with respect to selling and marketing, technical service, freight, and inventory. Therefore, we find that these two channels of distribution to these customer categories constituted a distinct level of trade (LOTU2). We find that sales to the automotive customer category differed significantly from LOTU2 sales with respect to selling and marketing and technical service, but were similar with respect to freight and inventory. Since the sales and marketing and technical service functions comprise significant selling activities, we find that these factors are determinative in finding that sales to this automotive customer category constitute a separate level of trade (LOTU1). Thus, based upon our analysis of Dofasco's EP sales, we find that sales to automotive (LOTU1) and sales to construction/manufacturers and service centers (LOTU2) constitute two different levels of trade. Dofasco reported two channels of distribution related to its CEP sales to automotive customers through Dofasco USA. Pursuant to *Micron Technology* , we excluded any sales activities undertaken by DUSA and only considered the selling activities provided by Dofasco in our LOT analysis. Dofasco reported that these two CEP channels of distribution had the same selling functions and thus constitute a single level of trade. We analyzed the selling functions in both CEP channels and found that Dofasco's CEP sales constituted a single level of trade (LOTU3). We then compared the two EP levels of trade (LOTU1 and LOTU2) and one CEP level of trade (LOTU3) to the two home market LOTs. We found that LOTU2 differed considerably from LOTH1 with respect to selling and marketing, technical service and freight. However, LOTU2 was similar to LOTH2 with respect to selling and marketing, technical service, freight, and inventory. We also found that LOTU1 differed considerably from LOTH2 with respect to technical service. However, LOTU1 was similar to LOTH1 with respect to selling and marketing, technical service, freight, and inventory. We also found that LOTU3 differed considerably from LOTH2 with respect to technical service and freight. However, LOTU3 was similar to LOTH1 with respect to selling and marketing, technical service, freight, and inventory. Consequently, we are matching LOTU2 sales to sales at the same level of trade in the home market (LOTH2), and LOTU1 and LOTU3 sales to sales at the same level of trade in the home market (LOTH1). Where we could not match products at the same LOT, and there was a pattern of consistent price differences between different LOTs, we made an LOT adjustment. *See* section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act; *see also Dofasco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* . Stelco LOT Analysis Stelco stated in its response that it was not claiming an LOT adjustment. However, Stelco did provide information regarding its selling functions, which we analyzed. *See* Stelco's May 11, 2006 section A Questionnaire Response at A-6. In the home market, Stelco reported two channels of distribution (end-users and service centers). We examined Stelco's chain of distribution and the selling activities in the home market. *See Stelco Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* , on file in the CRU. We found that Stelco's home market sales to end-users and service centers differed slightly with respect to freight services, but were similar for sales processes, inventory maintenance, and technical services. Therefore, we find that these customer categories constitute a single level of trade in the home market (LOTH1). Stelco reported only EP sales through one channel of distribution to a single customer category in the United States, end-users. *See* Stelco's May 11, 2006 supplemental sections A, B, and C Questionnaire Response at A-5. Therefore, we have determined that Stelco has only a single LOT in the United States (LOTU2). Since there is only one Canadian LOT and that differs from the single U.S. LOT, we cannot quantify an LOT adjustment. Currency Conversion For purposes of the preliminary results, in accordance with section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Preliminary Results Of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin Dofasco Inc., Sorevco Inc., Do Sol Galva Ltd. 4.78 %% Stelco Inc. 1.45 %% Cash Deposit Requirements If the preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for Dofasco, Sorevco, and DSG will be that established in the final results of this review for Dofasco (and entities collapsed with Dofasco); 2) the cash deposit rate for Stelco will be that established in the final results of this review; 3) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 4) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and 5) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous proceeding conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 18.71 percent. *See Amended Final and Order* . For shipments processed by DJG we will, 1) apply Dofasco's rate on merchandise supplied by Dofasco or DSG; 2) apply the company-specific rate on merchandise supplied by other previously reviewed companies; and, 3) apply the “all others” rate for merchandise supplied by companies which have not been reviewed in the past. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Duty Assessment Upon publication of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department's regulations, the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. Stelco and Dofasco have reported entered values for all of their respective sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have compared the entered values reported by Stelco and Dofasco with the entered values that they reported to CBP on their customs entries and preliminarily find that Stelco and Dofasco's reported entered values are reliable. *See Stelco's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum and Dofascos's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* . Therefore, in accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of the Department's regulations, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and the total entered value of the examined sales. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 41 days of the final results of this review. *See* section 356.8(a) of the Department's regulations. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) 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 intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Public Comment Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the Department will disclose to any party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results, within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit case briefs in response to these preliminary results no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the time limit for filing case briefs in accordance with section 351.309(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities in accordance with section 351.309(d)(2) of the Department's regulations. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting briefs provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a computer diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested, will normally be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs in accordance with section 351.310(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days after the publication of this notice, unless extended. *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act; section 351.213(h) of the Department's regulations. Notification To Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. The preliminary results of this administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14912 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-580-816) Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from petitioners 1 , the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products

(CORE)from Korea. This review covers four manufacturers and exporters (collectively, the respondents) of the subject merchandise: Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., (Dongbu); Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO); Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS), (collectively, the POSCO Group); and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union). The period of review

(POR)is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and Union made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). However, we preliminarily determine that HYSCO did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than NV ( *i.e.* , sales were made at “zero” or *de minimis* dumping margins). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess HYSCO's appropriate entries at an antidumping liability of zero percent of the entered value and instruct CBP to assess Dongbu, the POSCO Group, and Union at the rates referenced in the “Preliminary Results of the Review” section of this notice. 1 Petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation and Nucor Corporation. Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal Steel USA) is a domestic interested party. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska (Union), Preeti Tolani (Dongbu), Victoria Cho (the POSCO Group), and Joy Zhang (HYSCO), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-8362,

(202)482-0395,

(202)482-5075, and

(202)482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping order on CORE from Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea* , 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993) ( *Orders on Certain Steel from Korea* ). On September 20, 2005, we published in the **Federal Register** the *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, respondents and petitioners requested a review of Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union. The Department initiated this review on September 28, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). During the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in which Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union participated, the Department disregarded sales below the cost of production

(COP)that failed the cost test. 2 Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by these companies of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review were made at prices below the COP. We instructed Dongbu, HYSCO, 3 the POSCO Group, and Union to respond to sections A-D of the initial questionnaire, 4 which we issued on September 28, 2005. 2 *Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 53153, 53154 (September 7, 2005) ( * Preliminary Results of the 11 th Review of CORE from Korea * ); *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 (February 13, 2006) and accompanying *Issues and Decisions Memorandum* and *Notice of Amended 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 13962 (March 20, 2006). 3 The Department aligned the 10 th administrative review with a new shipper review of HYSCO. *See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 69 FR 54101 (September 7, 2004) and *Notice of Final Results of the Tenth Administrative Review and New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR 12443 (March 14, 2005). 4 Section A: Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise Section B: Comparison Market Sales Section C: Sales to the United States Section D: Cost of Production and Constructed Value On April 18, 2006, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the twelfth administrative review from May 3, 2006, to August 11, 2006. *See Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 19872 (April 18, 2006). On July 28, August 1, August 2, and August 17, 2006, the petitioners submitted comments with respect to HYSCO, Union, the POSCO Group and Dongbu. On July 28, 2006, U.S. Steel submitted comments with respect to HYSCO. On August 2, 2006, Mittal Steel USA, submitted comments regarding HYSCO. On July 28, and August 17, 2006, Mittal Steel USA submitted comments with respect to Union. On August 1, 2006, Mittal Steel USA and U.S. Steel both submitted comments with respect to the POSCO Group. On August 3, 2006, Mittal Steel USA submitted comments with respect to Dongbu. *See* company-specific Calculation Memoranda for full details. On August 16, 2006, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the twelfth administrative review from August 11, 2006, to August 31, 2006. *See Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 47170 (August 16, 2006). Dongbu On November 18, 2005, Dongbu submitted its section A response to the initial questionnaire. On December 2, 2005, Dongbu submitted its sections B-D response to the initial questionnaire. On June 1, 2006, Dongbu submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's April 27, 2006, questionnaire for sections A through D. On July 25, 2006, Dongbu submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's July 13, 2006, questionnaire for section D. Union On November 18, 2005, Union submitted its section A response to the initial questionnaire. On December 2, 2005, Union submitted its sections B-D response to the initial questionnaire. On May 26, 2006, Union submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's April 24, 2006, questionnaire for sections A through D. On June 23, 2006, Union submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's June 9, 2006, questionnaire for sections A-D. On July 14, 2006, Union submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's July 7, 2006, questionnaire for sections A through D. On August 2, 2006, Union submitted its fourth supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's July 12, 2006, questionnaire for sections A though D. On August 2, 2006, Union submitted its fifth supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's July 25, 2006, questionnaire for sections A through D. On August 16, 2006, Union submitted its sixth supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's August 4, 2006, questionnaire for sections A through D. The POSCO Group On December 2, 2005, the POSCO Group submitted its sections A through D response to the initial questionnaire. On May 23, 2006, the POSCO Group submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's April 18, 2006, questionnaire for sections A through D. On July 21, 2006, the POSCO Group submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's July 7, 2006, questionnaire for sections B and C. HYSCO On December 2, 2005, HYSCO submitted its sections A through D response to the Department's initial questionnaire. On May 15, 2006, HYSCO submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's April 10, 2006, questionnaire for sections A through D. On July 19, 2006, HYSCO submitted a second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's June 30, 2006, questionnaire for sections A through D. Requests for Revision to the Model Match Criteria On November 2, 2005, Mittal Steel USA, a domestic interested party, submitted information to the record regarding the Department's model match methodology on CORE from Korea. This submission also included a request that the Department modify its model match criteria and collect additional and detailed CORE product information from the respondents in this proceeding. Mittal Steel USA's November 2, 2005, submission included a copy of a May 28, 2004, study that it had submitted in the tenth (2002-03) administrative review of this proceeding. Mittal Steel USA's November 2, 2005, submission also included copies of the deficiency comments it submitted with respect to Union, Dongbu, HYSCO, and the POSCO Group in the eleventh (2003-2004) administrative review of this proceeding. 5 These submissions included Mittal Steel USA's previous requests that the Department change its model match methodology and collect additional CORE product characteristics on both a case-wide and a company-specific basis. 5 *See* Mittal Steel USA's November 2, 2005, submission at proprietary attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5 for its June 9, 20, 21, and July 19, 2005, deficiency comments regarding Union, Dongbu, HYSCO, and the POSCO Group, respectively, in the eleventh administrative review of this proceeding. On December 1, 2005, the POSCO Group presented its model match submission (“POSCO model match submission”) discussing its specific arguments regarding its sales and production of laminated CORE products. In its model match submission, the POSCO Group requests that the Department modify the model match criteria for coated and painted CORE products. It also states that the Department has long held that model match criteria should reflect “meaningful” physical and commercial differences between products through the examination of the physical differences and the relative impact these differences have on the cost and price of the subject merchandise. Thus, the POSCO Group argues that the Department should revise the CTYPE field to differentiate certain specialty painted and laminated CORE products from other coated/painted CORE products. In their December 5, 2005, Section B responses, Dongbu, the POSCO Group and Union discuss the various CORE products sold in their home markets. Dongbu explains that laminated products should be separately coded because the product commands a significantly higher price than pre-painted products, the cost of producing the laminated products is significantly higher, laminated CORE production occurs on markedly different coating machines, and the uses of the laminated products differ from the uses of other pre-painted products (including polyvinylidene fluoride CORE (“PVDF”)). Dongbu argues that the TOTCOM ( *i.e.* , total cost of manufacturing) for its laminated CORE products is higher than its PVDF CORE products and, therefore, warrants a separate code. The POSCO Group explains that certain specialty coated/painted and laminated CORE products should be separately coded because the products command a significantly higher price than regular polyester pre-painted CORE products, the cost of producing the specialty coated/painted and laminated CORE products is significantly higher, specialty coated/painted and laminated CORE product production occurs on markedly different coating machines, and the uses of the specialty coated/painted and laminated CORE products differ from the uses of other regular polyester pre-painted CORE products. The POSCO Group explains that the specifics of its arguments can be found in its December 1, 2005, model match submission. Union states that its laminated steel is a corrosion-resistant steel with a polyethylene telephthalate (“PET”) film that is thermally sealed onto primer-coated CORE. Union also states that its affiliate, Union Coating Co., Ltd. (“UNICO”), produces laminated steel that has a colored PVC (“polyvinyl chloride”) film that is attached to the CORE substrate using an adhesive. Union goes on to state that laminating of its CORE products increases its production costs and sales price. In its December 7, 2005, submission in response to the POSCO Group's model match submission and to Union's report of laminated sales of CORE, Mittal Steel USA argues that the Department should not consider any *ad hoc* modifications to the model match methodology employed in this proceeding and reiterates its argument that the Department should heed its repeated requests to collect additional information on all the products, *in toto* , from all the respondents in this administrative review. Mittal Steel USA further argues that the facts in the POSCO Group's request offers support to Mittal Steel USA's argument that the Department's current model match methodology might be fundamentally flawed. Mittal Steel USA states that if the POSCO Group believes the method is inaccurate with respect to certain CORE products, then this is a powerful suggestion that the current model match methodology is potentially inaccurate with respect to all the CORE products in this administrative review as well. Accordingly, Mittal Steel USA believes that it would be unfair for the Department to accommodate the POSCO Group's request, while ignoring Mittal Steel USA's, thereby allowing a one-way adjustment to the model match criteria simply because a respondent is able to provide detailed data with respect to its arguments. Mittal Steel USA argues further that a one-way adjustment would be arbitrary, prejudicial, and an abuse of the Department's discretion. Finally, on January 18, 2006, the United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”), submitted additional factual information to the record. U.S. Steel's January 18, 2006, submission lacked any narrative explanation or description of the eight attachments it submitted to the record. Presumably, these exhibits are deemed, by U.S. Steel, relevant to this topic in this segment of this proceeding. The Department has determined not to alter the model match criteria in this segment of the proceeding. While a number of arguments have been made by some of the interested parties in this segment of this proceeding, none have provided sufficient evidence to compel the Department to change its long-standing practice of applying its current model matching criteria in this segment of this proceeding. For further discussion of this issue, *see* the August 31, 2006, memorandum from James Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, of which the public version is available in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Department building. Period of Review The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Scope of the Order This order covers flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process including products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”). Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from 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. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all CORE products produced by the respondents, covered by the scope of the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to CORE sold in the United States. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V physical characteristics reported by each respondent. Where sales were made in the home market on a different weight basis from the U.S. market (theoretical versus actual weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using the conversion factors supplied by the respondent, before making our fair-value comparisons. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CORE by the respondents to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the Export Price

(EP)or Constructed Export Price

(CEP)to the NV, as described in the “Export Price/Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Export Price/Constructed Export Price We calculated the price of U.S. sales based on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, which defines the term “constructed export price” as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections

(c)and

(d)of this section.” In contrast, section 772(a) of the Act defines “export price” as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection

(c)of this section.” In determining whether to classify U.S. sales as either EP or CEP sales, the Department must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the U.S. sales process, and assess where the reviewed sales or agreements of sale were made for purposes of section 772(b) of the Act. In the instant case, the record establishes that the sales were made in the United States after importation. Dongbu's, the POSCO Group's, Union's, and HYSCO's affiliates in the United States

(1)took title to the subject merchandise and

(2)invoiced and received payment from the unaffiliated U.S. customers for their sales of the subject merchandise to those U.S. customers. Thus, the Department has determined that these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP transactions under section 772(b) of the Act. For Dongbu, the POSCO Group, Union, and HYSCO, we calculated CEP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. warehousing expenses, U.S. wharfage, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, loading expenses, other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S. customs duties, commissions, credit expenses, letter of credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the country of manufacture and the United States associated with economic activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. Where appropriate, we added interest revenue to the gross unit price. In order to ensure that we have accounted for all appropriate U.S. interest expenses (i.e. both imputed and actual) without double-counting, we have utilized the following interest expense methodology. As in a previous review, in the U.S. indirect selling expenses, we have included net financial expenses incurred by the respondent's U.S. affiliates; however, we added U.S. interest expenses only after deducting U.S. imputed credit expenses and U.S. inventory carrying costs, so as to eliminate the possibility of double-counting U.S. interest expenses. 6 6 *See Notice of the Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews: Cold-Rolled

(CR)and Corrosion-Resistant

(CORE)Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea* , 67 FR 11976 (March 11, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, on file in the CRU. Consistent with the Department's normal practice, we added the reported duty drawback to the gross unit price. We did so in accordance with the Department's long-standing test, which requires:

(1)That the import duty and rebate be directly linked to, and dependent upon, one another; and

(2)that the company claiming the adjustment demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of imported raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on the exports of the manufactured product. * See Preliminary Results of the 11 th Review of CORE from Korea * , 70 FR at 53156. HYSCO's Sales of Subject Merchandise that were Further Manufactured and Sold as Non-Subject Merchandise in the United States In its Section A questionnaire response and on November 9, 2005, HYSCO requested that the Department exclude certain sales of subject merchandise that were further manufactured by its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, HYSCO America Company (“HAC”), and sold as non-subject merchandise in the United States during the POR, citing “the extreme difficulty in calculating CEP for these sales through HAC.” 7 The Department issued several supplemental questionnaires to HYSCO regarding these sales. *See* the Department's supplemental questionnaires, dated November 23, 2005, January 4, January 24, and April 10, 2006. 7 *See* HYSCO's December 5, 2005, Section A questionnaire response at 3. In considering the appropriate treatment for these sales, we considered the different transactions involved. In the first transaction, HYSCO sold subject merchandise to an unrelated trading company in the United States; in the second transaction, the unrelated U.S. trading company resold the subject merchandise to HAC, HYSCO's wholly owned U.S. subsidiary; finally, HAC further processed the subject merchandise into non-subject merchandise which it then sold in the United States. With respect to the last transaction, we granted HYSCO's request to not report its further manufactured sales and further manufacturing costs of HAC because such transactions represent a comparatively small portion of its total sales and the value added before the sale to the first unaffiliated buyer substantially exceeded the value of the subject merchandise. Instead, we have included the first transaction in our calculations. It is a sale of subject merchandise by HYSCO to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, in accordance with section 772 of the Act. In addition, although the subject merchandise is subsequently resold to HYSCO's wholly-owned subsidiary, we preliminarily find HYSCO's initial sale of subject merchandise to the unrelated U.S. trading company was not unrepresentative or distortive. *See FAG U.K. Ltd. v. United States* , 945 F. Supp. 260, 265 (CIT 1996). Normal Value Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, discounts, inland freight (offset, where applicable, by freight revenue), inland insurance, and packing. Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for credit expenses, warranty expenses, post-sale warehousing, and differences in weight basis. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home market indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying costs to offset U.S. commissions. We also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. For purposes of calculating the NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines “foreign like product” as merchandise which is either

(1)identical or

(2)similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When there are no identical products sold in the home market, the products which are most similar to the product sold in the United States are identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the actual physical differences between the products sold in the United States and the home market or third country market. *See* 19 CFR 351.411 and section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether CEP sales and NV sales were at different LOTs, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT and the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT adjustment, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). We did not make an LOT adjustment under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because, as there was only one home market LOT for each respondent, we were unable to identify a pattern of consistent price differences attributable to differences in LOTs ( *see* 19 CFR 351.412(d)). Under 19 CFR 351.412(f), we are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO group, and Union because the NV for these companies are at a more advanced LOT than their U.S. CEP sales. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, *see* the August 31, 2006, *Calculation Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.* ; *Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO* ; *Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) - (collectively, the POSCO Group)* ; and *Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.* , of which the public versions are on file in the CRU. Cost of Production A. Calculation of COP We are investigating COP for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO group, and Union because during the most recently completed segments of the proceeding in which Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union participated, the Department found and disregarded sales that failed the cost test. We calculated a company-specific COP for Dongbu, HYSCO, the POSCO Group, and Union based on the sum of each respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market selling expenses, selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on Dongbu's, the POSCO Group's, Union's and HYSCO's information as submitted. B. Major Input Rule 1. *Major Input Rule: HYSCO* Pursuant to section 773(f)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.407(b), the Department may value major inputs purchased from affiliated suppliers at the higher of the transfer price, the market price, or the affiliate's COP. HYSCO reported purchases of raw material input accounting for a significant portion of its total material cost from an affiliated supplier. We requested that HYSCO supply its affiliate supplier's COP information for the major material input. In HYSCO's letter dated July 19, 2006, HYSCO indicated that, despite its repeated requests, its affiliated supplier has refused to provide the COP information. Where an interested party or any other person withholds necessary information that has been requested, the application of facts available is appropriate in reaching a determination, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. Under section 776(b) of the Act, we may use an inference adverse to the interests of an interested party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. In determining whether a respondent has acted to the best of its ability in seeking the COP information from its affiliate, the Department usually examines the nature of the affiliation, in addition to other facts. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 12744, 1275l (March 16, 1998) ( *Plate from Brazil* ). Given the nature of the affiliation, we determine that HYSCO made reasonable attempts to obtain the requested COP information from its affiliate. *See* the August 31, 2006 *Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO* , where the Department discusses HYSCO's specific attempts to obtain this cost data. Therefore, we are not applying an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available. In prior cases, we have turned to other COP information on the record, if available, as non-adverse “gap-filling” facts available. However, the record contains no other information about the affiliated supplier's COP. In prior cases, when there is no such COP data on the record and no indication that the affiliated supplier's COP is higher than the transfer or market price, we have used the higher of the transfer price or the market price as facts available. *See Plate from Brazil* at 12751; *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 16880 (March 30, 2000), and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 6. As facts available for the major input, we are using the market prices that HYSCO reported for its purchases of the major input from unaffiliated suppliers. *See* the August 31, 2006, *Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO* , on file in the CRU. 2. *Major Input Rule: Union* The Department reviewed Union's reported cost of materials for the preliminary results of this review. We found that the transfer price that Union paid to its affiliate for a raw material input was higher than either Union's market price or its affiliated supplier's COP. Thus, Union's COP was correctly based on Union's transfer price. Therefore, we made no adjustments to the reported cost of input materials from Union's suppliers. *See* the August 8, 2006, *Calculation Memorandum for Union Manufacturing Inc* . at 4. D. Test of Home-Market Prices In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the foreign like product and we examined whether

(1)within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and

(2)such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices (not including VAT), less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. E. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we may disregard below COP sales in the determination of NV if these sales have been made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and were not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP for at least six months of the POR, we determined that sales of that model were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act. Where prices of a respondent's sales of a given product were below the per-unit COP at the time of sale and below the weighted-average per-unit costs for the POR, we determined that sales were not at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In such cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” We tested and identified below-cost home market sales for Dongbu, Union, the POSCO Group, and HYSCO. We disregarded individual below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. *See* the August 31, 2006, *Calculation Memorandum for Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.* ; * Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO * ; *Calculation Memorandum for Pohang Iron & Steel Company, Ltd. (POSCO) and Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS) - (collectively, the POSCO Group)* ; and *Calculation Memorandum for Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd* . Arm's-Length Sales The POSCO Group reported sales of the foreign like product to an affiliated reseller/service center. Dongbu and HYSCO also reported that they made sales in the home market to affiliated parties. The Department calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, *i.e.* , sales at arm's length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices. *See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative: Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 71 FR 45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006); 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where we found sales to the affiliated party that did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist: Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Dongbu 1.97%% HYSCO 0.03%% ( *de minimis* ) The POSCO Group 0.48%% ( *de minimis* ) Union 1.69%% The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309. The Department will announce the due date of the case briefs at a later date. Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue, and

