Notices. Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order Final Determination We determine that candles composed of petroleum wax and over fifty percent or more palm and/or other vegetable oil-based waxes (“mixed-wax candles”) are later-developed merchandise and thus, are circumventing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) under the later-developed merchandise provision, pursuant to section 781(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”)
20,208 words·~92 min read·
/register/2006/10/06/06-8532·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Docket 40-2006 Foreign-Trade Zone 104 - Savannah, Georgia, Application for Expansion An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Savannah Airport Commission, grantee of FTZ 104, requesting authority to expand FTZ 104, in the Savannah, Georgia, area, within the Savannah Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400).
It was formally filed on September 25, 2006. FTZ 104 was approved on April 18, 1984 (Board Order 256, 49 FR 17789, 4/25/84) at sites in Savannah and Chatham County, adjacent to the Savannah Customs port of entry. The zone project currently consists of the following sites in the Savannah, Georgia area: *Site 1* (32 acres)-within the 3,400-acre Savannah International Airport, Savannah; *Site 2* (1,075 acres)-includes the 849-acre Garden City (Containerport) Terminal, 2 Main Street, Chatham, and 226-acre Ocean Terminal, 950 West River Street, Savannah; *Site 2A* (1 acre, 43, 560 sq. ft.)-730 King George Boulevard, Savannah; *Site 3* (1,820 acres)-Crossroads Business Center, Interstate 95 and Godley Road, Chatham County; *Site 4* (1,353 acres)-SPA Industrial Park, 1 mile east of the Interstate 95/U.S. 80 interchange, Chatham County; *Site 5* (24 acres)-within the 94-acre Savannah International Trade and Convention Center, One International Drive, Savannah; *Site 6* (1,182 acres)-Mulberry Grove site, Interstate 95 and State Highway 21, Savannah; *Site 7* (1,592 acres, 3 parcels)-within a 2,140-acre portion of the Tradeport Business Center industrial park, 380 Sunbury Road, Midway.
The applicant is requesting authority to add a 98 acre site, located at a proposed industrial park on Tremont Road near the interchange of I-16 and GA 516, Savannah. No specific manufacturing requests are being made at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties.
Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses below. The closing period for their receipt is December 5, 2006. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to December 20, 2006. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 1115, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230 and at the Savannah Airport Commission, 400 Airways Avenue, Savannah, Georgia 31408. Dated: September 25, 2006. Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-16520 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1479] Expansion and Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 181; Akron/Canton, OH Area Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Northeast Ohio Trade & Economic Consortium, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 181, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand and reorganize FTZ 181 in the northeast Ohio area, within and adjacent to the Cleveland Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 57-2005, filed 11/14/2005; amended 2/2/06); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 71085, 11/25/2005) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders:
The application to expand and reorganize FTZ 181 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall zone project, and further subject to a sunset provision that would terminate authority for the additional parcels at Site 4 and new Sites 8 and 9 on December 31, 2011, for any of the parcels that have not been activated under FTZ procedures before that date. Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of September 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce, for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-16615 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board (Docket 30-2006) Application for Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone, Counties of Northampton and Lehigh, Pennsylvania, Correction The **Federal Register** notice (71 FR 42800, 7/28/06), describing the application by the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation, to establish a general-purpose foreign-trade zone at sites in Lehigh and Northampton Counties, Pennsylvania, is corrected as follows:
The Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)port of entry is the Lehigh Valley CBP port of entry, which includes the former user-fee airport of Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton Airport. The proposed sites are within the CBP port of entry. The CBP service port of entry is Philadelphia. Dated: September 25, 2006. Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-16523 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-835) Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order 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 order on furfuryl alcohol from the People's Republic of China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing notice of continuation of this antidumping duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3534 and
