Notices. Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

4,482 words·~20 min read·/register/2006/10/04/06-8485

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

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-580-839 Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of Korea.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received and an examination of our calculations, we have made certain changes for the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for Huvis Corporation is listed below in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas or Andrew McAllister, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3813 or

(202)482-1174, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind, and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 30867 (May 31, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”) in the **Federal Register** . We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On June 30, 2006, Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l.; d/b/a KoSa; and Wellman, Inc. (collectively, “the petitioners”); and the respondent, Huvis Corporation (“Huvis”), filed case briefs. On July 7, 2006, the petitioners and Huvis filed rebuttal briefs. On July 26, 2006, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2) and 19 CFR 351.104(a)(2)(ii)(A), we rejected the petitioners' rebuttal brief because it contained untimely filed new information. On July 27, 2006, we received a revised rebuttal brief from the petitioners. Scope of the Order For the purposes of this order, the product covered is certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”). PSF is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to this order may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable under the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically excluded from this order. Also specifically excluded from this order are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt PSF is excluded from this order. Low-melt PSF is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Period of Review The period of review (“POR”) is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the September 28, 2006, * Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea * (“ *Decision Memorandum* ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the *Decision Memorandum* . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memorandum* can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memorandum* are identical in content. Partial Rescission In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department preliminarily rescinded this review with respect to Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. 1 (“Daehan”), pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department confirmed using CBP data that Daehan did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In addition, we did not receive any evidence from the petitioners that Daehan shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding this review with respect to Daehan. 1 On June 30, 2005, we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of PSF from Korea with respect to Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. On September 5, 2005, in response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, we were notified by Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. that Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. had no shipments during the POR. *See* Memorandum from Yasmin Bordas to File, “ *Questionnaire Response from Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd.* ,” dated March 15, 2006. The Department confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data that no shipments of subject merchandise were exported by either Daehan Synthetic Company, Ltd. or Daehan Synthetic Fiber, Co., Ltd. during the POR. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of PSF from Korea to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared export price (“EP”) to the NV. We calculated EP, NV, constructed value (“CV”), and the cost of production (“COP”), based on the same methodologies used in the *Preliminary Results* , with the following exceptions: • In the *Preliminary Results* , to make a determination of value pursuant to the major input rule, the Department used the market price of middle-terephthalic acid (“MTA”) as a proxy for the missing market price of qualified terephthalic acid (“QTA”). However, the record of this administrative review does not support a finding of interchangeability between these major inputs. Therefore, in accordance with sections 773(f)(3) and 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we have relied on facts available to make a determination of market value. For the final results, we added the supplier's profit rate, which we calculated from the supplier's fiscal year ending 2004 financial statements, to the supplier's COP to make a value determination for the missing market prices of these major inputs. We made this adjustment to both QTA and purified terephthalic acid because Huvis did not provide requested market prices for either input, though both are sourced from the same affiliated supplier. *See* Memorandum from Team, through Brandon Farlander, to the File, “ *Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Huvis Corporation* ,” dated September 28, 2006 (“ *Huvis Calculation Memorandum* ”); *Decision Memorandum* , at Comment 1. • In the computer program used to calculate NV, we have corrected a customer code for one of Huvis's home market customers. We have also corrected the computer code used to calculate Huvis's selling, general and administrative expense ratio and Huvis's financial expense ratio. *See Huvis Calculation Memorandum; Decision Memorandum* , at Comment 6. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of 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.” *See* section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because we examined below-cost sales occurring during the entire POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, 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. We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Huvis's comparison market sales were at prices less than the COP and, thus, the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. In addition, these sales were made at prices that did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Final Results of the Review We find that the following percentage margin exists for the period May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Huvis Corporation 4.65 Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In its September 2, 2006, Sections B-D Questionnaire Response, Huvis submitted evidence demonstrating that it was the importer of record for certain of its POR sales. We examined the CBP entry documentation submitted by Huvis and tied it to the U.S. sales listing. We noted that Huvis was indeed the importer of record for certain sales. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the importer-specific assessment rates, we have treated Huvis as the importer of record for certain POR shipments. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where Huvis is the importer of record, Huvis submitted the reported entered value of the U.S. sales and we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding sales where Huvis was not the importer of record, we note that Huvis did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates, on a per kilogram basis, for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer- specific *ad valorem* ratios based on the estimated entered value. 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 Huvis for which Huvis did not know the merchandise it sold to an 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 intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). For Daehan, in the event any entries were made during the POR through intermediaries under the CBP case number for Daehan, the Department is instructing CBP to liquidate these entries and to assess antidumping duties at the all-others rate in effect at the time of entry, consistent with the May 6, 2003 clarification discussed above. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. Cash Deposit Rates The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all shipments of PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rates for the reviewed company will be the rate listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a company's weighted-average margin is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);