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Within 15 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific *ad valorem* rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. The total customs value is based on the entered value reported for each importer for all U.S. entries of subject merchandise purchased during the POR for consumption in the United States. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the 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 or companies involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CORE for Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* , the cash deposit will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 17.70 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the underlying investigation. *See Orders on Certain Steel from Korea* . These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15004 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-485-803) Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from domestic producer, Nucor Corporation, and a Romanian producer/exporter, Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (“MS Galati”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania. The period of review (“POR”) is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. With regard to the two Romanian companies that are subject to this administrative review, producer MS Galati and exporter Metalexportimport S.A. (“MEI”), we preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise produced by MS Galati have been made at less than normal value (“NV”). Since MS Galati had prior knowledge of the destination of the subject merchandise it produced, and MEI does not produce or take title to the subject merchandise, we are assigning a preliminary dumping margin to MS Galati only and rescinding the review with respect to MEI. For a full discussion of the intent to rescind with respect to MEI, *see* the “Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part” section of this notice below. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of the issue(s),

(2)a brief summary of the argument(s), and

(3)a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or John Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3362 or

(202)482-0195, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, the Department received two timely requests for an administrative review of this order. The Department received a timely request from Nucor Corporation, a domestic producer, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of shipments exported to the United States from MS Galati. In addition, the Department received a timely request from MS Galati, requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of subject merchandise produced by MS Galati and exported by MS Galati or MEI. 1 1 On September 29, 2005, IPSCO Steel Inc. (“IPSCO”) submitted a letter indicating its entry of appearance as a domestic interested party. On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania, for the period covering August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005, to determine whether merchandise imported into the United States from MS Galati and MEI is being sold at less than NV. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 13, 2005, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to MS Galati. On November 10, 2005, we received the Section A questionnaire response from MS Galati. On December 1, 2004, and January 26, 2006, respectively, MS Galati filed its Section B and C questionnaire responses, and MEI stated in a separate filing that it did not have any home market (“HM”) sales during the POR and, thus, would not be filing a Section B response. On January 23, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's Sections A through C questionnaire responses. On March 22, 2005, MS Galati submitted its response to the supplemental questionnaire. On April 11, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire with regard to Sections A through D, and received MS Galati's response on April 27, 2006. On December 23, 2005, IPSCO submitted allegations of sales below the cost of production (“COP”) against MS Galati, and, on January 12, 2006, MS Galati submitted its rebuttal comments. Upon a thorough review of IPSCO's allegation and MS Galati's comments, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost investigation on January 23, 2006, and instructed MS Galati to respond to Section D of the antidumping questionnaire. On February 12, 2006, the Department received MS Galati's Section D Response. On March 15, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding MS Galati's Section D questionnaire response. On April 6, 2006, we received MS Galati's supplemental questionnaire response. On April 19, 2006, due to the complexity of the case and pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department postponed the preliminary results in this administrative review until no later than August 31, 2006. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 20076 (April 19, 2006). Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in Part Pursuant to section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. *See* , *e.g.* , *Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002), and *Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001). As discussed above, MEI stated in its January 26, 2006, letter that it did not have any HM sales. Regarding sales of subject merchandise to the United States, during verification, we found that a) MEI is not the producer of subject merchandise, b) MEI does not take title to the merchandise which MS Galati exports through MEI, and c) MS Galati has knowledge of the destination of its subject merchandise exports. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of the Home Market and U.S. Sales Responses of Mittal Steel Galati S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 25, 2006. Therefore, the Department concludes that during the POR, MEI did not produce or export subject merchandise other than merchandise produced by MS Galati, and accordingly we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to MEI. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included under this order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(I) of the Act, and section 351.307 of the Department's regulations, we conducted sales and cost verifications of the questionnaire responses of MS Galati and Mittal Steel North America (“MSNA”). We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of MS Galati's production facility. Our verification results are outlined in the following memoranda:

(1)Memorandum to the File, through Peter Scholl, Program Manager, Verification of the Cost Response of Mittal Steel Galati S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania , dated August 21, 2006 (“MS Galati Cost Verification Report”);

(2)Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of the Home Market and U.S. Sales Responses of Mittal Steel Galati S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 31, 2006 (“MS Galati Sales Verification Report”); and

(3)Memorandum to the File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of U.S. Sales Information Submitted by Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (“MS Galati”) in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 30, 2006 (“CEP Verification Report”). Public versions of these reports are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations based on the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Date of Sale The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. *See* section 351.401(I) of the Department's regulations. If the Department can establish “a different date that better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale,” the Department may choose a different date. *Id* . For the present review, MS Galati reported the date of order acknowledgment as the date of sale for its U.S. sales and invoice date as the date of sale for its home market sales. Regarding its U.S. sales, MS Galati stated that after it agrees on the sales terms with its customer, it issues an order acknowledgment that specifically states that all parties agree that the terms are fixed. According to MS Galati, because of the long lead times between order acknowledgment date and invoice date, it decided to fix the U.S. sales terms with the order acknowledgment to guarantee price stability for its U.S. sales. Regarding its home market sales, MS Galati stated that it issues a contract addendum to the customer, which functions like an order acknowledgment, and then issues an invoice to the customer on or a few days after the date the merchandise is shipped. According to MS Galati, the terms of sale can change up to the date of shipment. In reviewing all information on the record, including transaction-specific information examined at verification, we preliminarily find that the terms of sale for MS Galati's U.S. sales did not change from the order acknowledgment to the invoice. For home market sales, the Department examined at verification whether the date that MS Galati issued its addendum or the date it issued its invoice best reflects the date of sale, and determined that the invoice date should be the date of sale if the invoice is issued on or before the shipment date, and shipment date should be the date of sale if the invoice is issued after the shipment date. Therefore, for these preliminary results, the Department will use the order acknowledgment date as the date of sale for MS Galati's U.S. sales, and either the invoice date or shipment date, depending on which one takes place earlier, as the date of sale for MS Galati's home market sales. *See* the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, dated August 31, 2006 (“Analysis Memo”), for further discussion of date of sale and other details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin. A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether MS Galati's sales of the subject merchandise from Romania to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the constructed export price (“CEP”) to the NV, as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the constructed export prices of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the “Scope of the Order” section above, which were produced and sold by MS Galati in the HM during the POR, to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of subject merchandise. We relied on eight characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of importance):

(1)Painting;

(2)quality;

(3)specification and/or grade;

(4)heat treatment;

(5)standard thickness;

(6)standard width;

(7)whether or not checkered (floor plate); and

(8)descaling. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the HM to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. *See* Appendix V of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to MS Galati, dated October 13, 2005. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d). For purposes of this administrative review, MS Galati has classified its sales as CEP. MS Galati identified one channel of distribution for U.S. sales: MS Galati through MEI to MSNA and then to unaffiliated U.S. customers, who are distributors. *See* “Level of Trade” section below for further analysis. For this sales channel, MS Galati has reported these sales as CEP sales because the first sale to an unaffiliated party occurred in the United States. Therefore, we based CEP on the packed duty paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and

(d)of the Act. Where applicable, we made a deduction to gross unit price for billing adjustments. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, other U.S. transportation expenses ( *i.e.* , U.S. stevedoring, wharfage, and surveying), and U.S. customs duty. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , imputed credit expenses and commissions) and indirect selling expenses. For these CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home markets. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability We compared the aggregate volume of HM sales of the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product sold in Romania was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to form a basis for NV. Because the volume of HM sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act, we have based the determination of NV upon the HM sales of the foreign like product. Thus, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Romania, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the CEP sales, as appropriate. After testing HM viability, we calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. B. Cost of Production Analysis Based on a cost allegation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to section 351.301(d)(2)(ii) of the Department's regulations, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that MS Galati made sales of the foreign like product at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by MS Galati. *See* Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, Director, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, from John Drury and Dena Aliadinov, Case Analysts, and Ernest Gziryan, Case Accountant, regarding IPSCO Steel Inc.'s Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Mittal Steel Galati S.A., dated January 23, 2006, on file in the CRU. The Department has conducted an investigation to determine whether MS Galati made HM sales at prices below their COP during the POR within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis in the “Calculation of Cost of Production” section as described below. Because the Department initiated a sales-below-cost investigation, we instructed MS Galati to submit its response to Section D of the Department's Antidumping Questionnaire. MS Galati submitted its response to the Section D questionnaire on February 21, 2006, and its response to the Department's Section D supplemental questionnaire of March 15, 2006, on April 6, 2006. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the HM general and administrative (“G&A”) expenses, interest expenses, and packing expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by MS Galati in its cost questionnaire responses with the following exceptions: - We corrected certain computer fields in MS Galati's cost database which were incorrectly reported due to clerical errors. - We increased the reported costs for byproduct revenue which was erroneously taken as an offset due to a clerical error. - We adjusted the transfer prices for certain inputs purchased from affiliated suppliers pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act. - We revised the reported G&A expenses to include certain provisions and taxes. We adjusted the denominator used to calculate the G&A expense rate to account for changes in finished goods inventory. - In the reported cost database MS Galati used the financial expense rate which was based on 2004 financial statements of the parent Mittal Steel Company. We revised the reported financial expense rate to use the financial statements of Mittal Steel Company for the year 2005 because it most closely corresponds to the POR. In addition, we adjusted the reported financial expense rate to disallow offset for the short-term interest income because MS Galati did not provide supporting details for the claimed offset. - We applied the G&A and financial expense rates to the cost of manufacturing including packing expenses, because MS Galati did not remove packing costs from the denominators used to calculate these ratios. 2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COP for MS Galati to its HM sales prices 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 within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the HM prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test We disregarded below-cost sales where

(1)20 percent or more of MS Galati's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, and thus such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act, and

(2)based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that MS Galati made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate. C. Arm's-Length Test MS Galati reported that it made sales in the HM to affiliated and unaffiliated customers. The Department did not require MS Galati to report its affiliated party's downstream sales because these sales represented less than five percent of total HM sales. Sales to affiliated customers in the HM not made at arm's length were excluded from our analysis. *See* section 351.403(c) of the Department's regulations. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments and freight revenue, movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and rebates, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, 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 (November 15, 2002). D. Price-to-Price Comparisons We based NV on the HM sales to unaffiliated purchasers and sales to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-length test. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses ( *i.e.* , inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse, inland freight from plant to customer, and warehousing expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for imputed credit, where appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted HM packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, where the Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of contemporaneous matches in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act, we based NV on CV. During the sales verification in Romania, the Department was unable to verify inland freight expenses from the plant to the port of exportation (field DINLFTP1U in the U.S. market sales database). *See* MS Galati Sales Verification Report. Therefore, we have used the highest reported freight value contained in Verification Exhibit 33 for all of the U.S. market sales. *See* Analysis Memo, dated August 31, 2006, for further discussion of this and other adjustments we made as a result of our findings during the verifications. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP transaction. *See also* section 351.412 of the Department's regulations. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses and profits. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer. *See* section 351.412(c)(1)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As noted in the “Constructed Export Price” section above, we preliminarily find that all of MS Galati's sales through its U.S. affiliates are appropriately classified as CEP sales. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, where possible, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales for which we are unable to quantify a LOT adjustment, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (“the CEP offset provision”). *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes from Canada* , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In analyzing the differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. To determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the channels of distribution in each market, 2 including selling functions, class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. In this review, we obtained information from MS Galati regarding the marketing stages involved in sales to the reported home and U.S. markets. MS Galati reported one LOT with two channels of distribution in the HM:

(1)sales to unaffiliated distributors and

(2)sales to end users (affiliated and unaffiliated). *See* MS Galati's Section A Questionnaire Response (“AQR”), dated November 10, 2005, at pages 15 and 16, and MS Galati's February 23, 2006, Supplemental Questionnaire Response (“SQR”) at pages 6 through 8. 2 The marketing process in the United States and third country market 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. In performing this evaluation, we considered respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. We examined the selling activities reported for each channel of distribution in the HM and we organized the reported selling activities into the following four selling functions: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services. We found that MS Galati's level of selling functions to its HM customers for each of the four selling functions did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. *See* MS Galati's AQR at page 17 and Exhibit 5, MS Galati Sales Verification Report, and Verification Exhibit 1. For example, MS Galati provides similar levels of marketing and technical services to distributors and end users. Because channels of distribution do not qualify as separate LOTs when the selling functions performed for each customer class or channel are sufficiently similar, we determined that one LOT exists for MS Galati's HM sales. In the U.S. market, MS Galati made sales of subject merchandise to MSNA through MEI as the exporter of record, *i.e.* , through one channel of distribution and it claimed only one LOT for its sales in the United States. *See* MS Galati's AQR at page 17 and Exhibit 5, the MS Galati Sales Verification Report, and Verification Exhibit 1. All U.S. sales were CEP transactions between MS Galati and its U.S. affiliate, MSNA, and MS Galati performed the same selling functions in its sales to the unaffiliated customers in each instance. *Id.* Therefore, we preliminary determine that MS Galati's U.S. sales constitute a single LOT. We then compared the selling functions performed by MS Galati on its CEP sales (after deductions made pursuant to 772

(d)of the Act) to the selling functions provided in the HM. We found that MS Galati provides significant selling functions related to the sales process and marketing support, and warranty and technical service in the HM, which it does not for MSNA in the U.S. market. In addition, the differences in selling functions performed for HM and CEP transactions indicate that MS Galati's HM sales involved a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. In the HM, MS Galati provides marketing further down the chain of distribution by promoting certain downstream selling functions that are normally performed by the affiliated reseller in the U.S. market. On this basis, we determined that the HM LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP sales because MS Galati provides more selling functions in the HM at higher levels of service as compared to selling functions performed for its CEP sales. Thus, we find that MS Galati's HM sales are at a more advanced LOT than its CEP sales. Based upon our analysis, we preliminarily determine that CEP and the starting price of HM sales represent different stages in the marketing process, and are thus at different LOTs. Therefore, when we compared CEP sales to the comparison market sales, we examined whether an LOT adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, because MS Galati sold at one LOT in the HM, there is no basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between LOTs. Further, we do not have the information which would allow us to examine the price patterns of MS Galati's sales of other similar products, and there is no other record evidence upon which a LOT adjustment could be based. Therefore, no LOT adjustment was made. Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment and the LOT of MS Galati's HM sales is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of MS Galati's CEP sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as claimed by MS Galati. We based the amount of the CEP offset on HM indirect selling expenses, and limited the deduction for HM indirect selling expense to the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We applied the CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following margin is the weighted-average antidumping duty margin of the POR: Manufacturer/Exporter POR Margin Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. 08/01/04 - 07/30/05 0.07 percent ( *de minimis* ) Assessment The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of the publication of the final results of this review. On May 11, 2006, the Department sent a letter to Assistant Commissioner Jayson Ahern, CBP, to alert CBP to what appeared to be a number of premature liquidations of entries of merchandise. This issue arose after the completion of the 2003/2004 administrative review for cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania on February 10, 2006. On March 7, 2006, the Court of International Trade issued an injunction enjoining liquidation of entries covered under the 2003/2004 review. In response to instructions regarding the injunction, CBP informed the Department that the majority of entries covered by the review had already been liquidated. As a result, the Department made a customs inquiry regarding the entries of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania for the instant review, and found that the majority of these entries were already liquidated as of April 21, 2006. Due to the premature liquidation of entries, the Department is considering whether to allocate the total antidumping duties over the remaining unliquidated entries, if the Department calculates an above *de minimis* weighted-average dumping duty margin in the final results of review. We invite interested parties to comment on this proposal. Cash-Deposit Requirements Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of cut-to-length carbon steel plate entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash-deposit rate for MS Galati will be the rate established in the final results of review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of section 351.106(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not mentioned above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation but the manufacturer is, then the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 75.04 percent, the “country-wide” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Schedule for Final Results of Review The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments are limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. *See* section 351.309(d) of the Department's regulations. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issue,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. Case and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Unless otherwise specified, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first business day thereafter. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain:

(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants; and

(3)to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14911 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-428-816) Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Nucor Corporation (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL Plate) from Germany for the period of review

(POR)August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. This review covers AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, manufacturer of the subject merchandise, and its U.S. affiliate, Arcelor International America, LLC

(AIA)(collectively, Dillinger). We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Dillinger did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value

(NV)( *i.e.* , sales were made at *de minimis* dumping margins). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this segment of the proceeding should also submit with them:

(1)A statement of the issues and

(2)a brief summary of the comments. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an electronic version of the public version of any such comments on diskette. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3692 or

(202)482-5973, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 19, 1993, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on CTL Plate from Germany. *See Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany* , 58 FR 44170 (August 19, 1993). On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CTL Plate from Germany. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, we received a request for review from Nucor Corporation (the petitioner), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). On September 28, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 14, 2005, the Department issued its questionnaire to Dillinger. Dillinger's responses to Sections A through D of the Department's questionnaire were received on December 5 and 8, 2005. On January 11, 2006, the petitioner filed comments on Dillinger's questionnaire response. On January 12, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Dillinger with regard to its corporate structure and organization. On January 18, 2006, Dillinger submitted its supplemental response. On January 27, 2006, the Department instructed Dillinger to report its U.S. sales on a constructed export price

(CEP)basis. On March 3, 2006, Dillinger submitted its supplemental response to the Department's request for CEP sales data. For further discussion, see *Affiliation and Collapsing* section below. The Department issued a supplemental sales questionnaire on January 17, 2006. Dillinger submitted its supplemental response on February 16, 2006. The Department issued an additional supplemental cost questionnaire on January 24, 2006. Dillinger submitted its response to the Department's supplemental cost questionnaire on February 24, 2006. On March 13, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments on Dillinger's Sections A, B, C, and D supplemental responses. On March 16, and July 20, 2006, the Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires. Dillinger submitted supplemental responses on April 3 and 14, 2006, and on July 27, 2006, respectively. Dillinger submitted its sales reconciliation on May 2 and 9, 2006. On April 6, 2006, the Department published an extension of time limits for the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review extending the time limits to August 31, 2006. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate From Germany: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 17438 (April 6, 2006). From May 15 through 19, 2006, the Department conducted a verification of Dillinger's cost response. On June 28, 2006, the Department issued its verification report. On August 15, 2006, the petitioner submitted pre-preliminary comments on the sales and cost responses. We address the issues raised by the petitioner in the *Normal Value* and *Cost of Production* sections below. Period of Review The POR covered by this review is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. Scope of the Order This order covers hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Included in the 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 is grade X-70 plate. Also excluded is certain carbon cut-to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM, and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001 types 1 and 2. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Affiliation and Collapsing Dillinger argues that it is not affiliated with its U.S. distributor, AIA, a wholly-owned Arcelor S.A. entity, and reported its U.S. sales on an export price

(EP)basis. Dillinger claims that it does not have any direct business relationships with Arcelor S.A. Rather, all of Dillinger's business relationships with Arcelor S.A. are indirect through Arcelor subsidiaries. *See* Dillinger's January 18, 2006, supplemental questionnaire response at page 4. Dillinger states that it is not under common control with another person

(AIA)by a third person (Arcelor, S.A.). Therefore, Dillinger argues that it is not affiliated with AIA. Furthermore, Dillinger claims that the Department previously found Dillinger and Arcelor not to be affiliated companies. Section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), describes affiliated persons, in part, as “two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person.” *See* Section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Moreover, the statute provides that “a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.” *See* Section 771(33) of the Act. In the investigation and first review, the Department treated Dillinger's U.S. sales as EP sales ( *formerly* purchase price sales). 1 In the second review, we reversed our decision and considered the U.S. sale as a CEP sale. In that review, we determined that Francosteel (now AIA) acted as more than a processor of sales documents and a communications link between the unrelated U.S. customers and Dillinger. We also found that Francosteel played a major role in negotiating and bringing about the sale, from the bidding stage through the final contract. 2 1 * Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany * , 58 FR 37136 (July 9, 1993); *Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 13834 (March 28, 1996). 2 *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 18390, 18391 (April 15, 1997) ( *Second Review of CTL Plate* ). This review reflects a manufacturer and reseller who are indirectly under the common control of another company, and therefore, affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Based on record evidence, we preliminary find that Dillinger and AIA are under the common control of Arcelor, S.A., pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act for several reasons. First, Arcelor, S.A. owns a majority share of Dillinger Hutte Saarstahl AG

(DHS)Holding. DHS, in turn, owns 95.28 percent of Dillinger. 3 Furthermore, Arcelor, S.A. controls 99.98 percent of capital in Dillinger's U.S. affiliate, AIA. 4 This scenario is similar to *Canned Pineapple Fruit* , where the Department found that TPC, MIC and Princes were under the common control of MC and, therefore, affiliated, under section 771(33)(F) of the Act. 5 This scenario is also similar to *Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware* , where Cinsa and ENASA were considered to be under common control of their parent company. 6 Furthermore, although Arcelor, S.A.'s indirect ownership in Dillinger is slightly greater than 50 percent, the legislative history makes clear that one of the Department's goals is to broaden its ability to analyze commercial relationships for the purposes of dumping analysis, which are consistent with economic realities. *See Statement of Administrative Action* ( *SAA* ) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, Vol. 1,

(1994)at 838. Moreover, the legislative history also makes clear that the statute does not require majority ownership for a finding of control, but rather encompasses both legal and operational control. *See SAA* at 838. 7 In this review, the economic reality demonstrates a common control of Dillinger and AIA. 3 Dillinger's January 18, 2006, supplemental response at 1. 4 Dillinger's April 14, 2006, supplemental response at 201 of Appendix SA-3. 5 *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Final Determination to Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand* , 67 FR 76718 (December 13, 2002) ( *Canned Pineapple Fruit* ). 6 *Certain Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 42496, 42497 (August 7, 1997) ( *Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware* ). 7 *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy* , 64 FR 116, 119 (January 4, 1999) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy* , 64 FR 30750, 30760 (June 8, 1999)). Second, Dillinger has explained that it used only one commissioned selling agent in the United States for its U.S. sales and it provided a copy of the commissions agreement. 8 Consistent with our determination in the *Second Review of CTL Plate* , we continue to determine that AIA plays a major role in negotiating and bringing about the sale, from the bidding stage through the final contract, and acts as more than a processor of sales documents and a communications link between the unrelated U.S. customer and Dillinger. We also preliminarily find that Dillinger's relationship to AIA is similar to the circumstances in *Furfuryl Alcohol* , where there was an exclusive sales agreement and the agent participated in the price and sales negotiations. 9 8 Dillinger's December 8, 2006, response at C-28. 9 *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Furfuryl Alcohol from the Republic of South Afric* a, 62 FR 61084, 61088 (November 14, 1997) ( *Furfuryl Alcohol* ). Finally, Dillinger's normal business practice demonstrates that it is affiliated with AIA. As discussed above, AIA was the only commissioned selling agent during the POR. In addition, both Dillinger and AIA's financial statements are consolidated into Arcelor, S.A.'s financial statements. One of the criteria Arcelor, S.A. uses to determine consolidation is that the group holds significant influence if the group holds 20 percent or more of the voting rights. 10 In other words, the controlling entity within a consolidated group has the ultimate power to determine the capital structure and financial costs of each member in the group. As stated in *Industrial Nitrocellulose* , we cannot ignore the fact that the company is operating as a larger entity with the support (direct or indirect) to which it is entitled from the group. 11 Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, we are treating AIA as an affiliate of Dillinger and treating the U.S. sales as CEP sales. 10 Note 2, item 3, to Arcelor, S.A. 2005 Consolidated Financial Statements in Appendix SA-8 of AIA's April 14, 2006, supplemental response. 11 *Industrial Nitrocellulose From the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 77747, 77749 (December 19, 2002) ( *Industrial Nitrocellulose* ) (citing *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from South Africa* , 67 FR 35485, 35487 (May 20, 2002)). Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all CTL Plate produced by Dillinger, covered by the scope of the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to CTL Plate sold in the United States. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CTL Plate by Dillinger to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the CEP to the NV, as described in the *Constructed Export Price* and *Normal Value* sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Constructed Export Price We calculated the price of U.S. sales based on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. The Act defines the term “constructed export price” as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections