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 3, 2006, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). 1 1 *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 16551 (April 3, 2006); and *Furfuryl Alcohol from China and Thailand* , Investigations Nos. 731-TA-703 and 705 (Second Review), 71 FR 16587 (April 3, 2006). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. 2 On September 25, 2006, the ITC determined pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 3 2 *See Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 35412 (June 20, 2006). 3 *See Furfuryl Alcohol from China and Thailand* , Investigation Nos. 731-TA-703 and 705 (Second Review), 71 FR 55804 (September 25, 2006). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol (C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes. The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC. 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 this order will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than September 2011. This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. This notice is published pursuant to 751(c) and 771(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4). Dated: October 2, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16603 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-817] Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey, 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)482-0193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) received timely requests for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Thailand, with respect to Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited
(SSI)on November 30, 2005, from domestic producer Nucor Corporation (Nucor). Also on November 30, 2005, the Department received a request for administrative review of the same order for SSI, Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co., Ltd. (NSM), and G Steel Public Company Limited (G Steel) from petitioner United States Steel Corporation (petitioner). On December 22, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review for the period of November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 76024 (December 22, 2005). On January 13, 2006, G Steel submitted a no-shipments letter to the Department in which it claimed it did not have sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the current period of review ( *i.e.* , November 1, 2004 through October 31, 2005). On March 22, 2006, both Nucor and petitioner submitted letters withdrawing their requests for administrative review of the above-referenced antidumping duty order with respect to SSI. Accordingly, on April 28, 2006, the Department rescinded this review with respect to SSI. *See Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand,* 71 FR 25148 (April 28, 2006). On August 2, 2006, the Department extended the preliminary results of administrative review by 60 days to October 2, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand* , 71 FR 44019 (August 3, 2006). Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. On September 14, 2006, petitioner submitted a request for the Department to rescind the current administrative review with respect to NSM, and on September 15, 2006, NSM submitted comments rebutting petitioner's request. Due to the Department's ongoing analysis of the comments received from both parties, and in light of the complexity of analyzing NSM's sales and cost data and the control number reporting methodology for various products, it is not practicable to complete this review by the current 60-day extended deadline of October 2, 2006. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 30 days until October 31, 2006. 1 The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results, in accordance with section 351.213(h) of the Department's regulations. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 2, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. 1 The Department notes that because extensions to the preliminary results are based on the last day of the anniversary month of the order, the new due date is Tuesday, October 31, 2006 (90 days from the original preliminary due date of August 2, 2006). [FR Doc. E6-16608 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-810, A-475-816, A-588-835, A-580-825] Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Italy, Japan, and Korea; Final Results of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the second sunset reviews of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina, Italy, Japan, and Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). On the basis of notices of intent to participate, and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, and inadequate responses received from respondent interested parties, the Department has conducted expedited sunset reviews, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the AD orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit, Fred Baker, or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6-7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5050,
(202)482-2924, or
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 1, 2006, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the AD orders on OCTG from Argentina, Italy, Japan, and Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 71 FR 31153 (June 1, 2006). The Department received notices of intent to participate from IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, Koppel Steel (“NS Group”), Maverick Tube Corporation, Newport Steel Company (“NS Group”), V&M Star LP, and United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) (collectively “domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 1 The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers, manufacturers, and wholesalers of the domestic like product. We received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties in all four cases within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received a inadequate response from respondent interested parties of the AD order from Argentina, and no responses from respondent interested parties with respect to the AD orders from Italy, Japan, and Korea. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR. 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted expedited reviews of these AD orders. 1 U.S. Steel and USS/Kobe Steel were petitioners in the investigation. U.S. Steel notes that Lorain Tubular Company LLC became the successor-in-interest to USS/Kobe Steel in August 1999. In December 1999, U.S. Steel took ownership of 100 % of the equity of Lorain Tubular, making U.S. Steel the owner of Lorain Tubular. Scope of the Orders Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea The products covered by these orders consists of oil country tubular goods, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute