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

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 7.91 percent, the “all-others” rate established in *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination and Amended Order Pursuant to Final Court Decision* , 68 FR 74552 (December 24, 2003). These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I List of Comments in the Decision Memorandum *Comment 1:* Major Inputs *Comment 2:* Overseas Office Expenses *Comment 3:* Inclusion of Extraordinary Losses in the G&A Calculation *Comment 4:* Interest Earned On Retirement Insurance *Comment 5:* Credit Period Recalculation *Comment 6:* Computer Program Errors [FR Doc. E6-16391 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-825 Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 18, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (“the Court”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) final remand redetermination on its entirety. *See Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. United States* , Ct. No. 05-00023, Slip Op. 06-142 (Ct. Int'l Trade September 18, 2006) (“ *Guangdong II* ”). This case arises out of the Department's final determination of *Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 75303 (December 16, 2004) (“ *Final Results* ”). The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results* . EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-5047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In the *Final Results* , the Department selected a surrogate value for sebacic acid in order to determine the portion of the factors of production attributable to sebacic acid and its co-product, capryl alcohol. *See* section 773(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). To obtain a surrogate value for sebacic acid, the Department used information from Indian import statistics rather than the use of data maintained by the publication *Chemical Weekly* in its Chemicals Import and Export trade database index (“ChemImpEx”) placed on the record and proposed by Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation (“Guangdong”). Additionally, the Department changed its methodology between the *Preliminary Results* ( *see Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Partial Recision* , 69 FR 47409 (August 5, 2004) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”)) and the *Final Results* , and applied a by-product offset to reflect Guangdong's sale of fatty acid and glycerine made in the production process. Before the Court, Guangdong challenged the Department's selection of Indian import statistics as the surrogate to value sebacic acid, and its determination to apply the by-product offset after the application of the surrogate financial ratio to manufacturing costs in the *Final Results* . On January 25, 2006, the Court issued a remand in *Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. United States* , Ct. No. 05-00023 Slip Op. 06-13 (January 25, 2006). The Court stated that the Department did not justify its decision to abandon a more product-specific data source. *See id* . at 19. The Court specifically pointed out that a remand was necessary because the Department did not address the data Guangdong used to corroborate its ChemImpEx data, and the Department did not explain why the Department's use of the Indian import statistics was not aberrational given that the data was comprised of a basket category. *See id* . at 19 and 20. The Court concluded that the Department failed to present substantial evidence supporting its surrogate value for sebacic acid. *See id* . at 22. Additionally, the Court granted the Department's request for a voluntary remand to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the application of the by-product offset which was changed between the *Preliminary Results* and the *Final Results* without allowing parties the opportunity to comment on this change. *See id* . at 22. In order to comply with the Court's remand order, the Department reviewed its choice of surrogate value for sebacic acid and made changes to the Indian import statistics to eliminate a value that the Department determined to be aberrational. Also, the Department provided additional explanation of its by-product methodology and provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on its methodology for the redetermination on remand. On May 3, 2006, the Department issued its *Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* (“ *Final Redetermination* ”). Guangdong continued to challenge the Department's determination in the *Final Redetermination* . On September 18, 2006, the Court found that the Department duly complied with the Court's remand order and sustained the *Final Redetermination* . *See Guangdong II* , Slip Op. 06-142 (September 18, 2006). The Court found that the Department's elimination of aberrational values constituted a reasonable step to compensate for some weaknesses in the Indian import statistics. *See id* . at 10. Therefore, the Court found that the Department's selection of surrogate value for sebacic acid is supported by substantial evidence. *See id* . at 12. Also, the Court found that the Department's analysis of the reliability of the Indian import statistics in view of the corroborating evidence submitted by Guangdong was reasonable. *See id* . at 15. Additionally, the Court upheld the Department's decision to account for separable costs associated with by-product sales by applying a by-product credit after the application of financial ratios to manufacturing costs. *See id* . at 21. Therefore, the Department's *Final Redetermination* was sustained in its entirety by the Court. Consequently, the antidumping duty rate for Guangdong will be 19.82 percent. Timken Notice In its decision in *Timken Co., v. United States* , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act of 1930, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's decision in Guangdong II on September 18, 2006, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's final results of administrative review. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of *Timken* . Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16395 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-810] Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From France; Final Results of Full Sunset Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested party, an adequate response from respondent interested parties, and respondent interested parties' arguments regarding post-investigation privatization of Usinor, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Therefore, the Department is not revoking this CVD order. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3692 or

(202)482-4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). On May 31, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the instant order. *See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France* , 71 FR 30875 (May 31, 2006). Interested parties were invited to comment on our preliminary results. On July 11, 2006, we received a case brief from Duferco Coating SA and Sorral SA (collectively, “Duferco Sorral”). We also received comments from the European Commission and from Sollac Atlantique, Sollac, Lorraine, Arcelor FCS Commercial, and Arcelor International America, LLC (“respondent interested parties”). On July 17, 2006, we received a rebuttal brief from United States Steel Corporation (“domestic interested party”). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') item numbers 7210.31.000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. Included in this order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.,* products which have been ``worked after rolling'')—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium and chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. The HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issued raised in this review are addressed in the Issue and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Adminstration, to James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 27, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of counteravailable subsidies at the following countervailing duty rate: Manufacturer/exporter Net subsidy margin (percent) Country-Wide Rate 0.16 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06-8485 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

CFR