(c)and

(c)of this section.” In determining whether to classify U.S. sales as either EP or CEP sales, the Department must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the U.S. sales process, and assess whether the reviewed sales were made “in the United States” for purposes of section 772(b) of the Act. As preliminarily determined by the Department in the *Affiliation and Collapsing* section above, AIA is affiliated with Dillinger, the producer and exporter, and sells to the purchaser in the United States. Furthermore, in the instant case, the record establishes that Dillinger's affiliate in the United States

(1)took title to the subject merchandise and

(2)invoiced and received payment from the unaffiliated U.S. customers for its sales of the subject merchandise to those U.S. customers. Thus, the Department has determined that these U.S. sales should be classified as CEP transactions. Where appropriate, pursuant to sections 772(c)(2) and

(d)of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price for early payment discounts, inland freight plant to port, inland insurance, brokerage and handling in home market, brokerage and handling in the United States, international freight, marine insurance, other U.S. transportation expenses, U.S. customs duties, credit expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the country of manufacture and the United States associated with economic activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. Normal Value Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a fair comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, inland freight, inland insurance, and packing. Additionally, we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for credit expenses and billing adjustments. We did not allow adjustments for commissions because Dillinger did not provide documentation to support its claim that the commissions were at arm's length. *See* Section 773(a)(6)(B) and

(C)of the Act the and Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum to the File, dated August 31, 2006, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Department building. We also increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made adjustments to NV for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sales observation resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product, we based NV on constructed value. See Policy Bulletin, Number 92.2, *Difmer 20 Percent Rule* , July 29, 1992. For purposes of calculating the NV, section 771(16) of the Act defines “foreign like product” as merchandise which is either

(1)identical or

(2)similar to the merchandise sold in the United States. When there are no identical products sold in the home market, the products which are most similar to the product sold in the U.S. are identified. For the non-identical or most similar products which are identified based on the Department's product matching criteria, an adjustment is made to the home market sales price to account for the actual physical differences between the products sold in the United States and the home market. *See* section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the CEP sales. Because all sales in the comparison market were compared at the same LOT as the CEP sales, we did not make a LOT adjustment or CEP offset under section 773(a)(7). For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, *see* the August 31, 2006, Preliminary Sales Calculation Memorandum, which is on file CRU. Cost of Production In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding, the Department found that Dillinger made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. *See Second Review of CTL Plate* . Therefore, the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Dillinger made sales of CTL Plate in Germany at prices below the cost of production

(COP)in this administrative review. *See* section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for Dillinger. A. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative (G&A) expenses, selling expenses, packing expenses, and interest expenses. B. Cost Methodology We relied on the COP data submitted by Dillinger in its cost questionnaire response except in the specific instances where, based on our review of the submissions and our verification findings, we believe that an adjustment is required, as discussed below. See also Memorandum to Neal Halper, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke” dated August 31, 2006, which is on file in the CRU.

(1)We increased Dillinger's cost of manufacturing under section 773(f)(2) of the Act ( *i.e.* , transactions disregarded rule) for scrap purchased from an affiliated party at less than market value.

(2)We increased Dillinger's cost of manufacturing under section 773(f)(3) of the Act ( *i.e.* , major input rule) for coke purchased from a affiliated parties at less than market value.

(3)We revised Dillinger's G&A expense rate calculation to include the year-end inventory adjustments recorded in the company's audited financial statements.

(4)We revised Dillinger's non-consolidated financial expense rate to reflect a rate calculated on the company's highest level of consolidated financial statements. C. Test of Home-Market Prices In determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below the COP, as required under sections 773(b)(1)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales of the foreign like product and we examined whether

(1)within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and

(2)such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-market prices, less any applicable movement charges, indirect selling expenses, commissions, and rebates. D. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act. Because we compared prices to the POR-average COP, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. Arm's-Length Sales Dillinger reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated resellers/service centers. 12 The Department calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, *i.e.* , sales at arm's length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). 12 We note that sales from Dillinger to its affiliated resellers/service centers constitute less than 5 percent of Dillinger's total sales in the foreign market and we did not require it to report the sales from its affiliated resellers/service centers to the unaffiliated customers. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(d). To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we considered the sales to be at arm's-length prices and included such sales in the calculation of NV. *See* Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002); and 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where all sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party were excluded from the NV calculation. In this instant case, none of the sales to the affiliated resellers/service centers passed the arm's-length test. Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist: Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin Dillinger 0.16% ( *i.e., de minimis* ) The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than seven days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due date of the rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. In instances where entered value was not reported, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and divided this amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106 (c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* ratios based on estimated entered values. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for each producer and/or exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that company's sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CTL Plate from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for Dillinger will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* , the cash deposit will be zero;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, a prior review, or the original less than fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 36.00 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the underlying investigation. 13 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. 13 *Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Germany* , 58 FR 44170 (August 19, 1993). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties. These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15008 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-552-801 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 47909 (August 12, 2003) (“ *Order* ”). We preliminarily find that QVD Food Company Ltd. (“QVD”) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”) during the period of review (“POR”), August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock, 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)482-1394. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Case History General On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review on the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 26, 2005, we received a request for review from Phan Quan Trading Co., Ltd. (“Phan Quan”). On August 31, 2005, we received requests for review from An Giang Agriculture and Foods Import-Export Company (“Afiex”); Vinh Hoan Company, Ltd. (“Vinh Hoan”); Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (“Cataco”); QVD; and Nam Viet Company, Ltd. (“Navico”). Also on August 31, 2005, we received a request from Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. catfish processors (“Petitioners”) to conduct an administrative review of twenty-nine Vietnamese exporters and/or producers. 1 Petitioners' August 31, 2005, administrative review request included Phan Quan, Afiex, Vinh Hoan, Cataco, QVD and Navico. On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated this administrative review, covering the aforementioned twenty-nine companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* (“ *Initiation Notice* ”), 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). 1 Petitioners requested a review on the following companies:

(1)Afiex, which also requested a review;

(2)An Giang Agriculture Technology Service Company (“ANTESCO”);

(3)An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (“Agifish”);

(4)Anhaco;

(5)Bamboo Food Co., Ltd. (“Bamboo Food”);

(6)Binh Dinh Import Export Company (“Binh Dinh”);

(7)Cataco, which also requested a review;

(8)Can Tho Animal Fishery Products Processing Export Enterprise (“Cafatex”);

(9)Da Nang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation (“Danang”);

(10)Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing Factory (“Duyen Hai”);

(11)Gepimex 404 Company (“Gepimex”);

(12)Hai Vuong Co., Ltd. (“Hai Vuong”);

(13)Kien Giang Ltd. (“Kien Giang”);

(14)Mekong Fish Company (“Mekonimex”);

(15)Navico, which also requested a review;

(16)Phan Quan, which also requested a review;

(17)Phu Thanh Frozen Factory (“Phu Thanh”);

(18)Phuoc My Seafoods Processing Factory (“Phuoc My”);

(19)QVD, which also requested a review;

(20)Seaprodex Saigon;

(21)Tan Thanh Loi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (“Tan Thanh Loi”);

(22)Thangloi Frozen Food Enterprise (“Thanlgoi Frozen Food”);

(23)Thanh Viet Co., Ltd. (“Thanh Viet”);

(24)Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. (“Thuan Hung”);

(25)Tin Thinh Co., Ltd. (“Tin Thinh”);

(26)Viet Hai Seafood Company Limited (“Vietnam Fish-One”);

(27)Vifaco;

(28)Vinh Hoan, which also requested a review; and

(29)Vinh Long Import-Export Company (“Vinh Long”). Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaires On September 14, 2005, the Department issued questionnaires requesting the total quantity and value of subject merchandise exported to the United States during the POR to all 29 companies subject to the administrative review. On September 28, 2005, a memorandum to the file was placed on the record by the Department noting that Federal Express (“Fed Ex”) tracking confirmed that the Q&V questionnaires were delivered to all 29 companies. *See Memorandum to the File, through Cindy Robinson, Acting Program Manager, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): Initial Questionnaires Timeline* , (September 28, 2005). On September 20, 2005, Vietnam Fish-One submitted a letter to the Department stating that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On September 30, 2005, QVD, Vinh Hoan, Cafatex, and Navico submitted Q&V responses. On October 1, 2005, Danang, Mekonimex, Thanh Viet, Phu Thanh, and Afiex submitted Q&V responses. Also, on October 3, 2005, Agifish and Cataco submitted Q&V responses. On October 5 and 6, 2005, the Department sent a letter to five companies ( *i.e.* , Danang, Mekonimex, Thanh Viet, Phu Thanh, and Afiex), requesting that each company resubmit their Q&V response because:

(1)Danang failed to answer all questions from the questionnaire and failed to follow the Department's filing procedures pursuant to its regulations;

(2)Mekonimex failed to submit a public version of its questionnaire response;

(3)Thanh Viet failed to answer all questions from the questionnaire and failed to follow the Department's filing procedures pursuant to its regulations;

(4)Phu Thanh failed to answer all questions from the questionnaire and failed to follow the Department's filing procedures pursuant to its regulations; and

(5)Afiex's Q&V response was not properly labeled as a proprietary document and was rejected for overbracketing of proprietary information. Also, on October 6, 2005, the Department issued a letter requesting the sixteen companies who had not responded to the Department's original Q&V questionnaire to submit such response. 2 2 The sixteen companies that did not respond to the Department's September 14, 2005, Q&V questionnaire are:

(1)Duyen Hai;

(2)Gepimex;

(3)Hai Vuong;

(4)Kien Giang;

(5)Thangloi Frozen;

(6)Tan Thanh Loi;

(7)Thuan Hung;

(8)ANTESCO;

(9)Seaprodex Saigon; 10) Anhaco;

(11)Vinh Long;

(12)Vifaco;

(13)Tin Thinh;

(14)Binh Dinh;

(15)Bamboo Food; and

(16)Phan Quan. On October 19, 2005, Vifaco submitted a letter to the Department stating that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On October 20, 2005, Phan Quan submitted a Q&V response to the Department. On November 2, 2005, the Department sent a second letter to six companies, ( *i.e.* , Danang, Thanh Viet, Tin Thinh, Mekonimex, Thuan Hung, and Afiex), requesting that each company resubmit their respective Q&V response because:

(1)Danang failed to bracket the proprietary information in the appropriate format and provide a public version of the proprietary questionnaire response;

(2)Thanh Viet failed to answer all the questions from the questionnaire and identify whether its submission was a public or proprietary document;

(3)Tin Thinh failed to bracket the proprietary information and provide a public version;

(4)Mekonimex failed to provide a public summary of the proprietary information;

(5)Thuan Hung failed to answer all of the questions from the questionnaire and identify whether its submission was a public or proprietary document; and

(6)Afiex failed to provide a public summary of the proprietary information. Also, on November 2, 2005, the Department placed on the record memoranda to the file stating that the Department had removed Afiex, Thuan Hung, Mekonimex, and Thanh Viet's Q&V responses from the record of this review and returned the responses to the respective company because the Department was unable to consider each company's resubmitted Q&V response for the above reasons. On November 3, 2005, the Department issued a letter to Tin Thinh regarding the deadline for Tin Thinh's second resubmitted Q&V response. On November 8, 2005, Thuan Huang resubmitted its Q&V response. On November 9, 2005, Thanh Viet, Mekonimex, and Afiex resubmitted their Q&V responses. On November 9, 2005, the Department issued a letter to Tin Thinh stating that, because the Department's November 3, 2005, letter to Tin Thinh was returned by Fed Ex, Tin Thinh's second resubmitted Q&V response was due on November 16, 2005. On November 9, 2005, a memorandum to the file was placed by the Department noting that Fed Ex tracking confirmed that the second Q&V letter was delivered to the 16 companies 3 that did not respond to the Department's September 14, 2005, Q&V questionnaire. Additionally, Fed Ex tracking confirmed that the Department's October 5, 2005, and October 6, 2005, letters to Afiex, Danang, Mekonimex, Thanh Viet, and Phu Thanh were delivered to the respective companies. 3 The sixteen companies are:

(1)Duyen Hai;

(2)Gepimex;

(3)Hai Vuong;

(4)Kien Giang;

(5)Thangloi Frozen;

(6)Tan Thanh Loi;

(7)Thuan Hung;

(8)ANTESCO;

(9)Seaprodex Saigon;

(10)Anhaco;

(11)Vinh Long;

(12)Vifaco;

(13)Tin Thinh;

(14)Binh Dinh;

(15)Bamboo Food; and

(16)Phan Quan. On November 16, 2005, Afiex submitted a letter clarifying its November 9, 2005, Q&V response. On November 17, 2005, a memorandum to the file was placed on the record by the Department noting that Fed Ex tracking confirmed that the Department's November 2, 2005, letters to Afiex, Danang, Mekonimex, Thanh Viet, Thuan Hung, and Tin Thinh were delivered to the respective companies. On November 21, 2005, Petitioners submitted comments on respondent selection. On November 21, 2005, the Department sent a letter to Danang rejecting Danang's Q&V response for filing deficiencies. Also, on November 28, 2005, the Department sent a letter to Tin Thinh rejecting Tin Thinh's Q&V response for filing deficiencies. On November 29, 2005, Petitioners resubmitted their November 21, 2005, comments on respondent selection. On November 30, 2005, the Department issued letters to Mekonimex and Cataco requesting clarification of their reported Q&V data. On December 7, 2005, Vietnam Fish-One submitted a response to Petitioners' respondent selection comments. On December 19, 2005, Danang resubmitted a Q&V questionnaire response, explaining that, as a *pro se* company, it attempted to cooperate and misunderstood the Department's filing requirements. In addition, on December 19, 2005, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record noting that Cataco's quantity and value clarification response received via email communication was placed on the record. On December 27, 2005, Cataco submitted a Q&V clarification response. On December 29, 2005, Petitioners submitted comments on Danang's December 19, 2005, Q&V response and on Cataco's December 27, 2005, Q&V clarification response. On January 4, 2006, Danang submitted rebuttal comments in response to Petitioners' December 29, 2005, submission. On January 13, 2006, the Department selected the four largest exporters/producers of subject merchandise during the POR as mandatory respondents: QVD; Cafatex; Mekonimex; and Cataco. *See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, Subject: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Respondents* (January 13, 2006) (“ *Respondent Selection Memo* ”). Partial Rescission On November 21, 2005, Petitioners withdrew their request on the following fourteen exporters that did not individually request a review: Bamboo Food; Caseafex; Gepimex; Hai Vuong; Kien Giang; Phu Thanh; Phuoc My; Seaprodex Saigon; Tan Thanh Loi; Thangloi Frozen Food; Thanh Viet; Thuan Hung; Tin Thinh; and Vifaco. Additionally, Petitioners withdrew their request on the following three companies who had individually requested a review: Afiex; Phan Quan; and Vinh Hoan. On December 23, 2005, Vinh Hoan withdrew its request for an administrative review. Additionally, on December 23, 2005, H&N Foods International (“H&N”), a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise, requested that the Department extend the deadline for withdrawing requests review in this proceeding by thirty days. On December 27, 2005, Vinh Hoan submitted a letter to the Department requesting that its withdrawal letter dated December 23, 2005, be disregarded. Additionally, on December 27, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for withdrawing requests for review in this proceeding by ten days from December 27, 2005, to January 6, 2006. On January 5, 2006, H&N requested that the Department extend the deadline, which was January 6, 2006, for withdrawing requests in this administrative review until two days after the Department's issuance of its decision regarding respondent selection in this administrative review. On January 9, 2006, Vinh Hoan again withdrew its request for a review in this administrative review. Additionally, on January 11, 2006, Petitioners withdrew their request of two additional companies, Danang and Agifish, both of which did not individually request a review. Moreover, Petitioners also did not object to Vinh Hoan's January 9, 2006, request to withdraw its request for a review. Subsequently, on February 7, 2006, due to the withdrawal of Petitioners' and Vinh Hoan's review requests, the Department rescinded the review with respect to Agifish; Bamboo Food; Coseafex; Danang; Gepimex; Hai Vuong; Kien Giang; Phu Thanh; Phuoc My; Seaprodex Saigon; Tan Thanh Loi; Thangloi Frozen Food; Thanh Viet; Thuan Hung; Tin Thinh; Vifaco; and Vinh Hoan. Additionally, the Department rescinded the review with respect to Vietnam Fish-One, which reported that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rescission, in Part, and Extension of Preliminary Results of the Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 6266 (February 7, 2006) (“ *Partial Rescission and Extension of Preliminary Results* ”). On February 7, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this review by 120 days, to August 31, 2006. *Id* . Mandatory Respondents On January 17, 2006, the Department sent the non-market economy (“NME”) questionnaire to QVD, Cafatex, Mekonimex and Cataco. Cataco On February 3, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record noting that on February 2, 2006, Cataco emailed the Department requesting an extension of time to March 10, 2006, to respond to the Department's NME questionnaire. On February 3, 2006, the Department granted Cataco a one-week extension to respond to the Department's questionnaire. On February 13, 2006, Cataco submitted its section A response. On February 27, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter requesting a one-week extension to submit its sections C and D questionnaire response. On February 27, 2006, the Department granted Cataco a one-week extension to submit its sections C and D questionnaire response from March 2, 2006, to March 9, 2006. On March 2, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Cataco. Additionally, on March 6, 2006, Cataco submitted its sections C and D questionnaire response. On March 14, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record regarding an email from Cataco, which requested a two-week extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response. Additionally, on March 14, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Cataco granting a one-week extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response from March 20, 2006, to March 27, 2006. On March 20, 2006, a the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record regarding placing information with respect to Cataco from the first administrative review on the record of this review. Additionally, on March 20, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental sections C and D questionnaire to Cataco. On March 23, 2006, Cataco submitted its supplemental section A questionnaire response. On April 4, 2006, Cataco requested a two-week extension to submit its supplemental section C questionnaire response. On April 7, 2006, the Department granted Cataco a ten-day extension to submit its supplemental section C questionnaire response from April 10, 2006, to April 20, 2006. On April 17, 2006, Cataco submitted its supplemental sections C and D questionnaire response. On June 1, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record regarding placing Cataco's entry packages from CBP on the record of this review. Additionally, on June 1, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record regarding DC Lawyers' May 12, 2006, withdrawal as counsel for Cataco. Additionally, on June 14, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental sections A, C and D questionnaire to Cataco. On June 28, 2006, Valley Fresh Seafood, Inc. (“Valley Fresh”) submitted a letter to the Department addressing a business proprietary section of Cataco's supplemental questionnaire. On July 3, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter to the Department that it was partially withdrawing from this administrative review and was not responding to the June 14, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On July 7, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Valley Fresh that it was rejecting its June 28, 2006, letter, because it contained new factual information. The deadline for submitting factual information was June 1, 2006. Additionally, on July 7, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record removing Valley Fresh's June 28, 2006, letter from the record. On July 17, 2006, Petitioners submitted a letter requesting that the Department not accept Cataco's July 3, 2006, letter of partial withdrawal. On July 19, 2006, the Department issued a letter rejecting Cataco's partial withdrawal from this review and requested that Cataco submit a full response to the June 14, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On July 26, 2006, Valley Fresh submitted a letter to the Department with respect to a business proprietary section of the Department's June 14, 2006, supplemental questionnaire to Cataco. On July 26, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter to the Department stating that, except for a certain business proprietary section, it was not responding to the June 14, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On August 1, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Valley Fresh rejecting its July 26, 2006, letter because it contained new factual information. On August 1, 2006, the Department also issued a letter to Cataco rejecting its July 26, 2006 letter and requesting that Cataco resubmit its letter without the attached June 28, 2006, letter from Valley Fresh. Additionally, on August 1, 2006, the Department placed memoranda to the file on the record noting that the July 26, 2006, submissions from Valley Fresh and Cataco had been removed from the record. On August 3, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter, which contained Valley Fresh's June 28, 2006, letter to the Department requesting that it reconsider its decision to reject Cataco's July 26, 2006, letter. On August 8, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Cataco rejecting its August 3, 2006, letter and requesting that Cataco resubmit the letter without the attached June 28, 2006, letter from Valley Fresh. On August 9, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record removing Cataco's August 3, 2006, submission from the record. The Department did not receive a response from Cataco on August 14, 2006, which was the deadline to resubmit. On August 17, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record noting, via telephone communication with Cataco's counsel, that Cataco would not be resubmitting its August 3, 2006, letter. Cafatex On January 27, 2006, Cafatex requested a week extension to submit its section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006. On January 31, 2006, the Department granted Cafatex a one-week extension to submit its section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006. On February 14, 2006, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP submitted a letter withdrawing as counsel for Cafatex. On February 16, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Cafatex noting that it had not received Cafatex's section A questionnaire response, which was due on February 14, 2006, and had not received a request for extension. In the letter, the Department requested that, if Cafatex intended to remain in the review, it should submit its section A questionnaire response. On February 27, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record noting that in a facsimile dated February 21, 2006, Cafatex confirmed its decision not to participate in the instant administrative review. Mekonimex On February 8, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Mekonimex noting that because the Department did not receive Mekonimex's section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006, the deadline to submit its section A response was extended to February 13, 2006. On February 15, 2006, Mekonimex submitted two letters stating that it would no longer participate and that it was withdrawing from this review. QVD On January 30, 2006, QVD requested a two-week extension to submit its section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006. On January 31, 2006, the Department granted QVD a week extension to submit its section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006. On February 13, 2006, QVD requested a three-week extension to submit its section C and D response. On February 14, 2006, QVD submitted its section A response. Also, on February 14, 2006, the Department granted QVD a week extension to submit its sections C and D response from February 22, 2006, to March 1, 2006. On February 21, 2006, QVD requested a two-week extension to submit its sections C and D response. On February 23, 2006, Department granted QVD a week extension to submit its sections C and D response from March 1, 2006, to March 8, 2006. On March 8, 2006, QVD submitted its sections C and D questionnaire response. Additionally, on March 9, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to QVD. On March 20, 2006, QVD requested a two-week extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response. On March 20, 2006, the Department granted QVD a ten-day extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response from March 30, 2006, to April 10, 2006. On March 21, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental sections C and D questionnaire to QVD. Additionally, on March 30, 2006, a memorandum to the file was placed by the Department regarding QVD's supplemental section C questionnaire. On April 4, 2006, QVD requested a three-week extension to submit its supplemental section C questionnaire response. On April 5, 2006, the Department granted QVD a ten-day extension to submit its supplemental section C questionnaire response from April 10, 2006, to April 20, 2006. On April 10, 2006, QVD submitted its supplemental section A questionnaire response. On April 11, 2006, QVD requested a three-week extension to submit its supplemental section D questionnaire response. On April 12, 2006, the Department granted QVD a ten-day extension to submit its supplemental section D questionnaire response from April 18, 2006, to April 28, 2006. On April 19, 2006, QVD requested a one-week extension to submit its supplemental section C questionnaire response. Additionally, on April 19, 2006, the Department granted QVD a one-week extension to submit its supplemental section C questionnaire response from April 20, 2006, to April 28, 2006. On April 24, 2006, QVD requested a one-week extension to submit its supplemental section D questionnaire response. On April 25, 2006, the Department granted QVD a one-week extension to submit its supplemental section D questionnaire response from April 28, 2006, to May 5, 2006. On April 28, 2006, QVD submitted its supplemental section C questionnaire response. On May 5, 2006, QVD submitted its supplemental section D questionnaire response. Additionally, on May 31, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental section D questionnaire to QVD. On June 9, 2006, QVD requested a three-week extension to submit its second supplemental section D questionnaire response. On June 13, 2006, the Department granted QVD a ten-day extension to submit its second supplemental section D questionnaire response from June 14, 2006, to June 26, 2006. On June 16, 2006, the Department placed QVD's entry packages from CBP on the record of this review. On June 19, 2006, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on QVD's sections A and C questionnaire responses. On June 23, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental section A and C questionnaire to QVD. On June 27, 2006, QVD submitted its second supplemental section D questionnaire response. On July 12, 2006, the Department issued a third supplemental section D questionnaire to QVD. On July 18, 2006, QVD requested a ten-day extension to submit its third supplemental section D questionnaire response. On July 19, 2006, the Department granted QVD a six-day extension to submit its third supplemental section D questionnaire response from July 26, 2006, to August 1, 2006. On July 21, 2006, the Department issued a fourth supplemental section D questionnaire to QVD. Additionally, on July 21, 2006, QVD submitted its second supplemental sections A and C questionnaire response. On July 26, 2006, the Department issued a third supplemental section A and C questionnaire to QVD. On August 1, 2006, QVD submitted its third and fourth supplemental section D questionnaire responses. On August 1, 2006, QVD requested a five-day extension to submit its third supplemental section A and C questionnaire response. On August 2, 2006, the Department granted QVD a four-day extension to submit its section A and C questionnaire response from August 4, 2006, to August 8, 2006. On August 2, 2006, QVD submitted a letter to the Department with respect to an attachment that was missing from its August 1, 2006, third and fourth supplemental section D questionnaire responses. On August 2, 2006, the Department issued a fifth supplemental section D questionnaire to QVD. On August 8, 2006, QVD submitted its fifth supplemental section D questionnaire response. On August 9, 2006, QVD submitted its third supplemental sections A and C questionnaire responses. On August 14, 2006, the Department issued a letter to QVD regarding its section C database requesting the downstream sales to Customer A. On August 21, QVD submitted its section C database response. Additionally, on August 22, 2006, QVD submitted rebuttal pre-preliminary comments. Separate Rate Respondents As noted above, on January 13, 2006, the Department selected four mandatory respondents. On January 18, 2006, the Department sent section A of the Department's NME questionnaire to the three remaining separate rate respondents: Afiex, Navico and Phan Quan. Afiex On February 3, 2006, Afiex requested a one-week extension to submit its section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Department granted Afiex a one-week extension to submit its section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006. On February 13, 2006, Afiex requested a second extension of three days to submit its section A response. On February 14, 2006, the Department granted Afiex a three-day extension to submit its section A response from February 14, 2006, to February 17, 2006. On February 17, 2006, Afiex submitted a section A response. On March 2, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Afiex. On March 14, 2006, Afiex requested a one-week extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response. Additionally, on March 16, 2006, the Department granted Afiex a one-week extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response from March 23, 2006, to March 30, 2006. On March 29, 2006, Afiex requested a second one-week extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response. On March 30, 2006, the Department granted Afiex a four-day extension to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response from March 30, 2006, to April 3, 2006. On April 4, 2006, Afiex submitted its supplemental section A questionnaire response. On April 5, 2006, Afiex requested an extension to submit documents that were not available when it submitted the supplemental section A questionnaire response from April 4, 2006, to April 10, 2006. On April 6, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Afiex extending the deadline until April 10, 2006. Additionally, in the letter to Afiex, the Department issued a second supplemental section A questionnaire. On April 10, 2006, Afiex requested an extension of two days to submit its second supplemental section A questionnaire response. On April 11, 2006, the Department granted Afiex a one-day extension to submit its supplemental Section A questionnaire response from April 10, 2006, to April 11, 2006. Additionally, on April 11, 2006, Afiex submitted its second supplemental section A questionnaire response. On July 7, 2006, the Department issued a third supplemental section A questionnaire to Afiex. On July 28, 2006, Afiex submitted a letter to the Department that it was both not responding to third supplemental section A questionnaire and withdrawing from this review. Navico On January 27, 2006, Navico requested a one-week extension to submit its section A response, which was due on February 7, 2006. On January 31, 2006, the Department granted Navico a one-week extension to submit its section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006. On February 16, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Navico noting that it had not received Navico's section A questionnaire response, which was due on February 14, 2006, and had not received a request for extension. In the letter, the Department requested that, if Navico intended to remain in the review, it should submit its section A questionnaire response. On February 27, 2006, the Department issued a second letter to Navico requesting that, if Navico intended to remain as a separate rates respondent, Navico should submit a section A response by March 3, 2006. Additionally, in the letter, the Department requested that if Navico was not going to submit a response, Navico should submit a letter confirming its decision to not participate in this review. On March 7, 2006, the Department place a memorandum to the file on the record by the Department noting that via an e-mail received on March 6, 2006, Navico confirmed its decision not to participate in this administrative review. Phan Quan On February 3, 2006, Phan Quan requested a one-week extension to submit its section A response. On February 6, 2006, the Department granted Phan Quan a one-week extension to submit its section A response from February 7, 2006, to February 14, 2006. On February 13, 2006, Phan Quan requested a second extension of three days to submit its section A response. On February 14, 2006, the Department granted Phan Quan a three-day extension to submit its section A response from February 14, 2006, to February 17, 2006. On February 17, 2006, Phan Quan submitted its section A response. Also on February 21, 2006, Phan Quan submitted a letter that included attachments supplementing its section A response. On March 28, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Phan Quan. On April 19, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Phan Quan noting that it had not received a response from Phan Quan for its supplemental section A questionnaire response, which was due on April 18, 2006. In the letter, the Department granted Phan Quan a second, final opportunity to submit its supplemental section A questionnaire response by April 21, 2006. On April 26, 2006, Phan Quan submitted a letter to the Department that it was not responding to the supplemental section A questionnaire and withdrawing from this review. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values On January 18, 2006, the Department placed a memorandum to the file on the record extending the deadline for submission of factual information by 50 days from January 18, 2006, to March 9, 2006. On January 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter to the interested parties requesting comments on surrogate country selection. On February 27, 2006, Petitioners requested an extension of time to submit comments on submission of factual information, comments on surrogate country selection, and publicly available information to value factors of production. On March 1, 2006, the Department issued a memorandum to the file extending these deadlines to May 1, 2006. On April 26, 2006, Petitioners and QVD requested extensions to place factual information on the record, comments on surrogate country selection, and publicly available information to value factors of production. On April 27, 2006, the Department issued a letter extending these deadlines to June 1, 2006. On June 1, 2006, Petitioners and QVD submitted factual information. On June 1, 2006, Petitioners and QVD also submitted surrogate value information for the Department to consider for these preliminary results. Also, on June 1, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments on surrogate country selection. No other party submitted surrogate country comments. On June 12, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments on the surrogate value information submitted by QVD. On August 1, 2006, the Department selected Bangladesh as the surrogate country. On August 15, 2006, Petitioners submitted pre-preliminary comments. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species *Pangasius Bocourti* , *Pangasius Hypophthalmus* (also known as *Pangasius Pangasius* ), and *Pangasius Micronemus* . Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (“regular” fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (“shank” fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into strips (“fillet strips/finger”), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen “basa” and “tra” fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species *Pangasius* including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 4 This order covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the *Order* is dispositive. 4 Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of the HTSUS. Affiliations Section 771(33) of the Act states that the Department considers the following as affiliated:

(A)Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants;

(B)any officer or director of an organization and such organization;

(C)partners;

(D)employer and employee;

(E)any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization;

(F)two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person; and

(G)any person who controls any other person and such other person. For purposes of affiliation, section 771(33) of the ACT states that a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. Based on the evidence on the record in this administrative review, we preliminarily find that QVD is affiliated with Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd. (“Dong Thap”) and Company A, 5 pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. For a detailed discussion of our analysis, please * see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: QVD Affiliations Memorandum: 2 nd Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets * , (August 31, 2006) (“ *Affiliation and Collapsing Memo* ”). In addition, based on the evidence presented in QVD's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that QVD, Dong Thap, and Company A should be treated as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1); *see also* , *Affiliation and Collapsing Memo* for a discussion of the proprietary aspects of this relationship. With respect to the criterion of significant potential for manipulation of price of production, we note that the Department normally considers three factors:

(1)The level of common ownership;

(ii)the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and

(iii)whether operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales, information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the affiliated producers. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). 5 Because Company A's identity is business proprietary, it cannot be disclosed in this notice. *See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo* for further information. Vietnamese Entities Based on the information on the record of this proceeding, we preliminarily find that QVD, Dong Thap, and Company A should be collapsed. Accordingly, the Department should include the factors of production for Company A in the Department's calculation of QVD's normal value (“NV”). However, the Department does not currently have this information on the record of the proceeding. Therefore, the Department will request this information from QVD after the issuance of these preliminary results. Additionally, we will be issuing an amended preliminary calculation for comment after we receive Company A's factors of production. Due to the proprietary nature of the information with respect to these affiliates, this information cannot be discussed herein. *See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo* for a further discussion of this issue. In addition, we preliminary find that Choi Moi Farming Cooperative (“Choi Moi”) is affiliated with QVD pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. *See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo* for a further discussion of this issue. However, we preliminary find that although Choi Moi is affiliated with QVD, the collapsing criteria are not satisfied and therefore, Choi Moi has not been collapsed with QVD. *Id.* We also preliminarily find that Company B 6 and QVD are not affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. *Id.* 6 Because Company B's identity is business proprietary, it cannot be disclosed in this notice. *See Affiliation and Collapsing Memo* for further information. United States Entities We preliminarily find that QVD and QVD USA LLC (“QVD USA”) are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. *Id.* Although the Department received relevant information from QVD USA regarding its relationship with Customer A 7 on August 21, 2006, ten days prior to the deadline to issue the preliminary results, the Department was unable to consider this information for these preliminary results of review. For the final results of review, however, the Department will fully consider the information submitted by QVD USA on August 21, 2006, and possibly request additional information on the relationship with QVD USA and Customer A. For these preliminary results, the Department will include QVD USA's sales to Customer A in the margin calculation for QVD. However, in the event the Department finds Customer A and QVD USA affiliated, the Department intends to request the relevant sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer after such finding. If parties fail to provide such data, the Department may apply facts available, with an adverse inference, to QVD USA's CEP sales to Customer A for the final results of this review. 7 Because Customer A's identity is business proprietary, it cannot be disclosed in this notice. *See Memorandum from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Import Administration, Subject: 2nd Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results Analysis Memo for QVD Food Company* , (August 31, 2006) (“ *QVD Analysis Memo* ”) for further information. On February 14, 2006, QVD stated that it was affiliated with Beaverstreet Fisheries Inc. (“BSF”) and provided a CEP sales database which contained the sales from BSF to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. For these preliminary results, the Department is treating QVD USA and BSF as affiliated entities and will characterize BSF sales' as CEP sales in the margin calculation for QVD for these preliminary results. However, the Department notes that there is insufficient time to evaluate whether the claim of affiliation properly fulfills the statutory criteria of section 771(33) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department intends to request further information regarding QVD USA's affiliation with BSF, which may affect the use of these sales and the margin calculation in the final results of this review. The Department also intends to request information on the sales from QVD USA to BSF. Separate Rates Determination In the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation and the first administrative review for this Order, the Department treated Vietnam as a non-market economy (“NME”) for antidumping purposes. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review that are located in NME countries a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of governmental control, both in law ( *de jure* ) and in fact ( *de facto* ), with respect to its export activities. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of governmental control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter using the criteria established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). Under the separate rates criteria established in these cases, the Department assigns separate rates to NME exporters only if they can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over their export activities. Absence of De Jure Control Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of the absence of *de jure* governmental control over export activities includes:

(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and

(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. In the LTFV investigation for this case, the Department granted separate rates to the four mandatory respondents, Cataco, Cafatex, Mekonimex, and QVD, and two of the separate rate respondents, Afiex and Navico. *See Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 5 and 6 (“ *LTFV FFF Final Determination* ”). Additionally, in the first administrative review of this case, the Department did not grant a separate rate to the other separate rate respondent, Phan Quan, because it stopped participating in that review. *See Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 70 FR 54007 (September 13, 2005) (“ * 1 st Review Prelim * ”). However, it is the Department's policy to evaluate separate rates questionnaire responses each time a respondent makes a separate rates claim, regardless of whether the respondent received a separate rate in the past. *See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China, Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 12441 (March 13, 1998). In this review only QVD submitted complete responses to the separate rates section of the Department's NME questionnaire. The evidence submitted by QVD includes government laws and regulations on corporate ownership, business licenses, and narrative information regarding its company's operations and selection of management. The evidence provided by QVD supports a finding of a *de jure* absence of governmental control over its export activities because:

(1)There are no controls on exports of subject merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses required for, exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; and

(2)the subject merchandise does not appear on any government list regarding export provisions or export licensing. Absence of De Facto Control The absence of *de facto* governmental control over exports is based on whether the Respondent:

(1)Sets its own export prices independent of the government and other exporters;

(2)retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;

(3)has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and

(4)has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22587; *Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). In its questionnaire responses, QVD submitted evidence indicating an absence of *de facto* governmental control over its export activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that:

(1)The company sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;

(2)the company retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;

(3)the company has a general manager, branch manager or division manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an agreement;

(4)the general manager is selected by the board of directors or company employees, and the general manager appoints the deputy managers and the manager of each department; and

(5)foreign currency does not need to be sold to the government. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found that QVD has established *primae facie* that it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria established by *Silicon Carbide* and *Sparklers* . As discussed below, the Department is not granting the other three mandatory respondents, Cataco, Cafatex, and Mekonimex, and the three separate rate respondents, Afiex, Phan Quan, and Navico, a separate rate because these respondents withdrew from participating in this review. As a result, we cannot verify the separate rate information that Afiex, Cataco, and Phan Quan submitted in their respective questionnaire responses. Moreover, Afiex, Cataco, and Phan Quan, each failed to respond to the supplemental questionnaire issued by the Department that requested clarification on their respective submitted separate rate information. With respect to Cafatex, Mekonimex, and Navico, we did not receive separate rate information for consideration in these preliminary results. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested party:

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;

(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and

(e)of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that “if the administrating authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be), in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). In the instant review, three of the mandatory respondents, ( *i.e.* , Cataco, Cafatex, and Mekonimex), the three separate rate respondents, ( *i.e.* , Navico, Afiex and Phan Quan), and four other companies under review, ( *i.e.* , Antesco, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long), significantly impeded our ability to complete this administrative review pursuant to section 751 of the Act, and one mandatory respondent, Cataco, significantly impeded our ability to impose the correct antidumping duties, as mandated by section 731 of the Act. As discussed below, we preliminarily find that each company's failure to cooperate with the Department to the best of their ability in responding to the Department's request for information warrant the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) in determining dumping margins for their sales of merchandise subject to this Order. Mekonimex and Cafatex As discussed in the “Case History” above, on January 17, 2006, the Department issued questionnaires to Mekonimex and Cafatex. The deadlines for Mekonimex and Cafatex to file a response to Section A of the questionnaire were February 7, 2006, and February 14, 2006, respectively. The Department did not receive a questionnaire response from either company. Instead, Mekonimex submitted two letters on February 15, 2006, stating that it was not going to participate and was withdrawing from the review. Cafatex faxed a letter, in response to the Department's February 16, 2006, letter of Cafatex's non-response, on February 21, 2006, stating that it was not going to participate in the administrative review. Therefore, we find that facts available are warranted for both Mekonimex and Cafatex in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A),

(B)and

(C)of the Act. By each company stating that they would no longer participate, both Mekonimex and Cafatex explicitly impeded this proceeding. Because both Mekonimex and Cafatex withdrew from the current administrative review with critical data potentially relevant to separate rates still outstanding, the Department was prevented from conducting a thorough separate rates analysis or from verifying either Mekonimex's or Cafatex's information. Because both Cafatex and Mekonimex did not respond to the Department's NME questionnaire, the Department has no information on the record with which to calculate an antidumping margin or determine if either is eligible for a separate rate in this proceeding. Therefore, we find that both Mekonimex and Cafatex have not demonstrated that each is entitled to a separate rate and thus, each is deemed to be included in the Vietnam-wide entity. By withdrawing from this administrative review over a month after the Department's established deadline, which was January 6, 2006, rather than submitting a response to the Department's NME questionnaires, both Mekonimex and Cafatex have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in this proceeding. Accordingly, since both Mekonimex and Cafatex significantly impeded the proceeding and failed to cooperate to the best of their ability, the application of AFA is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Cataco During the first administrative review, the Department found Cataco had entered into an reimbursement agreement with Customer B. 8 * See Memorandum from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Import Administration, Subject: 2 nd Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results Analysis Memo for Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (“Cataco” * ), (August 31, 2006) (“ *Cataco Analysis Memo* ”); * 1 st Supplemental Section C Questionnaire to Cataco * , (March 20, 2006) at Attachment 2 ( *Memorandum to the File, from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, NME Office 9, RE: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Verification Report Change* , (March 13, 2006)). Specifically, the Department noted that these reimbursement “agreements stated that Cataco would reimburse any antidumping duties {on basa and tra} exceeding X,” 9 and that these reimbursement “agreements did not specify an expiration date.” * See 1 st Supplemental Section C Questionnaire to Cataco * , at Attachment 2. A day after the Department made this discovery, Cataco withdrew from verification. Accordingly, Cataco received AFA in the final results of the first administrative review because of its termination of verification and as part of the adverse inference, the Department determined that “the reimbursement verification findings should be applied to Cataco for cash deposit and assessment purposes.” *See Notice of Final Results of the First Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comments 1 and 2 (“ * 1 st AR FFF Final * ”). 8 Because this information is business proprietary, please *see Cataco Analysis Memo* for further information on Customer B. 9 Because this information is business proprietary, please *see Cataco Analysis Memo* . In this administrative review, Cataco admitted from the onset that it sold subject merchandise under other commercial names, including “frozen grouper” and “frozen seafood.” * See Cataco's Quantity and Value Questionnaire Response * , (September 30, 2005) at 1-2; *Cataco's Section A Questionnaire Response* , (February 10, 2006) at Exhibit A-1. However, on June 1, 2006, the Department placed on the record entry packages from U.S. Customs Border and Protection

(CBP)of all entries, classified as HTS 304206033, 304206043, 304206057, 304206070, 304206096, that were manufactured by Cataco and entered into the United States during the POR. A review of the entry packages showed a discrepancy between Cataco's reported quantity and value (“Q&V”) of sales of subject merchandise under other commercial names, “frozen grouper” and “frozen seafood,” and the Q&V of its CBP entries of “frozen grouper” to Customer B. *See Cataco's Section A Questionnaire Response* at Exhibit A-1; * Cataco's 2 nd Supplemental Section A and C Questionnaire * , (June 14, 2006) at 12-13 (“ * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * ”). Moreover, the Department noted that CBP issued a Notice of Request for Information and a Notice of Action to Cataco's Customer B that certain entries needed to be reclassified as subject merchandise. * See Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * , at 13; * Memorandum to the File, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: 2 nd Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): Customs Data for Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company * , (June 1, 2006). Based on the apparent discrepancies with Cataco's reported Q&V of sales of subject merchandise under other commercial names, and other issues, including Cataco's affiliate and reimbursement of antidumping duties, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Cataco on June 14, 2006, which was due on July 5, 2006. On July 3, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter to the Department that it would not be submitting a response to * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * . In the letter, Cataco also stated that it was “withdrawing from the current administrative review for all issues except that of reimbursement of antidumping duties.” *See Cataco's Letter to the Department, RE: June 14, 2006, Supplemental Questionnaire* , (July 3, 2006) at 1-2. However, on July 19, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Cataco stating that Cataco could not partially withdraw from this administrative review. By granting Cataco's partial withdrawal, the Department would have allowed Cataco to “control the results of the administrative review by {only} granting partial information” on reimbursement. *See Krupp Stahl A.G., et. al vs. United States* , 822 F. Supp 789, 792 (CIT 1993). Accordingly, the Department granted Cataco a final opportunity to submit a full response to * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * by July 26, 2006. On July 26, 2006, Cataco submitted a letter to the Department stating that it had never entered into a “reimbursement agreement” with its U.S. customer, Valley Fresh, and that it would not be submitting a response to the entirety of * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * . Additionally, Cataco submitted a June 28, 2006, letter from its customer, Valley Fresh. However, the Department rejected Cataco's July 26, 2006, letter as containing untimely, new information, pursuant to section 351.301(b)(2) of the Department's regulations, because Valley Fresh's letter had previously been rejected as new information. *See Letter from the Department to Matthew McConkey* , (August 1, 2006) at 1-2. Specifically, the deadline for submitting factual information was June 1, 2006, and as such, Valley Fresh's letter was received twenty-seven days after the deadline. Instead of resubmitting its letter without the letter from Valley Fresh, Cataco submitted a letter on August 3, 2006, that contained this submission. In its August 3, 2006, letter, Cataco stated that it was including the letter from Valley Fresh because it was “directly relevant to the {reimbursement} questions raised” in the Department's June 14, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. *See Letter from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Import Administration, to Matthew McConkey* , (August 8, 2006) at 2. After review of Cataco's letter, the Department issued a letter to Cataco requesting that it resubmit its August 3, 2006, letter without the attached submission from Valley Fresh. Specifically, the Department noted the reimbursement questions from * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * , requested that Cataco provide information on its commercial relationships with specific importers, not Valley Fresh. Accordingly, the Department continued to find that the letter from Valley Fresh was new information and requested that Cataco resubmit its August 3, 2006, letter without the letter from Valley Fresh by August 11, 2006. The Department did not receive a response from Cataco on August 11, 2006. Based upon Cataco's refusal to submit a full response to * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * , the Department finds that Cataco failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form requested and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Specifically, the Department twice granted Cataco the opportunity to submit a full response to Cataco's 2nd Questionnaire. Cataco decided not to:

(1)submit a response to * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * , but rather attempt to partially withdraw from this review except with respect to reimbursement; and

(2)respond to the entirety of * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * except regarding those questions on reimbursement. Additionally, the Department notes that statements submitted by Cataco on reimbursement were incomplete because Cataco did not submit information requested on the specific importers, including Cataco's Customer B. See * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * , at 22-23. Accordingly, the Department finds that Cataco failed to provide a full response to * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * in a timely manner. Moreover, the Department finds that Cataco has significantly impeded this proceeding by picking and choosing the questions that it would respond to from * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * . Specifically, antidumping law “does not permit a party to pick and choose information it wishes to present” to the Department. *See Brother Industries, Ltd. vs. United States* , 771 F. Supp. 374, 383 (CIT 1991). Furthermore, the questions that Cataco refused to answer, specifically questions regarding reimbursement from Customer B and the discrepancies in Cataco's reported sales of “frozen grouper” and “frozen seafood,” needed to be answered in order for the Department to calculate a margin for Cataco for these preliminary results. Because Cataco refused to submit a full response to * Cataco's 2 nd Questionnaire * , the application of facts available is warranted, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Act. For these preliminary results, the Department finds that Cataco has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Specifically, the Department finds that Cataco did not respond to the Department's request for clarification on certain issues, including its reported sales of “frozen grouper” and “frozen seafood” and whether it reimbursed certain importers, as requested in * Cataco's 2 nd Supplemental Questionnaire * . *See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F. 3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“ *Nippon Steel* ”). Because Cataco refused to answer the entirety of * Cataco's 2 nd Supplemental Questionnaire * , the Department finds that Cataco has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As an adverse inference, the Department is assigning to Cataco's sales of subject merchandise an individual rate of 80.88 percent, which is the highest established rate on the record of this proceeding, and, we note, the rate applied to Cataco in the first administrative review. * See 1 st AR FFF Final * , 71 FR 14170 at Comments 1 and 2. During the course of this administrative review, Cataco was unable to provide information regarding the reimbursement agreements, found at the verification of the first administrative review, which had no expiration date, and were not still in effect during this administrative review. Therefore, inclusive in our adverse inference is a presumption that Cataco continued to reimburse antidumping duties during this POR. While it would be consistent with the Department's normal practice for Cataco to be subject to the same rate as all other exporters that are part of the Vietnam-Wide Entity, because Cataco failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and significantly impeded this proceeding, and because as AFA, the Department presumes Cataco's agreement to reimburse its importer(s) continued throughout this POR, Cataco is receiving the individual rate of 80.88 percent. The Department finds that, for cash deposit purposes, it must take into account the reimbursement provision and assign Cataco an individual rate for future entries. Reimbursement, however, is necessarily exporter-importer specific, and is treated as a unique adjustment. Moreover, the reimbursement adjustment is exogenous to the normal calculation of the dumping margin. Therefore, in order to properly account for reimbursement, the Department has adjusted Cataco's cash deposit and assessment rates, but not applied the adjustment to the rest of the Vietnam-Wide Entity. Consequently, the cash deposit rate assigned to Cataco for these preliminary results is 80.88 percent. *See Cataco Analysis Memo* . ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long We note, as mentioned in the “Case History” section above, the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to 29 companies, including ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long. On September 14, 2005, we issued a Q&V questionnaire to all of the companies identified in the notice of initiation. *See Initiation Notice* . On February 7, 2006, the Department rescinded, in part, the review on 18 of the 29 companies, but noted that 11 companies, including ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long, were still subject to review. *See Partial Rescission and Extension of Preliminary Results* . Further, each of these companies identified in our notice of rescission did not respond to our September 14, 2005, Q&V questionnaire nor did these companies respond to the Department's second Q&V questionnaire issued to these companies on October 6, 2006. The Department placed information on the record confirming the delivery of the first and second Q&V questionnaire to each company. *See Memorandum to the File, through Cindy Robinson, Acting Program Manager, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): Initial Questionnaires Timeline* , (September 28, 2005); * Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): 2 nd Q&V Questionnaire Timeline * , (November 9, 2005). Because these four companies were non-responsive to the Department's two requests for Q&V information, the Department finds that they are not entitled to a separate rate. Additionally, by neither responding to the Department's first nor second Q&V questionnaire, each company failed to provide critical information to be used for the Department's respondent selection process. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)(B) and (C), the Department finds that facts available is appropriate. In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may apply adverse facts available if it finds a respondent has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the Department. By failing to respond to the Department's first and second Q&V questionnaire, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long have failed to act to the best of their ability in this segment of the proceeding. Moreover, because ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long did not participate in the respondent selection exercise, the Department did not send them a questionnaire and was unable to determine whether or not they qualified for a separate rate. Therefore, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh, and Vinh Long are not eligible to receive a separate rate and will be part of the Vietnam-wide entity, subject to the Vietnam-wide rate. Afiex Between February and April 2006, the Department issued two supplemental questionnaires to Afiex regarding their response to section A of the Department's NME questionnaire. On July 7, 2006, the Department issued a third supplemental section A questionnaire to Afiex. However, on July 28, 2006, Afiex submitted a letter stating that it was not submitting a response and was withdrawing from this administrative review. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)(B) and

(C)of the Act, the Department finds that facts available is appropriate. Because Afiex failed to submit a questionnaire response critical data potentially relevant to separate rates remain. Therefore, the Department was prevented from conducting a thorough separate rates analysis of Afiex's information. Therefore, we find that Afiex has not demonstrated that it is entitled to a separate rate and is thus deemed to be included in the Vietnam-wide entity. Moreover, Afiex has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, since Afiex both significantly impeded the proceeding and failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the application of AFA is appropriate, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(b)of the Act. Navico As discussed in the “Case History” section above, on January 18, 2006, the Department sent section A of the Department's NME questionnaire to Navico. The deadline for Navico to file a response to section A of the NME questionnaire was February 14, 2006, but the Department did not receive a response. Between February 16 and 27, 2006, the Department issued two letters to Navico that it had not received a section A response and requested that Navico either submit a response or a letter stating that it was not going to participate. On March 6, 2006, Navico notified the Department via email that it was not going to participate and was withdrawing from the administrative review. Therefore, we find that facts available are warranted for Navico in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A)(B) and (C). Because Navico failed to submit a questionnaire response, critical data relevant to separate rates remain. Therefore, the Department was prevented from conducting a thorough separate rates analysis of Navico's information. Accordingly, we find that Navico has not demonstrated that it is entitled to a separate rate and thus, is deemed to be included in the Vietnam-wide entity. Moreover, Navico has failed to cooperate to best of its ability by withdrawing from this administrative review over two months after the Department's established deadline, which was January 6, 2006. Because Navico has both significantly impeded this proceeding and failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department finds that the application of AFA is appropriate, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(a) and

(b)of the Act. Phan Quan Between January and March 2006, the Department issued two questionnaires to Phan Quan on Section A of the Department's NME questionnaire. However, on April 26, 2006, Phan Quan submitted a letter stating that it was not submitting a response to the Department's March 28, 2006, supplemental questionnaire and was withdrawing from this administrative review. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)(B) and

(C)of the Act, the Department finds that facts available is appropriate. Because Phan Quan failed to submit a questionnaire response, critical data potentially relevant to separate rates remain. Therefore, the Department was prevented from conducting a thorough separate rates analysis of Phan Quan's information. Therefore, we find that Phan Quan has not demonstrated that it is entitled to a separate rate and is thus deemed to be included in the Vietnam-wide entity. Moreover, Phan Quan has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Accordingly, since Phan Quan both significantly impeded the proceeding and failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the application of AFA is appropriate, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(b)of the Act. Vietnam-wide Entity Because the Vietnam-wide entity (including Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan and Afiex) has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the requested information, we find it appropriate, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B), as well as section 776(b), of the Act, to assign total AFA to the Vietnam-wide entity. By doing so, we ensure that the companies that are part of the Vietnam-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority, or

(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Furthermore, under section 782(c) of the Act, a Respondent has a responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide the requested information but also to provide a full explanation as to why it cannot provide the information and suggest alternative forms in which it is able to submit the information. Because these four companies did not establish their entitlement to a separate rate and failed to provide requested information, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and

(B)of the Act, it is appropriate to base the Vietnam-wide margin in this review on facts available. *See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/ Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as the facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, the final determination in the LTFV investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. Section 776(b)(4) of the Act permits the Department to use as AFA information derived in the LTFV investigation or any prior review. Thus, in selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice has been to assign Respondents, who fail to cooperate with the Department's requests for information, the highest margin determined for any party in the LTFV investigation or in any administrative review. *See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002). As AFA, we are assigning the Vietnam-wide entity (which includes Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan and Afiex) the 66.34 percent which is the rate calculated in this review for QVD as this rate now replaces the Vietnam-wide entity rate as the highest rate available. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOP”), valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the “Normal Value” Section below. As discussed in the “Separate Rates” section, the Department considers Vietnam to be an NME country. The Department has treated Vietnam as an NME country in all previous antidumping proceedings. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we treated Vietnam as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV, pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, by valuing the FOPs in a surrogate country. The Department determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka are countries comparable to Vietnam in terms of economic development. * See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets (“Frozen Fish”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries * , (December 16, 2005) (“ *Surrogate Country List* ”). We select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries. *See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process* , (March 1, 2004) (“ *Policy Bulletin* ”). In this case, we have found that Bangladesh is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, and has publically available and reliable data. * See Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, Import Administration, and Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: 2 nd Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of a Surrogate Country * , (August 1, 2006) (“ *Surrogate Country Memo* ”). Thus, we have selected Bangladesh as the primary surrogate country for this administrative review. However, in certain instances where Bangladeshi data was not available, we used data from Indian or Indonesian sources. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by QVD to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared the company's export prices (“EP”) or constructed export prices (“CEP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price,” “Constructed Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. Export Price For QVD's EP sale, we used EP methodology, pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the free-on-board (“FOB”) foreign port price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. For this EP sale, we also deducted foreign inland freight, foreign cold storage, and international ocean freight from the starting price (or gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP methodology when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after importation of the merchandise into the United States. We calculated CEP for certain U.S. sales made QVD through its U.S. affiliates to unaffiliated U.S. customers. For QVD's CEP sales, we made adjustments to the gross unit price for billing adjustments, rebates, foreign inland freight, international freight, foreign cold storage, U.S. marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. warehousing, U.S. inland insurance, other U.S. transportation expenses, and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including commissions, credit expenses, advertising expenses, indirect selling expenses, inventory carry costs, and U.S. re-packing costs. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Where movement expenses were provided by NME-service providers or paid for in NME currency, we valued these services using either Bangladeshi or Indian surrogate values. * See Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Case Analyst, Subject: 2 nd Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”): Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results * , (August 31, 2006) (“ *Surrogate Value Memo* ”). Where applicable, we used the actual reported expense for those movement expenses provided by market economy (“ME”) suppliers and paid for in a ME currency. Zero-Priced Transactions During the course of this review, QVD reported a number of zero-priced transactions to their U.S. customers. *See QVD's Supplemental Section C Response* , at 8 and Exhibit S-9. An analysis of QVD's section C database reveals that QVD made a number of zero-priced transactions with customers that had purchased the same merchandise in commercial quantities. *See QVD's Analysis Memo* at Attachment I. In the * 2 nd Review of Tables and Chairs * , the Department included zero-priced transactions in the margin calculation stating that the record demonstrated that:

(1)The respondent provided many pieces of the same product, indicating that these “samples” did not primarily serve for evaluation or testing of the merchandise;

(2)the respondent provided significant numbers of the same product to its U.S. customer while that customer was purchasing that same product;

(3)the respondent provided “samples” to the same customers to whom it was selling the same products in commercial quantities;

(4)the respondent acknowledged that it gave these products at zero price to its U.S. customers (already purchasing the same items) to sell to their own customers. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 2905 (January 18, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 4 (“ * 2 nd Review of Tables and Chairs * ”). The Federal Circuit has not required the Department to exclude zero-priced or de minimis priced sales from its analysis, but rather, has defined a sale as requiring “both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration.” *See NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 115 F.3d 965, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The CIT in *NSK Ltd. v. United States* stated that it saw “little reason in supplying and re-supplying and yet re-supplying the same product to the same customer in order to solicit sales if the supplies are made in reasonably short periods of time,” and that “it would be even less logical to supply a sample to a client that has made a recent bulk purchase of the very item being sampled by the client.” *See NSK Ltd v. United States* , 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1311-1312 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, the Courts have consistently ruled that the burden rests with a respondent to demonstrate that it received no consideration in return for its provision of purported samples. *See Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States* , 988 F. 2d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the burden of evidentiary production belongs “to the party in possession of the necessary information”). *See Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States* , 806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (“The burden of creating an adequate record lies with respondents and not with {the Department}.”) (citation omitted). Moreover, “{e}ven where the Department does not ask a respondent for specific information that would enable it to make an exclusion determination in the respondent's favor, the respondent has the burden of proof to present the information in the first place with its request for exclusion.” * See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom * , 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8 (citing *NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United States* , 997 F. 2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). An analysis of QVD's section C computer sales listings reveals that QVD provided zero-priced merchandise to the same customers to whom it was selling or had sold the same products in commercial quantities, with the exception of a few of QVD's customers, who did not make any purchases of subject merchandise during the POR. *See QVD Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* at Attachment I. Consequently, based on the facts cited above, the guidance of past CIT decisions, and consistent with the Department's prior case precedent, for the preliminary results of this review, we have not excluded zero-priced transactions from the margin calculation of this case for QVD, with the exception of certain sales that QVD made to new customers that did not purchase any subject merchandise during the POR. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Because information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by QVD, pursuant to sections 773(c)(3) and

(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). As the basis for NV, QVD provided FOPs used in each of the stages for processing frozen fish fillets. However, QVD also reported that it is an integrated producer, ( *i.e.* , it farms and processes the whole fish input), but that its affiliated farming facility, Choi Moi, did not supply the majority of the whole fish used during the production of the subject merchandise. *See QVD's Section D Questionnaire Response* , (March 8, 2006) at 3. In response to a supplemental questionnaire, QVD also provided factors of production information used in each of the production stages, from the fingerling stage to the frozen fish fillet processing stage, separately. Although QVD reported the inputs used to produce the main input to the processing stage (whole fish), for the purposes of these preliminary results, we are not valuing those inputs when calculating NV. Rather, our NV calculation begins with a valuation of the fish input (whole fish) used to produce the merchandise under investigation. Our general policy, consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, is to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to produce the subject merchandise. If the NME respondent is an integrated producer, we take into account the factors utilized in each stage of the production process. For example, in a previous aquaculture case, *Shrimp from PRC Final* , one of the respondents, Zhanjiang Guolian, was a fully integrated firm, and the Department valued both the farming and processing FOPs because Zhanjiang Guolian bore all the costs related to growing the shrimp. *See Notice of Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9(e) (“ *Shrimp from PRC Final* ”). Unlike Zhanjiang Guolian in *Shrimp from the PRC Final* , QVD is not a fully integrated firm. Although QVD is affiliated with Choi Moi, QVD purchased the whole fish input from Choi Moi. Accordingly, QVD did not bear all the costs related to growing the fish input. Therefore, we will apply a surrogate value to the whole fish input that QVD purchased from Choi Moi, rather than valuing the factors of production incurred by Choi Moi in calculating QVD's NV. To calculate NV, QVD's reported per-unit factor quantities were valued using publicly available Bangladeshi, Indian, and Indonesian surrogate values. In selecting surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the available values. As appropriate, we adjusted the value of material inputs to account for delivery costs. Specifically, we added surrogate freight costs to surrogate values using the reported distances from the Vietnam port to the Vietnam factory, or from the domestic supplier to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using data published in the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”)'s *International Financial Statistics* . We excluded from the surrogate country import data used in our calculations imports from South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and India due to generally available export subsidies. *See China Nat'l Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United States* , CIT 01-1114, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), *aff'd* 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and *Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries and imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value. The Department excluded these imports because it could not ascertain whether they were not from either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies. Finally, we also disregarded prices from North Korea, as the Department has in a previous case. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's Republic of China* , 61 FR 58514 (November 15, 1996). We converted the surrogate values to U.S. dollars as appropriate, using the official exchange rate recorded on the dates of sale of subject merchandise in this case, obtained from Import Administration's website at *http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html* . For further detail, *see Surrogate Values Memo* . Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find that the following margins exist for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Cataco 80.88 QVD 66.34 Vietnam-wide Rate 10 66.34 10 The Vietnam-wide rate includes Mekonimex, Cafatex, Afiex, Navico, Phan Quan, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Dinh and Vinh Long. Public Comment The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within ten days of the date of announcement of the preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 20 days of publication of the preliminary results and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issue;

(2)a brief summary of the argument; and

(3)a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on the final results of this review. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. For QVD, the only respondent receiving a calculated rate in this review, we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total volume of the examined sales for that importer. For Cataco, to ensure proper assessment, the Department has adjusted the total volume of the examined sales for Cataco as outlined in the *Cataco Analysis Memo* . Where the assessment rate is *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)for the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required);

(2)for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnam and non-Vietnam exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)for all Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the Vietnam-wide rate of 66.34 percent, which was calculated in this review for QVD; and

(4)for all non-Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnam exporters that supplied that non-Vietnam exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as a preliminary 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15003 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-475-703) Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala or Saliha Loucif, at

(202)482-1784 or

(202)482-1779, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin

(PTFE)from Italy, covering the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by Solvay Solexis, Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A (collectively, Solvay) have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the export price

(EP)and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 30, 1988, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on granular PTFE resin from Italy. *See Antidumping Duty Order; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy* , 53 FR 33163 (August 30, 1988). On August 1, 2005, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Solvay requested an administrative review. On September 28, 2005, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005 (the period of review, or POR). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 11, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Solvay, specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B-E would be due on November 1, 2005, and, November 15, 2005, respectively. 1 The Department received timely responses to Sections A-E of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated supplemental questionnaires. 2 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this Section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. 2 During the POR, Solvay sold merchandise further processed in the United States, which was made prior to the POR. In its Section A response, dated November 1, 2005, Solvay stated that its PTFE further manufacturing operations have been discontinued. In addition, Solvay reported it could not fill out Section E because its factory had been damaged by hurricane Rita. Solvay stated that it would provide the information as “soon as possible” but no Section E was filed. In Solvay's first supplemental questionnaire, dated March 29, 2006, the Department again asked for Section E. Solvay responded on April 26, 2006, and stated that some of its documents were damaged in the hurricane and it could not fill out Section E “at this time.” In the Department's second supplemental questionnaire, the Department told Solvay it had to either fill out Section E, or pursuant to the regulations, offer a full explanation and suggest alternate forms for presenting the data to the Department. Solvay replied again on July 14, 2006, that it could not fill out Section E because of the hurricane damage and submitted documents demonstrating structural damages to its facilities. In response to the Department's fifth supplemental, dated August 8, 2006, Solvay submitted a Section E response, however, there are certain deficiencies in the Section E response. We plan to issue supplemental questionnaires after the preliminary results of this review. Our use of the Section E for the final results of this review will be contingent on complete answers by Solvay to our supplemental questions. On April 14, 2006, the Department published a notice of a 90-day extension of the preliminary results of this administrative review. *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 19481. This notice extended the deadline for the preliminary results to August 1, 2006. On August 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of a 30-day extension of the preliminary results of this administrative review. *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy: Second Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 44018. This notice extended the deadline for the preliminary results to August 31, 2006. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States. *See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order* , 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order excludes PTFE dispersions in water and fine powders. During the period covered by this review, such merchandise was classified under item number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). We are providing this HTSUS number for convenience and CBP purposes only. The written description of the scope remains dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons We compared the constructed export price

(CEP)to the NV, as described in the *Constructed Export Price* and *Normal Value* sections of this notice. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared the CEPs of individual transactions to contemporaneous monthly weighted-average prices of sales of the foreign like product. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and the comparison market that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: type, filler, percentage of filler, and grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales with comparison market sales of the most similar merchandise. Constructed Export Price For all sales to the United States, we calculated CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because all sales to unaffiliated parties were made after importation of the subject merchandise into the United States through the respondent's affiliate, Solvay Solexis, Inc. We based CEP on the packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, net of billing adjustments. We adjusted these prices for movement expenses, including international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling in the United States, U.S. inland freight, U.S. warehousing, and U.S. customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses incurred by the affiliated reseller in connection with economic activity in the United States. These expenses include credit, inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses incurred by Solvay Solexis, Inc. We adjusted inventory carrying cost for the sales of further manufactured products to accurately reflect the time they spent in inventory. *See* Memorandum from Saliha Loucif and Salim Bhabhrawala, International Trade Compliance Analysts, to Constance Handley, Program Manager, re: Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated August 31, 2006 (Analysis Memo). With respect to sales involving imported wet raw polymer that was further manufactured into finished PTFE resin in the United States, we deducted the cost of such further manufacturing in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. We adjusted the variable overhead for further-manufactured products to reflect a positive amount. In addition, we applied Solvay's reported interest expense ratio to its further manufacturing cost. *See* Analysis Memo. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of granular PTFE resin in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Solvay's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provided a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the calculation of the final results of the 2000-2001 administrative review (13 th review), with respect to Solvay, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by Solvay had been made at prices below the cost of production

(COP)during the period of this review. *See* section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation regarding home market sales. Solvay calculated its model-specific costs of production on a POR basis. 1. *Calculation of COP* In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the model-specific, weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses, interest expenses, selling expenses, and packing costs. 2. *Test of Home Market Sales Prices* We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any rebates, discounts, applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses (which were also deducted from COP). 3. *Adjustments to Respondent's Data* We relied on the COP data submitted Solvay in its cost questionnaire response except for general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We adjusted Solvay's G&A based on its normal books and records, in accordance with Italian GAAP. *See* Analysis Memo. 4. *Results of the COP Test* We disregarded below-cost sales where

(1)20 percent or more of Solvay's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, because such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act; and

(B)of the Act. In order to adjust for differences in packing between the two markets, we deducted home market packing costs from NV and added U.S. packing costs. We also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for other differences in the circumstances of sale

(COS)in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act ( *i.e.* , differences in credit expenses). Finally, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to the NV for indirect selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act as discussed in the *Level of Trade/CEP Offset* section below. D. Level of Trade/CEP Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales at the same level of trade in the comparison market as the level of trade of the U.S. sales. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP sales, such as those made by Solvay in this review, the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than that of the U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). *See* , *e.g.* , *Industrial Nitrocellulose From the United Kingdom; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 6148, 6151 (February 8, 2000) ( *Industrial Nitrocellulose* ). For purpose of this review, we obtained information from Solvay about the marketing involved in the reported U.S. sales and in the home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Solvay for each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP and for home market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the CEP, after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act, and those reflected in the home market starting price before making any adjustments. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. The record evidence in this review indicates that the home market and the CEP levels of trade for Solvay, formerly known as Solvay Inc. and Solvay SpA (Solvay) have not changed from the 2000-2001 review, the most recently completed review in this case. As explained below, we determined in this review that, as in the prior review, 3 there was one home market level of trade and one U.S. level of trade ( *i.e.* , the CEP level of trade). 3 *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy* , 68 FR 2007 (January 15, 2003) and *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy* , 67 FR 1960 (January 15, 2002). In the home market, Solvay sold directly to fabricators. These sales primarily entailed selling activities such as technical assistance, engineering services, research and development, technical programs, and delivery services. Given this fact pattern, we found that all home market sales were made at a single level of trade. In determining the level of trade for the U.S. sales, we only considered the selling activities reflected in the price after making the appropriate adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act. *See* , *e.g.* , *Industrial Nitrocellulose* , 65 FR at 6150. The CEP level of trade involves minimal selling functions such as invoicing and the occasional exchange of personnel between Solvay and its U.S. affiliate. Given this fact pattern, we found that all U.S. sales were made at a single level of trade. Based on a comparison of the home market level of trade and this CEP level of trade, we find the home market sales to be at a different level of trade from, and more remote from the factory than, the CEP sales. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act directs us to make an adjustment for difference in levels of trade where such differences affect price comparability. However, we were unable to quantify such price differences from information on the record. Because we have determined that the home-market level of trade is more remote from the factory than the CEP level of trade, and because the data necessary to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment are unavailable, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to NV pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Producer Weighted-Average Margin (Percentage) Solvay Solexis, Inc. and Solvay Solexis S.p.A (collectively, Solvay) 39.48 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose its weighted average antidumping margin calculations within 10 days of public announcement of these preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue,

(2)a brief summary of the argument, and

(3)a table of authorities. Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of the sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed company 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 or companies involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of PTFE from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate listed above for Solvay will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore *de minimis* , the cash deposit rate will be zero;

(2)for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 46.46 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See* 53 FR 26096 (July 11, 1988). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entities during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14909 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-803 Administrative Review (02/01/2005 01/31/2006) of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482 6312 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 5239) a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (heavy forged hand tools), from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)for the period of review

(POR)covering February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. On February 24, 2006, respondents Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation and Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation requested administrative reviews of their companies for this POR. On February 27, 2006, respondents Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp., Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., and Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. requested administrative reviews of their companies for this POR. On February 28, 2006, petitioner Council Tool Company requested administrative reviews of Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation, Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation, Shanghai Xinke Trading Company, Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd., and Jafsam Metal Products for this POR. Also on February 28, 2006, petitioner Ames True Temper requested administrative reviews of Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation, Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation, Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd., and Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. for this POR. On April 5, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty orders listed below on heavy forged hand tools from the PRC covering the POR February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, with respect to the listed companies: Axes/Adzes A-570-803 Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinke Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. Bars/Wedges A-570-803 Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products. Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinke Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. Hammers/Sledges A-570-803 Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinke Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation Picks/Mattocks A-570-803 Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. Jafsam Metal Products Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. Shanghai Xinke Trading Company Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. Shandong Machinery Import and Export Corporation *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006). Rescission of Reviews Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations stipulates that the Secretary will rescind an administrative review if the party that requests a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. In each of the instances cited in the paragraphs below, the parties who requested the administrative reviews have withdrawn their requests for review within the 90-day period. Therefore, we rescind the following reviews with regard to the firms and merchandise specified in the following paragraphs. On April 18, 2006, respondent Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. withdrew its request for an administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced POR. Respondent was the sole party to request this review. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools in all classes or kinds with regard to Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. On April 24, 2006, respondent Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. withdrew its request for an administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced POR. Respondent was the sole party to request this review. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools in all classes or kinds with regard to Shanghai Machinery Import & Export Corp. On April 26, 2006, petitioner Ames True Temper withdrew its request for an administrative review of the sales of Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. during the above-referenced POR. Petitioner was the sole party to request this review. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools in all classes or kinds with regard to Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. On April 18, 2006, respondent Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation withdrew its request for an administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced POR. On June 13, 2006, petitioner Ames True Temper withdrew its request for an administrative review of the sales of Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation with respect to the classes or kinds axes/adzes, hammers/sledges, and bars/wedges. On June 29, 2006, petitioner Council Tool Company withdrew its request for an administrative review of the sales of Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation with respect to the classes or kinds axes/adzes, hammers/sledges, and bars/wedges. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools in the classes or kinds axes/adzes, hammers/sledges, and bars/wedges with regard to Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation. On April 19, 2006, respondent Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. withdrew its request for an administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced POR. On June 13, 2006, petitioner Ames True Temper withdrew its request for an administrative review of the sales of Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. with respect to the classes or kinds axes/adzes and bars/wedges. On June 29, 2006, petitioner Council Tool Company withdrew its request for an administrative review of the sales of Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. with respect to the classes or kinds axes/adzes and bars/wedges. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools in the classes or kinds axes/adzes and bars/wedges with regard to Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. On June 13, 2006, petitioner Ames True Temper withdrew its request for an administrative review of the sales of Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. with respect to the class or kind bars/wedges. On June 29, 2006, petitioner Council Tool Company withdrew its request for an administrative review of the sales of Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. with respect to the class or kind bars/wedges. On July 6, 2006, Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. requested administrative review of its company for this POR. On July 17, 2006, the Department denied Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd.'s request as untimely in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations since the request was made more than four months after the end of the anniversary month. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the review of Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. with respect to the class or kind bars/wedges. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: August 31, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14917 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-427-818) Low Enriched Uranium from France: Notice of Court Decision and Suspension of Liquidation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 3, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) June 19, 2006, Final Results of Redetermination on Remand pursuant to *Eurodif S.A., et. al. v. United States* , Consol. Ct. No. 02-00219, Slip. Op. 06-75 (CIT May 18, 2006) (“LEU Remand Redetermination”), which pertains to the Antidumping Duty Order on Low Enriched Uranium (“LEU”) from France. Consistent with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in *Timken Co. v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the Department is notifying the public that this decision is “not in harmony” with the Department's original determination and will continue to order the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise, where appropriate, until there is a conclusive decision in this case. If the case is not appealed, or if it is affirmed on appeal, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate all relevant entries from Eurodif S.A./Compagnie Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires (collectively, “Eurodif” or “respondents”). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3148 or

(202)482-2371, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 21, 2001, the Department published a notice of final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of LEU from France. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Low Enriched Uranium From France* , 66 FR 65877 (Dec. 21, 2001) (“LEU Final Determination”). On February 13, 2002, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on LEU from France. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium From France* , 67 FR 6680 (Feb. 13, 2002). Respondents challenged the Department's final determination before the CIT. The case was later appealed and the CAFC, in *Eurodif S.A., Compagnie Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires, and Cogema Inc., et. al. v. United States* , 411 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“ *Eurodif I* ”), ruled in favor of respondents. The CAFC later clarified its ruling, issuing a decision in *Eurodif S.A., Compagnie Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires, and Cogema Inc., et. al. v. United States* , 423 F. 3d. 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“ *Eurodif II* ”). On January 5, 2006, the CIT remanded the case to the Department for action consistent with the decisions of the Federal Circuit in *Eurodif I* and *Eurodif II* . See *Eurodif S.A.* , *Compagnie Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires, and Cogema Inc. et. al. v. United States* , Slip. Op. 06-2 (CIT Jan. 5, 2006). Specifically, the CIT directed the Department to revise its final determination and antidumping duty order to conform with the decisions in *Eurodif I* and *Eurodif II* . On March 3, 2006, the Department issued its results of redetermination and recalculated the antidumping duty rate applicable to Eurodif, to comply with the decisions of *Eurodif I* and *Eurodif II* . On May 18, 2006, the CIT again remanded the case to the Department to exclude certain entries from the scope of the order. On June 19, 2006, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to court remand (“LEU Remand Redetermination”). On August 3, 2006, the CIT sustained the Department's redetermination. *See Eurodif S.A., Compagnie Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires, and Cogema Inc. et. al. v. United States* , Slip. Op. 06-124 (CIT August 3, 2006). Suspension of Liquidation The CAFC in *Timken* held that, pursuant to 19 USC 1516(e), the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the CAFC, which is not “in harmony” with the Department's final determination or results. Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The Federal Circuit also held that the Department must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a “conclusive” decision in the case. Therefore, pursuant to *Timken* , the Department must continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's August 3, 2006, decision. In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed, it is upheld, the Department will publish amended final results and liquidate relevant entries covering the subject merchandise. Dated: September 5, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-15000 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-549-821 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Thailand. The review covers seven manufacturers/exporters. The period of review is January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value by each of the companies subject to this review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to submit with each argument

(1)a statement of each issue and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2005 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer at

(202)482-0410 or Richard Rimlinger at

(202)482-4477, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 9, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand* , 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004). On September 28, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we published a notice of initiation of administrative review of this order. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). Since initiation of the review we extended the due date for the completion of these preliminary results of review from May 3, 2006, to August 31, 2006. See *Notice of Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand* , 71 FR 24641 (April 26, 2006), and *Notice of Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand* , 71 FR 42630 (July 27, 2006). The companies for which we have conducted an administrative review of the order on PRCBs from Thailand are as follows: Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., Alpine Plastics, Inc., Advance Polybag Inc., and API Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, UPC/API); Thai Plastic Bags Industries Company Ltd. and APEC Film Ltd. (collectively, TPBG); Apple Film Co., Ltd. (Apple); CP Packaging Industry Co. Ltd. (CP Packaging); King Pac Industrial Co., Ltd. (KPI), Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd. (DPAC), Zippac Co., Ltd. (Zippac), and King Bag Co., Ltd. (King Bag) (collectively, KP); Naraipak Co., Ltd., and Narai Packaging (Thailand) Ltd. (collectively, Naraipak); Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd. (Sahachit Watana). Although our initiation notice listed KPI separately, KPI informed us in its response that it was affiliated with DPAC, Zippac, and King Bag and KP submitted a response on behalf of all those firms. Based on information in this consolidated response, we have collapsed these firms into one entity, herein after referred to as KP. See Collapsing Decision Memorandum, dated August 31, 2006. With respect to TPBG, although we initiated an administrative review of Winner's Pack Co., Ltd. (Winner's), this company informed us in its response that it merged with TPBG prior to the period of review. See Winner's/TPBG's November 23, 2005, submission at Exhibit A-11. Scope of Order The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, *e.g.* , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the order excludes

(1)polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and

(2)polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, *e.g.* , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we have verified information provided by certain respondents using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Specifically, we conducted sales and cost verifications of CP Packaging and KP. Our verification results are outlined in the public versions of the verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building. See CP Packaging Sales Verification Report (July 17, 2006) (CP Sales Verification Report), CP Packaging Cost Verification Report (July 17, 2006) (CP Cost Verification Report), KP Sales Verification Report (August 31, 2006), and KP Cost Verification Report (August 31, 2006). Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and

(e)of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if that information is necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the requirements established by the Department provided that all of the following requirements are met:

(1)The information is submitted by the established deadline;

(2)the information can be verified;

(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;

(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability;

(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. With respect to KP, it withheld information, failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, and significantly impeded the proceeding. As a consequence, we were unable to verify KP's response. See the August 31, 2006, Decision Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Decision to Apply Adverse Facts Available and the Appropriate Rate” (AFA Memo) for a full discussion on an adverse facts-available treatment with respect to KP. As described in the AFA Memo, based on the difficulties we encountered at verification (see KP Sales and Cost Verification Reports (August 31, 2006)), the use of facts available is necessary. See section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, because KP could have provided correct and verifiable data but did not, we determine that KP did not act to the best of its ability. Therefore, the use of an adverse inference is warranted. See section 776(b) of the Act and *Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ( *Nippon Steel* ). As total adverse facts available, we have used the highest rate we found in the less-than-fair-value investigation, which was 122.88 percent. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand* , 69 FR 34122-34125 (June 18, 2004) ( *Final LTFV* ). We applied this rate to Zippac, one of the companies comprising the KP group of companies, as well as to two other non-cooperative companies in the less-than-fair-value investigation. *Id* . See also the AFA Memo for a full discussion on an adverse facts-available treatment with respect to KP. When a respondent is not cooperative, like KP here, the Department has the discretion to presume that the highest prior margin reflects the current margins. See *Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States* , 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing *Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). As stated in *Rhone Poulenc* , “if this were not so, the importer, knowing the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2d at 1190. Further, as stated in *Shanghai Taoen* , “{t}he purposes of using the highest prior antidumping duty rate are to offer assurance that the exporter will not benefit from refusing to provide information, and to produce an antidumping duty rate that bears some relationship to past practices in the industry in question.” *Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States* , 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (citing *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220,1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)at 870. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. Information from a prior segment of this proceeding, such as that used here, constitutes secondary information. See, *e.g.* , *Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003). As stated in *F.Lii de Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino, S.p.A. v. United States* , 216 F.3d 1027, 1030 (2000), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870. With respect to the reliability aspect of corroboration, the Department found the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable in the investigation. See *Final LTFV* , 69 FR at 34123- 34124. There, the Department stated that the rate was calculated from source documents included with the petition, namely, a price quotation for various sizes of PRCBs commonly produced in Thailand, import statistics, and affidavits from company officials, all from a different Thai producer of subject merchandise. See AFA Memo. Because the information is supported by source documents, we preliminarily determine that the information is still reliable. In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin as “best information available” (the predecessor to “facts available”) since the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high dumping margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F. 3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present here, and there is no evidence indicating that the margin used as facts available in this review is not appropriate. In the investigation, the Department determined that, because the offer used in the calculation of 122.88 percent reflected commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of investigation, the information was relevant to mandatory respondents that failed to participate in the investigation. See *Final LTFV* , 69 FR at 34123-24. No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the relevance of this information. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the adverse facts-available rate we corroborated in the investigation is relevant to KP in this first administrative review of the order. KP's failure to cooperate to the best of its abilities in this review has left the Department with an “egregious lack of evidence.” See *Shanghai Taoen* , 360 F. Supp. 2d at 1348. Further, because this is the first review of KP (and because Zippac failed to participate in the investigation), there are no probative alternatives. *Id* . Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the investigation and preliminarily determined to be relevant to KP in this review, we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate “to the extent practicable.” See section 776(c) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.308(d); *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 347 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004) (stating, “pursuant to the 'to the extent practicable' language . . . the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory when not feasible”). With respect to CP Packaging, we found at verification that CP Packaging reported incorrect amounts for inland-freight expenses it incurred for all U.S. sales we examined. See CP Sales Verification Report at 15. Because we were unable to verify this expense, the use of facts available is necessary. See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. In addition, CP Packaging had the documents necessary to report the correct freight expenses for its U.S. sales. See CP Sales Verification Report at Exhibit 6, which includes the bills from the freight and brokerage suppliers which we used to ascertain the actual freight expense for a particular U.S. sale. Because it did not do so, we find that CP Packaging did not act to the best of its ability in reporting this expense and, accordingly, the use of an adverse inference is necessary. See section 776(b) of the Act; *Nippon Steel* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. As partial adverse facts available, we used the highest per-kilogram inland-freight expense that CP reported for any U.S. sale. With respect to CP Packaging, we also found at verification that CP Packaging reported incorrect amounts for the direct-materials expenses it incurred for the three subject models we examined. See CP Cost Verification Report at 14-15. Because we were unable to verify this expense, the use of facts available is necessary. See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. In addition, CP Packaging had the documents necessary to report the correct direct-materials costs for its subject models. See, *e.g.* , CP Cost Verification Report at Exhibit 13, which includes the print product-costing reports which CP could have used to report the correct costs. Because it did not do so, we find that CP Packaging did not act to the best of its ability in reporting this expense and, accordingly, the use of an adverse inference is necessary. See section 776(b) of the Act; *Nippon Steel* , 337 F.3d at 1382-83. With the exception of the merchandise extruded at CP Packaging's Bangplee facility, however, the reported direct materials costs for the other two models for the months we examined was understated by approximately the same proportion. See CP Cost Verification Report at 14-15. We consider the merchandise that CP Packaging extruded at the Bangplee facility to be an unusual situation such that it is unrepresentative of other models CP Packaging produced because it was the only model CP Packaging sold during the period of review that it did not wholly produce at its Rayong facility. See CP Cost Verification Report at 3. Because costs for the other models were off by a similar proportion, as partial adverse facts available, we have restated the direct-materials costs for all models, except the model produced at the Bangplee facility, by increasing the materials costs by the same proportion as the two non-Bangplee models we examined at verification. We restated the materials costs for the model CP Packaging extruded at the Bangplee facility using the amounts we verified for this model. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used export price

(EP)or constructed export price

(CEP)as defined in sections 772(a) and

(b)of the Act, as appropriate. We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. See section 772(d) of the Act. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 823-824, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4163-64, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which include commissions and direct selling expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and comparison markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets. Comparison-Market Sales Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of comparison-market and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, with the exception of UPC/API, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by all respondents in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Aside from UPC/API, each company's quantity of sales in its comparison market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. See section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for all respondents except for UPC/API on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP sales. Although UPC/API did not have a viable home market within the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, Canada was a viable third-country market for UPC/API under section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Therefore, we based normal value for UPC/API's U.S. sales on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Canada in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the CEP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. Cost of Production We disregarded below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act in the antidumping duty investigation with respect to PRCBs sold by TPBG. See *Final LTFV* , 69 FR at 34124. Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value in this review may have been made at prices below the cost of production

(COP)as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP investigation of sales by TPBG in the comparison market. The petitioners in this proceeding 1 filed allegations that all of the respondents (other than TPBG) made sales below COP in the comparison market. Based on the information in the responses, we found that we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made at prices that are less than the cost of production of the product by UPC/API, Apple, CP Packaging, KP, and Naraipak. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted COP investigations of sales by these firms in the respective comparison market. We did not find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made at prices that are less than the COP of the product by Sahachit Watana. Therefore, we did not conduct a COP investigation of sales by this firm. See the February 21, 2006, Decision Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Request to Initiate Cost Investigation for Sahachit Watana Plastic Industry Co., Ltd.” for a full discussion of our analysis. 1 The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the comparison-market sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses. After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported comparison-market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the period of review were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Act and based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the period of review, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the Department's preliminary analysis memoranda for UPC/API, Apple, CP Packaging, KP, Naraipak, and TPBG, dated August 31, 2006. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to all of these companies. We made several changes to the costs reported by CP Packaging. As discussed under the *Use of Facts Available* section above, we increased the raw-materials costs by the percentage by which the raw-materials costs for models we examined at verification was understated. In addition, we found at verification that, for some comparison-market products, CP Packaging made a small number of sales to a single domestic customer for which the customer provided replacement raw materials following production. We made an appropriate adjustment to the cost for those sales by the value of the raw materials. See CP Packaging Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum, dated August 31, 2006. Finally, we made an adjustment to CP Packaging's reported costs for recycled resin supplied by an affiliated party pursuant to section 773(f)(2) of the Act. Our calculation of the adjustment to CP Packaging's costs for this affiliated-party input is attached to the CP Packaging Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum, dated August 31, 2006. UPC/API reported the cost of raw materials purchased from affiliated resellers at transfer price. In accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act, the Department is directed to determine whether inputs obtained from affiliated parties reflect arm's-length values. Because the affiliated reseller provided both the raw materials as well as the administrative services related to acquiring the raw materials, there is an administrative cost associated with the purchase of raw materials and with coordinating their delivery. Therefore, to ensure that we have captured the market value of the inputs plus an amount to cover the additional procurement services provided to UPC/API by its affiliates, we have compared transfer prices to adjusted market prices ( *i.e.* , the market price of the raw materials plus an amount for the affiliates' SG&A expenses). Where the adjusted market prices were higher than the reported transfer prices, we increased the reported total cost of manufacturing to reflect the adjusted market prices. See the UPC/API Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum, dated August 31, 2006, for additional information. Further, UPC/API reported cost data on both a quarterly and period-of-review basis, requesting that the Department use quarterly data due to the significant fluctuation in the cost of resin. It is the Department's normal practice to use annual-average costs to address fluctuations in the production cost over the entire period of review in non-high-inflation cases. See *Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results, Recession of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , and Determination to Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665 (November 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. While our normal practice for a respondent in a country that is not experiencing high inflation is to calculate a single weighted-average cost for the entire period of review, we have used short cost- averaging periods in unusual cases where a company experienced a drastic and consistent change in cost and prices. *Id* . Therefore, we conducted an analysis of UPC/API's reported cost data to determine whether the fluctuation in the cost of resin had an impact on the cost of manufacturing. We found that there was an insignificant difference in the cost of manufacturing when comparing quarterly cost data to cost data for the period of review. For this reason, we have not departed from our normal practice and, accordingly, used UPC/API's reported period-of-review cost data for these preliminary results. See UPC/API Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for a more comprehensive description of our analysis. Finally, UPC/API reported and subtracted from the total cost of manufacturing what it describes as shut-down/start-up costs. Section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act allows for an adjustment for start-up operations only where a producer is using new production facilities or producing a new product that requires substantial additional investment and production levels are limited by technical factors associated with the initial phase of commercial production. After evaluating the information provided in UPC/API's questionnaire responses, we found that the expenses identified by UPC/API did not result from start-up operations as described under section 773(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. See UPC/API Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum for more details. Therefore, we did not allow an adjustment to the cost of manufacturing for the reason of start-up operations. We determined further that the expenses do not meet the Department's definition of extraordinary expenses ( *i.e.* , infrequent in occurrence and unusual in nature). It is the Department's practice to exclude items that are infrequent and unusual from the calculation of reported costs. 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 (November 8, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. Because the generally accepted accounting principles

(GAAP)of many countries have varying tests of classifying extraordinary items, we test these classifications to ensure that they are the result of events that are unusual and infrequent. See, *e.g* ., *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909 (February 23, 1998); see also *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan* ,64 FR 30574, 30590-91 (June 8, 1999) (stating that the Department's policy is to exclude “extraordinary” expenses provided they are both unusual and infrequent). Based on the information on the record of this review, we do not find that temporary shut-downs in the manufacturing industry are unusual in nature and infrequent in occurrence. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile* , 63 FR 31411, 31436 (June 9, 1998), where the Department concluded that costs associated with the temporary shut-down of a facility should be included in the COP. Accordingly, for these preliminary results, we have added back to the total cost of manufacturing the expenses that UPC/API identified and reported as shut-down/start-up expenses. We made no other adjustments to the cost information the respondents reported. Model-Match Methodology We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP test of the identical product during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of importance:

(1)Quality,

(2)bag type,

(3)length,

(4)width,

(5)gusset,

(6)thickness,

(7)percentage of high-density polyethylene resin,

(8)percentage of low-density polyethylene resin,

(9)percentage of low linear-density polyethylene resin,

(10)percentage of color concentrate,

(11)percentage of ink coverage,

(12)number of ink colors,

(13)number of sides printed. Normal Value Comparison-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP calculations and for U.S. indirect selling expenses to offset comparison-market commissions. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See *Level of Trade* section below. The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, *i.e.* , sales at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). We excluded sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the comparison market that we determined not to be at arm's-length prices from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length prices. See *Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). We included in our calculation of normal value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length prices. As discussed in the *Cost of Production* section above, we found at verification that, for some comparison-market products, CP Packaging made a small number of sales to a single domestic customer for which the customer provided replacement raw materials following production. We made an appropriate adjustment to the price for those sales by the value of the raw materials. See CP Packaging Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum, dated August 31, 2006. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used constructed value as the basis for normal value when we could not determine normal value due to lack of usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of constructed value. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market. When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 351.412, for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from constructed value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons. When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed value was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and

(8)of the Act. Level of Trade To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). See sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 773(a)(7) of the Act. When there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to comparison-market sales at a different level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit. To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. No company reported any significant differences in selling functions between different channels of distribution or customer type in either the comparison or U.S. markets. Therefore, for each respondent, we determined that all comparison-market sales were made at one level of trade and that all U.S. sales were made at one level of trade. Moreover, for each respondent that had EP sales, we determined that all comparison-market sales were made at the same level of trade as the EP customer. For each of the two respondents that had CEP sales (UPC/API and Apple), we found that the comparison-market level of trade was not equivalent to the CEP level of trade and that the CEP level of trade was at a less advanced stage than the comparison-market level of trade. Therefore, we were unable to determine a level-of-trade adjustment based on the respondents' comparison-market sales of the foreign like product. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment. For these respondents' CEP sales, we made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to normal value was subject to the offset cap, calculated as the sum of comparison-market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses deducted from CEP (or, if there were no comparison-market commissions, the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and U.S. commissions). Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand for the period January 26, 2004, through July 31, 2005: Company Margin (percent) UPC/API 14.17 TPBG 1.41 Apple 16.43 CP Packaging 7.75 KP 122.88 Naraipac 1.69 Sahachit Watana 6.34 Comments We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following:

(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2)the number of participants;

(3)a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice of preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 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 at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212.(b)(1), the Department has calculated importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* duty-assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. Where entered value is unavailable the Department has calculated importer (or customer)-specific per-unit assessment amounts by dividing the total dumping margin for each importer or customer by the number of units that importer or customer purchased during the period of review. With respect to KP, because we are relying on total adverse facts available to establish its dumping margin, we preliminarily determine to instruct CBP to apply 122.88 percent to all entries during the period of review which were produced or exported by any of the KP entities (KPI, DPAC, Zippac, and King Bag). 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 of review 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). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)The cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of review;

(2)for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the *Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand* , 69 FR 42419 (July 15, 2004);

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value 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;

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate the cash-deposit rate will be 2.80 percent, the “all others” rate for this proceeding. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importer 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14914 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-580-810, A-583-815) Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea and Taiwan AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission

(ITC)that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe

(WSSP)from Korea and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Department is publishing notice of continuation of these antidumping duty orders. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-5255 or

(202)482-1391, respectively. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 28, 2006 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 1, 2005, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on WSSP from Korea and Taiwan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews* , 70 FR 52074 (September 1, 2005), and ITC notice of institution on *Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea and Taiwan* , 70 FR 52124 (September 1, 2005). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea and Taiwan: Notice of Final Results of Expedited (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders* , 71 FR 96 (January 3, 2006). On August 22, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on WSSP from Korea and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. *See Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea and Taiwan* , 71 FR 48941 (August 22, 2006) and USITC Publication 3877 (August 2006) (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541) (Second Review)). Scope of the Orders The merchandise covered by these antidumping duty orders consists of austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets the standards and specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM)for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated ASTM A-312. Welded Stainless Steel Pipe

(WSSP)is produced by forming stainless steel flat-rolled products into a tubular configuration and welding along the seam. WSSP is a commodity product generally used as a conduit to transmit liquids or gases. Major applications for WSSP include, but are not limited to, digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical stock lines, brewery process and transport lines, general food processing lines, automotive paint lines and paper process machines. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS)subheadings for Korea: 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5045, 7306.40.5060 and 7306.40.5075. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following HTS subheadings for Taiwan: 7306.40.1000, 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065, and 7306.40.5085. Although these subheadings include both pipes and tubes, the scope of these orders is limited to welded austenitic stainless steel pipes. Although HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive. Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on WSSP from Korea and Taiwan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders is August 28, 2006. Pursuant to sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year reviews of these orders not later than July 2011. This notice of continuation and these sunset reviews are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 5, 2006. David A. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14999 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-580-818) Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty

(CVD)order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products ( *i.e.* , corrosion-resistant carbon steel plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period of review

(POR)January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. For information on the net subsidy for each of the reviewed companies, see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. ( *See* the “Public Comment” section of this notice). EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2209 or

(202)482-3338, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. *See Countervailing Duty Orders and Amendments to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Korea* , 58 FR 43752 (August 17, 1993). On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, we received a timely request for review from Pohang Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (POSCO) and Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbu). On September 28, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the CVD order on corrosion-resistent carbon steel flat products from Korea covering the POR January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 19, 2005, the Department sent its initial questionnaire to POSCO, Dongbu, and the Government of Korea (GOK). On December 21, 2005, the Department received questionnaire responses from POSCO, Pohang Steel Co., Ltd. (POCOS, a production affiliate of POSCO), POSCO Steel Service & Sales Co., Ltd. (POSTEEL, a trading company for POSCO), 1 Dongbu, and the GOK. On March 20, 2006, we issued supplemental questionnaires to POSCO and the GOK. On April 3, 2006, we received the responses to these supplemental questionnaires. 1 In these preliminary results, unless otherwise stated, we use POSCO to collectively refer to POSCO, POCOS, and POSTEEL. On April 17, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of extension of the time period for issuing the preliminary results. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France and the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 19714 (April 17, 2006). On July 31, 2006, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to POSCO, POCOS, and POSTEEL. On August 3, 2006, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to the GOK. We received responses to these supplemental questionnaires on August 11, 2006. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to this review are POSCO (and its affiliates POCOS and POSTEEL) and Dongbu. Affiliated Parties and Trading Companies In the present administrative review, record evidence indicates that POCOS is a majority-owned affiliate of POSCO. Under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii), if the firm that received a subsidy is a holding company, including a parent company with its own operations, the Department will attribute the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the holding company and its subsidiaries. Thus, we attributed subsidies received by POCOS to POSCO and its subsidiaries, net of intra-company sales. Dongbu reported that it is the only member of the Donbu group in Korea that was involved with the sale of subject merchandise to the United States. Scope of Order Products covered by this order are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea. These products include flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 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. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7210.30.0000, 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.21.0000, 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, 7215.9030, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.30.15.0000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, 7217.39.5000, 7217.90.1000 and 7217.90.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Average Useful Life Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life

(AUL)of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's

(IRS)1997 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry under examination and that the difference between the company-specific and/or country-wide AUL and the AUL from the IRS table is significant. According to the IRS Tables, the AUL of the steel industry is 15 years. No interested party challenged the 15-year AUL derived from the IRS tables. Thus, in this review, we have allocated, where applicable, all of the non-recurring subsidies provided to the producers/exporters of subject merchandise over a 15-year AUL. Subsidies Valuation Information A. Benchmarks for Short-Term Financing For those programs requiring the application of a won-denominated, short-term interest rate benchmark, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iv), we used as our benchmark a company-specific weighted-average interest rate for commercial won-denominated loans outstanding during the POR. Where unavailable, we used the average interest rate on lending rate loans for the POR, as reported in the IMF's *International Financial Statistics Yearbook* . This approach is in accordance with the Department's practice. *See* , *e.g.* , the *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Structural Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 41051 (July 3, 2000) ( *H Beams Investigation* ), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *H Beams Decision Memorandum* ), at “Benchmarks for Short-Term Financing.” B. Benchmark for Long-Term Loans Issued Through 2004 During the POR, POSCO and Dongbu had outstanding long-term won-denominated and foreign-currency denominated loans from government-owned banks and Korean commercial banks. Based on our findings on this issue in prior investigations and administrative reviews, we are using the following benchmarks to calculate the subsidies attributable to respondents' countervailable long-term loans obtained in the years 1991 through 2004:

(1)For countervailable, foreign-currency denominated loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii), and consistent with our past practice to date, our preference is to use the company-specific, weighted-average foreign currency-denominated interest rates on the company's loans from foreign bank branches in Korea, foreign securities, and direct foreign loans received after 1991. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 30636, 30642 (June 8, 1999) ( *Sheet and Strip Investigation* ); *see also Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 15530, 15533 (March 31, 1999) ( *Plate in Coils Investigation* ). Where no such benchmark instruments are available, and consistent with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii) as well as our methodology in a prior administrative review, we relied on the lending rates as reported by the IMF's *International Financial Statistics Yearbook* . *See Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 69 FR 2113 (January 14, 2004) ( *2001 Sheet and Strip* ), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *2001 Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum* ), at “Subsidies Valuation Information.”

(2)For countervailable, won-denominated, long-term loans, our practice is to use the company-specific corporate bond rate on the company's public and private bonds, as we determined that the GOK did not control the Korean domestic bond market after 1991 and that domestic bonds may serve as an appropriate benchmark interest rate. *See Plate in Coils Investigation* , 64 FR at 15531; *see also* 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii). Where unavailable, we used the national average of the yields on three-year corporate bonds, as reported by the Bank of Korea (BOK). We note that the use of the three-year corporate bond rate from the BOK follows the approach taken in the *Plate in Coils Investigation* , in which we determined that, absent company-specific interest rate information, the corporate bond rate is the best indicator of a market rate for won-denominated long-term loans in Korea. *See Plate in Coils Investigation* , 64 FR at 15531. *See also* 19 CFR 505(a)(3)(ii). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2), our benchmarks take into consideration the structure of the government-provided loans. For fixed-rate loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used benchmark rates issued in the same year that the government loans were issued. For variable-rate loans outstanding during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(i), our preference is to use the interest rates of variable-rate lending instruments issued during the year in which the government loans were issued. Where such benchmark instruments are unavailable, we used interest rates from loans issued during the POR as our benchmark, as such rates better reflect a variable interest rate that would be in effect during the POR. This approach is in accordance with the Department's practice under similar facts. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the Republic of Korea* , 68 FR 13267 (March 19, 2003) ( *2000 Sheet and Strip* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum* ), at Comment 8; *see also* 19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(ii). C. Benchmark Discount Rates Certain programs examined in this administrative review require the allocation of won-denominated benefits over time. Thus, we have employed the allocation methodology described under 19 CFR 351.524(d). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i), we based our discount rate upon data for the year in which the government agreed to provide the subsidy. Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(A), our preference is to use the cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans of the firm in question. Thus, where available, we used company-specific corporate bond rates on public and private bonds. *See Plate in Coils Investigation* , 64 FR at 15531. Where unavailable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(B), we used the national average of the yields on three-year corporate bonds, as reported by the BOK. I. Program Preliminarily Determined to Confer Subsidies A The GOK's Direction of Credit 1. Countervailable Loans Received Through 1991 In the 1993 investigation of *Steel Products from Korea* , the Department determined that

(1)the GOK influenced the practices of lending institutions in Korea;

(2)the GOK regulated long-term loans provided to the steel industry on a selective basis; and

(3)the selective provision of these regulated loans resulted in a countervailable benefit. Accordingly, all long-term loans received by the producers/exporters of the subject merchandise were treated as countervailable. The determination in that investigation covered all long-term loans issued through 1991. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determinations: Certain Steel Products From Korea* , 58 FR 37338, 37339 (July 9, 1993) ( *Steel Products from Korea* ). This finding of control was determined to be sufficient to constitute a government program and government action. *See id* ., 58 FR at 37342. In *Steel Products from Korea* , we also determined that

(1)the Korean steel sector, as a result of the GOK's credit policies and control over the Korean financial sector, received a disproportionate share of regulated long-term loans, so that the program was, *de facto* , specific, and

(2)the interest rates on those loans were inconsistent with commercial considerations. *See id* ., 58 FR at 37343. On this basis, we countervailed all long-term loans received by the steel sector from all lending sources through 1991. *See* , *e.g.* , *H Beams Decision Memorandum* , at “The GOK's Credit Policies Through 1991.” 2. Countervailable Loans Received from 1992 Through 2001 In subsequent proceedings, with regard to the period 1992 through 2001, the Department consistently found the GOK continued to exercise control over the lending practices of domestic commercial banks and government-controlled banks, and thereby directed subsidies specific to the steel industry within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further, we found that such loans constituted a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act and a benefit under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, to the extent that the interest rates on the loans were lower than the interest rates on comparable commercial loans. *See Sheet and Strip Investigation* , 64 FR at 30642 (regarding 1992 through 1997); and *Plate in Coils Investigation* , 64 FR at 15533 (regarding 1992 through 1997); *H Beams Decision Memorandum* , at “The GOK's Credit Policies from 1992 through 1998”; *Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 67 FR 1964 (January 15, 2002) ( *1999 Sheet and Strip* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *1999 Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum* ) at “the GOK's Direction of Credit” (regarding 1999); *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea* , 67 FR 62102 (October 3, 2002) ( *Cold-Rolled Investigation* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum* ), at “The GOK Directed Credit” (regarding 2000); and *2001 Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum* , at “The GOK's Direction of Credit” (regarding 2001). During the POR, POSCO and Dongbu had outstanding loans that were received prior to the 2002 period. As stated above, the Department has found GOK-directed credit from domestic commercial banks and government-owned banks to be countervailable through 2001. POSCO, Dongbu, and the GOK did not provide any new information that would warrant a change in these prior findings. Therefore, we continue to find that POSCO and Dongbu benefitted from this program, which provides a countervailable subsidy of loans from government-owned or controlled banks through 2001. 3. Countervailable Loans Received from 2002 Through 2004 Section 776(a)(1) and

(2)of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person

(A)withholds information that has been requested,

(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act,

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties. However, because the GOK failed to provide the requested information, section 782(d) and

(e)of the Act are not applicable. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available

(AFA)information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of AFA is appropriate for the preliminary results for the determination of direction of credit for loans received from 2002 through 2004. We asked the GOK for information pertaining to the GOK's direction of credit policies for the period from 2002 through 2004. The GOK did not provide any additional information, stating instead that: The Department has consistently found that long-term loans received by the steel industry were the result of GOK direction, despite the GOK's repeated objections and demonstrations to the contrary. While the GOK does not agree with the Department's position, the legal costs to further contest this issue in this review overshadow any possible benefit. *See* the December 21, 2005, GOK Questionnaire Response, at 8. Because the GOK withheld the requested information on its lending policies, the Department does not have the necessary information on the record to determine whether the GOK has continued its direction of credit policies from 2002 through 2004. Therefore, the Department must base its determination on facts otherwise available. *See* Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In this case, the GOK refused to supply requested information that was in its possession, and which it had provided in prior proceedings. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 73176, 73178 (December 29, 1999) ( *CTL Plate Investigation* ). Therefore, we find that the GOK did not act to the best of its ability and are employing an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. As AFA, we therefore find that the GOK's direction of credit policies continued from 2002 through 2004. As noted above, the GOK's direction of credit policies provide a financial contribution, confer a benefit, and are specific, pursuant to sections 771(5)(D)(i), 771(5)(E)(ii), and 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, respectively. Therefore, we preliminarily find that lending from domestic banks and government-owned banks during the 2002 and 2004 period are countervailable. Thus, any loans received during 2002 and 2004 from domestic banks and government-owned banks that were outstanding during the POR are countervailable, to the extent that the interest amount paid on the loan is less than what would have been paid on a comparable commercial loan. The Department's decision to rely on adverse inferences when lacking a response from the GOK regarding the direction of credit issue is in accordance with its practice. *See* , *e.g.* , *Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) ( *2004 CTL Plate* ) (unchanged in final results); *Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Korea* , 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006). Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as [i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise. *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Id* . To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *Id* . Thus, in those instances in which it determines to apply AFA, the Department, in order to satisfy itself that such information has probative value, will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as publicly available data on the national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on the specificity of countervailable subsidy programs. The only source for such information normally is administrative determinations, which are reliable. In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained that contradicts the reliability of the evidence relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render benefit data not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the information is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will not use it. *See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). In the instant case, no evidence has been presented or obtained that contradicts the finding of directed credit relied upon in previous segments of this proceeding. Thus, in the instant case, the Department finds that the information used has been corroborated to the extent practicable. Dongbu and POSCO reported that, during the POR, they had outstanding fixed-rate and variable-rate loans from government-owned or -controlled lending institutions that were issued between 2002 and 2004. 4. Calculation of the Benefit and Net Subsidy Rate Under the Direction of Credit Program In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(c)(2) and (4), we calculated the benefit for each fixed- and variable-rate loan received from GOK-owned or -controlled banks to be the difference between the actual amount of interest paid on the directed loan during the POR and the amount of interest that would have been paid during the POR at the benchmark interest rate. We conducted our benefit calculations using the benchmark interest rates described in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above. For foreign currency-denominated loans, we converted the benefits into Korean won using exchange rates obtained from the BOK. We then summed the benefits from each company's long-term fixed-rate and variable-rate won-denominated loans. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the companies' total benefits by their respective total f.o.b. sales values during the POR, as this program is not tied to exports or a particular product. In calculating the net subsidy rate for POSCO, we removed from the denominator sales made between affiliated parties. 2 On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate under the direction of credit program to be less than 0.005 percent *ad valorem* for POSCO and 0.14 percent *ad valorem* for Dongbu. 2 For POSCO, we also removed intra-company sales from the denominators of the net subsidy rate calculations of the other programs found countervailable in these preliminary results. This step was not necessary for Dongbu. B. Asset Revaluation Under Article 56(2) of the Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (TERCL) Under Article 56(2) of the TERCL, the GOK permitted companies that made an initial public offering between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990, to revalue their assets at a rate higher than the 25 percent required of most other companies under the Asset Revaluation Act. The Department has previously found this program to be countervailable. For example, in the *CTL Plate Investigation* , the Department determined that this program was *de facto* specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act because the actual recipients of the subsidy were limited in number and the basic metal industry was a dominant user of this program. We also determined that a financial contribution was provided in the form of tax revenue foregone pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. *See CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73182 - 83. The Department further determined that a benefit was conferred within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act on those companies that were able to revalue their assets under TERCL Article 56(2) because the revaluation resulted in participants paying fewer taxes than they would otherwise pay absent the program. *Id* . No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. The benefit from this program is the difference that the revaluation of depreciable assets has on a company's tax liability each year. Evidence on the record indicates that, in 1989, POSCO made an asset revaluation that increased its depreciation expense. Dongbu reported that it did not use this program during the POR. To calculate the benefit to POSCO, we took the additional depreciation listed in the tax return filed during the POR, which resulted from the company's asset revaluation, and multiplied that amount by the tax rate applicable to that tax return. We then divided the resulting benefit by POSCO's total f.o.b. sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.02 percent *ad valorem* for POSCO. C. Research and Development (R&D) Grants Under the Industrial Development Act

(IDA)The GOK, through the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy (MOCIE), provides R&D grants to support numerous projects pursuant to the IDA, including technology for core materials, components, engineering systems, and resource technology. The IDA is designed to foster the development of efficient technology for industrial development. To participate in this program a company may:

(1)Perform its own R&D project,

(2)participate through the Korea New Iron and Steel Technology Research Association (KNISTRA), which is an association of steel companies established for the development of new iron and steel technology, and/or

(3)participate in another company's R&D project and share R&D costs, along with funds received from the GOK. To be eligible to participate in this program, the applicant must meet the qualifications set forth in the basic plan and must perform R&D as set forth under the Notice of Industrial Basic Technology Development. If the R&D project is not successful, the company must repay the full amount. In the *H Beams Investigation* , the Department determined that through KNISTRA the Korean steel industry receives funding specific to the steel industry. Therefore, given the nature of KNISTRA, the Department found projects under KNISTRA to be specific. *See Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Structural Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 69731, 69740 (December 14, 1999)(unchanged in the final results); and *H Beams Decision Memorandum* , at “R&D Grants under The Korea New Iron & Steel Technology Research Association (KNISTRA).” Further, we found that the grants constituted a financial contribution and conferred a benefit in accordance with sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. *Id* . No new factual information or evidence of changed circumstances has been provided to the Department with respect to this program. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program is *de jure* specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act and constitutes a financial contribution and confers a benefit under sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. Dongbu reported that it did not use the program. POSCO reported receiving grants through KNISTRA; however, it claims that the research grants it received under the program are tied to non-subject merchandise. Upon review of the information submitted by the GOK and POSCO, we preliminarily determine that certain grants are tied to non-subject merchandise, and thus, we did not include these grants in our benefit calculations. *See* GOK's December 21, 2005, Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit J-5. However, POSCO also reported receiving certain other grants related to a production process that can be used for an input into the production of subject merchandise. *See* POSCO's December 21, 2005, Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 6; and Dongbu's December 21, 2005, Questionnaire Response, at Exhibit 6. *See* the Memorandum to the File from Gayle Longest and Robert Copyak, Case Analysts, “Factual Information Regarding the Steel Production Process,” August 31, 2006, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 the main Commerce Building. Under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5), if a subsidy is tied to the production or sale of a particular product, the Department will attribute the subsidy only to that product. But, under sub-paragraph (ii), if a subsidy is tied to the production of an input product, then the Department will attribute the subsidy to both the input and downstream products produced by a corporation. Accordingly, we have attributed the grant related to a production process that can be used as an input into the production of subject merchandise to POSCO's total sales. To determine the benefit from the grants that POSCO received through KNISTRA, we calculated the GOK's contribution for each R&D project. Next, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we determined whether to allocate the non-recurring benefit from the grants over POSCO's AUL by dividing the approved amount by POSCO's total sales in the year of approval. Because the approved amounts were less than 0.5 percent of POSCO's total sales in the year of receipt, we expensed the grants to the year of receipt. Next, to calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the portion of the benefit allocated to the POR by POSCO's total f.o.b. sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine POSCO's net subsidy rate under this program to be less than 0.005 percent *ad valorem* . D. Exemption of VAT on Imports of Anthracite Coal Under Article 106 of Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA), imports of anthracite coal are exempt from the value added tax (VAT). In the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , we determined that the program is *de jure* specific to the steel industry under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act, as the items allowed to be imported without paying VAT are limited to the production of steel products. S *ee Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum* , at “Exemption of VAT on Imports of Anthracite Coal.” We also determined that the VAT exemptions under the program constitute a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, as the GOK is not collecting revenue otherwise due, and that the exemptions confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act equal to the amount of the VAT that would have otherwise been paid if not for the exemption. No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. Dongbu reported that it did not use the program during the POR. POSCO imported anthracite coal during the POR and, therefore, received a benefit in the amount of the VAT that it would have otherwise paid if not for the exemption. To determine POSCO's benefit from the VAT exemption on these imports, we calculated the amount of VAT that would have been due absent the program on the total value of anthracite coal POSCO imported during the POR. We then divided the amount of this tax benefit by POSCO's respective total f.o.b. sales. Based upon this methodology, we preliminarily determine that POSCO received a countervailable subsidy of 0.04 percent *ad valorem* . E. GOK Infrastructure Investment at Kwangyang Bay Through 1991 In *Steel Products from Korea* , the Department investigated the GOK's infrastructure investments at Kwangyang Bay over the period 1983-1991. We determined that the GOK's provision of infrastructure at Kwangyang Bay was countervailable because POSCO was the predominant user of the GOK's investments. Dongbu did not use this program. Consistent with section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, the Department has consistently held that a countervailable subsidy exists when benefits under a program are provided, or are required to be provided, in law or in fact, to a specific enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries. *See* , *e.g.* , *Steel Products from Korea* , 58 FR at 37346; and *CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73180. No new factual information or evidence of changed circumstances has been provided to the Department with respect to the GOK's infratructure at Kwangyang Bay over the period 1983-1991. Therefore, we preliminarily determine the infrastructure investments the GOK provided to POSCO are *de facto* specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) of the Act. Further, we preliminarily determine that the infrastructure investments constitute a financial contribution and confer a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. To determine the benefit from the GOK's investments to POSCO during the POR, we utilized the approach adopted in prior proceedings. *See* , *e.g.* , *CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73180. In measuring the benefit from this program, we treated the GOK's costs of constructing the infrastructure at Kwangyang Bay as untied, non-recurring grants in each year in which the costs were incurred. To calculate the benefit conferred during the POR, we applied the Department's standard grant methodology and allocated the GOK's infrastructure investments over a 15-year allocation period. *See* the “Average Useful Life” section, above. Using the 15-year allocation period, POSCO is still receiving benefits under this program from the GOK investments made during the years 1990 through 1991. To calculate the benefit from these grants, we used as our discount rate the rate describe above in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section. We then summed the benefits received by POSCO during the POR from each of the GOK's yearly investments over the period 1990-1991. We then divided the total benefit attributable to the POR by POSCO's total f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine POSCO's net countervailable subsidy rate to be 0.01 percent *ad valorem* for the POR. F. Other Subsidies Related to Operations at Asan Bay: Provision of Land and Exemption of Port Fees Under Harbor Act 1. Provision of Land As explained in the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , the GOK's overall development plan is published every 10 years and describes the nationwide land development goals and plans for the balanced development of the country. Under these plans, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCAT) prepares and updates its Asan Bay Area Broad Development Plan. *See Cold-Rolled Investigation Memorandum* , at “Provision of Land at Asan Bay.” The Korea Land Development Corporation (Koland) is a government investment corporation that is responsible for purchasing, developing, and selling land in the industrial sites. *Id* . In the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , we verified that the GOK, in setting the price per square meter for land at the Kodai industrial estate, removed the 10 percent profit component from the price charged to Dongbu. *Id* . In the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , we further explained that companies purchasing land at Asan Bay must make payments on the purchase and development of the land before the final settlement. However, in the case of Dongbu, we found that the GOK provided an adjustment to Dongbu's final payment to account for “interest earned” by the company for the pre-payments. *Id* . POSCO did not use this program. In the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , we determined that the price discount and the adjustment of Dongbu's final payment to account for “interest earned” by the company on its pre-payments were countervailable subsidies. Specifically, the Department determined that they were specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, as they were limited to Dongbu. *Id* . Further, the Department found the price discount and the price adjustment for “interest earned” constituted financial contributions and conferred benefits under sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. *Id* . Consistent with the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , we have treated the land price discount and the interested earned refund as non-recurring subsidies. Id. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), because the grant amounts were more than 0.5 percent of the company's total sales in the year of receipt, we applied the Department's standard grant methodology, as described under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(1), and allocated the subsidies over a 15-year allocation period. See the “Average Useful Life” section, above. To calculate the benefit from these grants, we used as our discount rate the rates describe above in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section. We then summed the benefits received by Dongbu during the POR. We calculated the net subsidy rate by dividing the total benefit attributable to the POR by Dongbu's total f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, we determine a net countervailable subsidy rate for Dongbu of 0.22 percent *ad valorem* for the POR. 2. Exemption of Port Fees Under Harbor Act Under the Harbor Act, companies are allowed to construct infrastructure facilities at Korean ports; however, these facilities must be deeded back to the government. Because the ownership of these facilities reverts to the government, the government compensates private parties for the construction of these infrastructure facilities. Because a company must transfer to the government its infrastructure investment, under the Harbor Act, the GOK grants the company free usage of the facility and the right to collect fees from other users of the facility for a limited period of time. Once a company has recovered its cost of constructing the infrastructure, the company must pay the same usage fees as other users of the infrastructure. In the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , the Department found that Dongbu received free use of harbor facilities at Asan Bay based upon both its construction of a port facility as well as a road that the company built from its plant to its port. The Department also determined that Dongbu received an exemption of harbor fees for a period of almost 70 years under this program. *See Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum* , at “Dongbu's Excessive Exemptions under the Harbor Act.” In the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , the Department found the exemption from the fees to be a countervailable subsidy. No new information of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act because the excessive exemption period of 70 years is limited to Dongbu. Moreover, we preliminarily determine that the GOK is foregoing revenue that it would otherwise collect by allowing Dongbu to be exempt from port charges for up to 70 years and, thus, the program constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Further, we preliminarily determine that the exemptions confer a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. *Id* . No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. Thus, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find this aspect of the program countervailable. In the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , the Department treated the program as a non-recurring subsidy and determined that the benefit is equal to the average yearly amount of harbor fees exemptions provided to Dongbu. *Id* . For purposes of these preliminary results, we have employed the same benefit calculation. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the average yearly amount of exemptions by Dongbu's total f.o.b. sales for the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Dongbu's net subsidy rate under this program is 0.02 percent *ad valorem* . G. Short-Term Export Financing The Korean Export Import Bank (KEXIM) supplies two types of short-term loans for exporting companies, short-term trade financing and comprehensive export financing. KEXIM provides short-term loans to Korean exporters who manufacture export goods under export contracts. The loans are provided up to the amount of the bill of exchange or contracted amount less any amount already received. For comprehensive export financing loans, KEXIM supplies short-term loans to any small or medium-sized company, or any large company that is not included in the five largest conglomerates based on their comprehensive export performance. To obtain the loans, companies must report their export performance periodically to KEXIM for review. Comprehensive export financing loans cover from 50 to 90 percent of the company's export performance; however, the maximum loan amount is restricted to 30 billion won. In *Steel Products from Korea* , the Department determined that the GOK's short-term export financing program was countervailable. *See Steel Products from Korea* , 58 FR at 37350; *see also* , *Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum* , at “Short-term Export Financing.” No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailability of this program. Therefore, we continue to find this program countervailable. Specifically, we preliminarily determine that the program is specific, pursuant section 771(5A)(B), because receipt of the financing is contingent upon exporting. In addition, we preliminarily determine that the export financing constitutes a financial contribution in the form of a loan within the meaning of section 771(D)(i) of the Act and confers a benefit within the meaning of section 771(E)(ii) of the Act. POCOS, POSCO's affiliate, and Dongbu reported using short-term export financing during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), to calculate the benefit under this program, we compared the amount of interest paid under the program to the amount of interest that would have been paid on a comparable, commercial loan. As our benchmark, we used the short-term interest rates discussed above in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided the benefit by the f.o.b. value of the respective company's total exports. On this basis, we determine the net subsidy rate for POSCO to be less than 0.005 percent *ad valorem* and 0.01 percent *ad valorem* for Dongbu. II. Program Preliminarily Determined Not to Confer a Benefit A. Reserve for Research and Manpower Development Fund Under RSTA Article 9 (Formerly Article 8 of TERCL) On December 28, 1998, the TERCL was replaced by the Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (RSTA). Pursuant to this change in law, TERCL Article 8 is now identified as RSTA Article 9. Apart from the name change, the operation of RSTA Article 9 is the same as the previous TERCL Article 8 and its Enforcement Decree. This program allows a company operating in manufacturing or mining, or in a business prescribed by the Presidential Decree, to appropriate reserve funds to cover expenses related to the development or innovation of technology. These reserve funds are included in the company's losses and reduce the amount of taxes paid by the company. Under this program, capital goods companies and capital intensive companies can establish a reserve of five percent of total revenue, while companies in all other industries are only allowed to establish a three- percent reserve. In the *CTL Plate Investigation* , we determined that this program is specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act because the capital goods industry is allowed to claim a larger tax reserve under this program than all other manufacturers. *See CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73181. We also determined that this program provides a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act in the form of revenue forgone and that it provides benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act to the extent that companies in the capital goods industry, which includes steel manufacturers, pay less in taxes than they would absent the program. *Id* . In the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , we continued to find the program countervailable, but found that the company under review only contributed to the reserve at the lower three-percent rate. Therefore, we found no countervailable benefit because it is not specific as all industries and companies in Korea can establish a three-percent reserve. *See Cold-Rolled Decision Memorandum* , at “Programs Determined to be Not Used” (finding the countervailable aspect of this program to be not used). No new information, or evidence of changed circumstances, was presented in this review to warrant reconsideration of the approaches adopted in the *CTL Plate Investigation* and the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* . In this administrative review, Dongbu, POSCO, and POCOS each reported contributing to the reserve at the three-percent rate during the POR. Dongbu also reported that it returned the remaining balance from the reserve. We continue to find this program to be potentially countervailable. However, as each company contributed to the reserve at the lower three-percent rate, and in light of the Department's approach in the *Cold-Rolled Investigation* , we preliminarily determine that no countervailable benefits were conferred under this program during the POR. III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used A. Reserve for Investment (Special Cases of Tax for Balanced Development Among Areas under TERCL Articles 41-45) B. Electricity Discounts under the Requested Loan Adjustment

(RLA)Program C. Electricity Discounts under the Emergency Load Reductions

(ELR)Program D. Export Industry Facility Loans

(EIFL)and Specialty Facility Loans E. Reserve for Overseas Market Development under TERCL Article 17 F. Equipment Investment to Promote Worker's Welfare under TERCL Article 88 G. Emergency Load Reduction Program H. Local Tax Exemption on Land Outside of Metropolitan Area I. Excessive Duty Drawback J. Private Capital Inducement Act

(PCIA)K. Social Indirect Capital Investment Reserve Funds (Art. 28) L. Energy-Savings Facilities Investment Reserve Funds (Art. 29) M. Scrap Reserve Fund N. Special Depreciation of Assets on Foreign Exchange Earnings O. Export Insurance Rates Provided by the Korean Export Insurance Corporation P. Loans from the National Agricultural Cooperation Federation Q. Tax Incentives for Highly-Advanced Technology Businesses under the Foreign Investment and Foreign Capital Inducement Act IV. Program Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable A. Tax Credit for Improving Enterprise's Bill System under Article 7-2 of RSTA During the POR, POSCO applied for a tax credit under this program. The GOK states that the program permits any company who uses a modern corporate billing/promissory note system to make payments for its purchases from small or medium enterprises to be eligible to claim a tax credit on its income taxes. The GOK provided the Department with the language of the regulation, which allows for three possible methods of payment:

(a)issuing a bill of exchange or settling a request for collection of sale proceeds,

(b)using an exclusive-use card for business purchase, or

(c)using a loan system against security of credit sales claims. The tax credit is calculated as 0.3 percent of total amount paid pursuant to these methods described, but not exceeding 10 percent of a company's corporate income tax amount. We preliminarily determine that the tax credit under Article 7-2 of RSTA is not de jure specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act because

(1)it is not based on exportation;

(2)it is not contingent on the use of domestic goods over imported goods; and

(3)the legislation and/or regulations do not expressly limit the access to the subsidy to an enterprise or industry, as a matter of law. As the Department is preliminarily determining that the tax credit under Article 7-2 of RSTA is not *de jure* specific, it must then examine the program under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. The Department will determine that the program is *de facto* specific if the Department finds that one or more of the following factors exist:

(I)The actual recipients of the subsidy, whether considered on an enterprise or industry basis, are limited in number.

(II)An enterprise or industry is a predominant user of the subsidy.

(III)An enterprise or industry receives a disproportionately large amount of the subsidy.

(IV)The manner in which the authority providing the subsidy has exercised discretion in the decision to grant the subsidy indicates that an enterprise or industry is favored over others. Pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that under the tax credit under Article 7-2 of RSTA, the actual recipients of the subsidy are not limited in number. *See* GOK's December 21, 2005, Submission at Exhibit B-1. Sections 771(5A)(D)(iii)(II) and

(III)of the Act direct the Department to examine whether an enterprise or an industry is a predominant user of the subsidy or receives a disproportionately large amount of the subsidy. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the steel industry received a greater monetary benefit from the program than did other participants or that the steel industry was a dominant user or received disproportionate benefits. Rather, the GOK states that the tax credit is widely available and can be used by any Korean company, regardless of industry and location, by claiming the tax credit on the tax return. *See* GOK's December 21, 2005, Submission, at 12. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the information on the record does not support a conclusion that the percentage of the benefits POSCO or the steel industry received were disproportionately high or that the company or the industry was a dominant user. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that the tax credit under Article 7-2 of RSTA is not *de facto* specific and is, therefore, not countervailable. Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each of the producer/exporters subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate for POSCO to be 0.07 percent *ad valorem* and preliminary determine the the net subsidy rate for Dongbu to be 0.39 percent ad valorem, both of which are *de minimis* . *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within 15 days of publication of the final results, to liquidate shipments of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, at the rates indicated above. Also, the Department will instruct CBP to require new cash deposit rates for estimated countervailing duties of 0.00 percent for all shipments of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from POSCO and Dongbu, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding for each company. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.309 (c). Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:

(1)A statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: August 31, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-14916 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 083106C] Endangered and Threatened Species: Recovery Plan Preparation for 5 Evolutionarily Significant Units

(ESUs)of Pacific Salmon and 5 Distinct Population Segments

(DPSs)of Steelhead Trout AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent; request for information. SUMMARY: NMFS announces its intent to develop recovery plans for 5 ESUs of Pacific salmon and 5 DPSs of steelhead trout in California that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)and also requests information from the public. NMFS is required by the ESA to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of ESA-listed species. NMFS is coordinating with state, Federal, tribal, and local entities in California and intends to produce draft recovery plans by June 2007. DATES: All information must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on November 13, 2006. Information received after the deadline will be used to the maximum extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Information may be submitted by any of the following methods: • E-mail: Information for recovery planning may be submitted by e-mail to *RecoveryInfo.swr@noaa.gov* . Please include in the subject line of the e-mail the identifier “Information for ESA Recovery Planning, Attention: (insert name of appropriate NMFS Recovery Coordinator)” and specify the recovery domain to which your information applies. Please refer to the list of recovery domains and recovery coordinators provided below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to determine the appropriate NMFS Recovery Coordinator and recovery domain. If information pertaining to more than one recovery domain will be submitted, then a separate e-mail should be sent for each domain, using the appropriate subject line in each e-mail. • Mail: Information may be submitted by mail to Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Species Division, NMFS, Sacramento Area Office, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300, Sacramento, California, 95814-4706. Please identify information as “Information for ESA Recovery Planning” and specify the recovery domain(s) to which your information applies (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, below, to determine the appropriate domain). • Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand deliver information or have information delivered by courier to NMFS, Sacramento Area Office, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300, Sacramento, California, 95814-4706. Business hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please identify information as “Information for ESA Recovery Planning” and specify the recovery domain(s) to which your information applies (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, below, to determine the appropriate domain). • Fax: You may fax information to 916-930-3629. Please identify the fax comment as regarding “Information for Recovery Planing” and specify the recovery domain(s) to which your information applies (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, below, to determine the appropriate domain). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact the recovery coordinator listed here for the geographic area or recovery domain in which you are interested. Additional salmon-related materials are available on the Southwest Region's Internet site: *http://www.swr.noaa.gov* . Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Domain: Recovery Coordinator Greg Bryant at 707-825-5162 or by email at *Greg.Bryant@noaa.gov* North-Central California Coast Domain: Recovery Coordinator Charlotte Ambrose at 707-575-6068 or by email at *Charlotte.A.Ambrose@noaa.gov* South-Central California Coast Domain: Recovery Coordinator Mark Capelli at 805-963-6478 or by email at *Mark.Capelli@noaa.gov* Central Valley Domain: Recovery Coordinator Diane Windham at 916-930-3619 or by email at *Diane.Windham@noaa.gov* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Species Covered in This Notice There are 5 ESUs of salmon and 5 DPSs of steelhead trout listed as threatened or endangered species in California including: Chinook Salmon ( *Oncorhynchus tshawytscha* ): Sacramento River Winter-run, Central Valley Spring-run, and California Coastal. Coho Salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ): Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast, and Central California Coast. Steelhead Trout ( *Oncorhynchus mykiss* ): Northern California Coast, Central California Coast, South-Central California Coast, Southern California Coast, and California Central Valley. Background NMFS is charged with the recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead species listed under the ESA. Recovery under the ESA means that listed species and their ecosystems are restored, and their future secured, so that the protections of the ESA are no longer necessary. The ESA requires that NMFS develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species. These recovery plans provide blueprints to determine priority recovery actions for funding and implementation. The ESA specifies that recovery plans must include:

(1)a description of site-specific management actions that may be necessary to achieve the plan's goals for the conservation and survival of the species;

(2)objective, measurable criteria, which when met, would result in the species being removed from the list of threatened and endangered species; and

(3)estimates of the time and costs required to achieve the plan's goal and achieve intermediate steps toward that goal. In addition, NMFS has developed interim recovery planning guidance (NMFS, 2004) that provides additional information to ensure consistency among recovery plans that are developed for all species managed by NMFS. The guidance also stresses the importance of involving stakeholders in the recovery planning process. NMFS will take into consideration all information we receive during this comment period in the preparation of draft recovery plans for salmon and steelhead in California. In order to develop recovery plans that address multiple species in an ecosystem context, NMFS has organized its recovery planning activities in California into four recovery areas or “domains” (Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast, North-Central California Coast, South-Central California Coast, and California Central Valley). Each domain will have one or more recovery plans that address all the listed salmon ESUs and/or steelhead DPSs within it. While each recovery plan will meet the requirements of the ESA and will use consistent scientific principles, plan(s) for individual planning domains are expected to be different because of differences in species, the amount and quality of information regarding the species and habitat conditions, and differences in ongoing and planned conservation efforts such as CalFed in the Central Valley, the State of California coho salmon recovery plan on the north coast, and many other local planning efforts and intiatives. To develop key technical products for all salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs and to provide general science support, NMFS formed separate teams of scientists (called Technical Recovery Teams) for each of the four recovery planning domains described above. These teams are developing technical information on population structure of individual ESUs and DPSs, viability criteria for individual populations within ESUs and DPSs and for ESUs and DPSs as a whole, recommendations for future research, and a framework for monitoring the listed ESUs/DPSs. Finally, NMFS has developed a schedule for producing draft recovery plans in each recovery domain by June 2007 and final recovery plans by January 2008. Because draft recovery plans may be developed using different approaches in the four domains and because of differences in information on the species in each domain, the level of detail in these draft recovery plans is expected to vary. NMFS will publish draft recovery plans in the **Federal Register** and public comment will be sought for each proposed plan. NMFS requests relevant information from the public that should be addressed during preparation of draft recovery plans. Such information should address:

(a)Biological and other criteria for removing the ESUs or DPSs from the list of threatened and endangered species;

(b)factors that are presently limiting or threaten to limit survival of the ESUs or DPSs;

(c)actions to address limiting factors and threats;

(d)estimates of time and cost to implement recovery actions; and

(e)research, monitoring, and evaluation needs. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: September 6, 2006. Marta Nammack, Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-14986 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 090506D] Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Dogfish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting agenda. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Sheraton Providence Airport Hotel, 1850 Post Rd., Warwick, RI 02886, telephone:

(401)824-0670. *Council address* : Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904, telephone:

(302)674-2331. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone:

(302)674-2331, extension 19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to consider the appropriateness of making changes, if any, to management measures currently in place for the upcoming (2007-08) fishing year for spiny dogfish. Management measures that will be discussed may include, but may not necessarily be limited to, quotas and daily landing limits. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the MAFMC's intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders,

(302)674-2331 extension 18, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: September 6, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-14981 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 090506E] North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Aleutian Island Ecosystem Team will meet in Seattle, WA. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, September 27, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE. Bldg 9, Room 2039, Seattle, WA 98115. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Evans, Council staff, telephone:

(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The agenda will be as follows: Develop a plan for producing on Aleutian Island Fishery Ecosystem Plan, to review existing compilation materials, and to determine work assignments. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at

(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: September 6, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-14982 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D.090506A] Marine Mammals; File No. 774-1847 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Antarctic Marine Living Resources Program (Rennie Holt, Ph.D., Principal Investigator), 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 has been issued a permit to conduct research on Antarctic fur seals ( *Arctocephalus gazella* ) and leopard seals ( *Hydrurga leptonyx* ). ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 19, 2006, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 35255) that a request for a scientific research permit to take Antarctic fur seals and leopard seals had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). The applicant will continue a long-term ecosystem monitoring program of pinniped species in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. The target species of the study are the Antarctic fur seals and leopard seals, but southern elephant seals ( *Mirounga leonine* ), crabeater seals ( *Lobodon carcinophagus* ), Ross seals ( *Ommatophoca rossii* ) and Weddell seals ( *Leptonychotes weddellii* ) could be disturbed by the life history studies and census surveys. The applicant will take up to 710 Antarctic fur seals and 20 leopard seals annually. The animals will be captured, measured, weighed, tagged, blood sampled, and have time-depth recorders, VHF transmitters, and platform terminal transmitters attached. A subset of fur seals will be given an enema, have a tooth extracted, milk sampled, and be part of a doubly-labeled water study on energetics. A subset of leopard seals will be blubber and muscle sampled. The permit authorizes the research-related mortality of up to three Antarctic fur seals and one leopard seal annually. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Dated: September 5, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-14987 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 090106B] Marine Mammals; File No. 1070-1783 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit amendment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a permit held by Dr. Alejandro Acevedo-Gutierrez, Biology Department, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington (File No. 1070-1783) to conduct scientific research on harbor seals ( *Phoca vitulina* ) has been amended. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tammy Adams or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 29, 2006, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 37060) that an amendment to Permit No. 1070-1783-00 had been requested by the above named individual. The requested amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216). The permit has been amended to increase the number of harbor seals that may be harassed annually during scat collection and to add a sampling location. The objective of the research remains the same: to study temporal and spatial variation in numbers and diet composition of harbor seals to determine responses of harbor seals to changes in prey density and the impact of seal behavior on marine protected areas. The permit remains valid through March 2011. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), a final determination has been made that issuance of the proposed permit is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Dated: September 5, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-14997 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0147] Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0147). SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning pollution prevention and right-to-know information. A request for public comments was published in the **Federal Register** at 71 FR 7020 on February 10, 2006. No comments were received. Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before October 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT William Clark, Contract Policy Division, GSA,

(202)219-1813. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR)Subpart 23.10, implements Executive Order (E.O.) 13148 of April 21, 2000, *Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management* , and it also provides a means for agencies to obtain contractor information for the implementation of environmental management systems

(EMSs)and the completion of facility compliance audits

(FCAs)at certain Federal facilities. This information collection will be accomplished by means of Alternates I and II to FAR clause 52.223-5. Alternate I of 52.223-5 require contractors to provide information needed by a Federal facility to implement an EMS and Alternate II of 52.223-5 requires contractors to complete an FCA. FAR Subpart 23.10 and its associated contract clause at FAR 52.223-5 also implement the requirements of E.O. 12856 of August 3, 1993, “Federal Compliance With Right-To-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements.” E.O. 12856 requires that Federal facilities comply with the planning and reporting requirements of the Pollution Prevention Act

(PPA)of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101-13109), and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001-11050). The E.O. requires that contracts to be performed on a Federal facility provide for the contractor to supply to the Federal agency all information the Federal agency deems necessary to comply with these reporting requirements. B. Annual Reporting Burden Number of Respondents: *7,460.* Responses Per Respondent: * 1.* Annual Responses: * 7,460.* Average Burden Per Response: * 2.834.* Total Burden Hours: * 21,140* . *OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:* Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone

(202)501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0147, Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information, in all correspondence. Dated: August 23, 2006. Ralph De Stefano, Director, Contract Policy Division. [FR Doc. 06-7540 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 24

Traces to 24 documents

CFR