(API)or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). The scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject to this review are currently classified in the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 7304.20.10.10, 7304.20.10.20, 7304.20.10.30, 7304.20.10.40, 7304.20.10.50, 7304.20.10.60, 7304.20.10.80, 7304.20.20.10, 7304.20.20.20, 7304.20.20.30, 7304.20.20.40, 7304.20.20.50, 7304.20.20.60, 7304.20.20.80, 7304.20.30.10, 7304.20.30.20, 7304.20.30.30, 7304.20.30.40, 7304.20.30.50, 7304.20.30.60, 7304.20.30.80, 7304.20.40.10, 7304.20.40.20, 7304.20.40.30, 7304.20.40.40, 7304.20.40.50, 7304.20.40.60, 7304.20.40.80, 7304.20.50.15, 7304.20.50.30, 7304.20.50.45, 7304.20.50.60, 7304.20.50.75, 7304.20.60.15, 7304.20.60.30, 7304.20.60.45, 7304.20.60.60, 7304.20.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memorandum”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 29, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations 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,* under the heading October 2006. 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 AD orders on OCTG from Argentina, Italy, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins: Manufacturers/exporters/producers Weighted-average margin (percent) Argentina Siderca S.A.I.C 1.36 Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A 60.73 All Others 1.36 Italy Dalmine S.p.A 49.78 Acciaierie Tubificio Arvedi S.p.A 49.78 General Sider Europa S.p.A 49.78 All Others 49.78 Japan Nippon Steel Corporation 44.20 Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd 44.20 All Others 44.20 Korea Union Steel Manufacturing Company 12.17 All Others 12.17 Hyundai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd., succeeded by Hyundai Hysco, was excluded from the 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 the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 29, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16607 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-504 Later-Developed Merchandise Anticircumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order Final Determination We determine that candles composed of petroleum wax and over fifty percent or more palm and/or other vegetable oil-based waxes (“mixed-wax candles”) are later-developed merchandise and thus, are circumventing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) under the later-developed merchandise provision, pursuant to section 781(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , 51 FR 30686 (August 28, 1986) (“ *Order* ”). In addition, we determine that mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum are covered by the scope of the *Order* . We are also rescinding the concurrently initiated 1 minor alterations anticircumvention inquiry. 2 *See Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Subject: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Later-Developed Merchandise Anticircumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , (September 29, 2006) (“ *Issues and Decision Memorandum* ”). 1 *See Notice of Initiation Anticircumention Inquiries of Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 10962 (March 7, 2005) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). 2 The Department received a separate request from Petitioners on October 12, 2004, to initiate an inquiry to determine whether pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act, candles containing palm or vegetable-based waxes as the majority ingredient and exported to the United States are circumventing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC under the minor alterations provision. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Villanueva or 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)482-3208 and
(202)482-1394, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On June 2, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary circumvention determination. *See Notice of Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order: Later-Developed Merchandise Anticircumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 32033 (June 2, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Determination* ”). Additionally, on June 2, 2006, the Department requested that interested parties submit comments and information addressing certain areas of the analysis. *See Letter to all Interested Parties, from Edward C. Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator, China/NME Unit, Import Administration, RE: Anticircumvention Inquiry on Later-Developed Merchandise: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , (June 2, 2006) (“ *June 2, 2006, Letter* ”). On June 23, 2006, the Department received comments and information from the following eight parties:
(1)the National Candle Association (“Petitioners”);
(2)China Chamber of Commerce for Importers and Exporters of Foodstuffs, Native Products and Animal By-Products, the China Daily Chemical Association and their common members, ( *i.e* ., Dalian Gift Co., Ltd., Kingking A.C. Co., Ltd., Shanghai Autumn Light Enterprise Co., Ltd., Aroma Consumer Products (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd., Amstar Business Company Limited, Zhongshan Zhongnam Candle Manufacturer Co., Ltd., and Jiaxing Moonlite Candle Art Co., Ltd.) (“CCCFNA”);
(3)Candle Corporation of America (“CCA”);
(4)Target Corporation (“Target”);
(5)Bed Bath & Beyond, Christmas Tree Shops, Inc. and Christmas Tree Shops' subsidiary Nantucket Distributing, Inc.;
(6)Amscan, Inc. (“Amscan”);
(7)Shonfeld USA, Inc. (“Shonfeld”) and
(8)CVS Stores (“CVS”). 3 3 Bed Bath & Beyond, Christmas Tree Shops, Inc. and Christmas Tree Shops' subsidiary Nantucket Distributing, Inc, Amscan, Shonfeld and CVS submitted virtually identical information and comments with the only difference being each entity's responses to some of the Department's questions contained in the June 2, 2006, letter. On July 7, 2006, the Department received case briefs from the following parties:
(1)Petitioners;
(2)CCCFNA;
(3)CCA;
(4)Target;
(5)Smart Marketing, Kate Aspen, and Wisconsin Cheeseman (“SKW”);
(6)Christmas Tree Shops, Inc. and Christmas Tree Shops' subsidiary Nantucket Distributing, Inc.; 4
(7)Amscan;
(8)CVS and
(9)Shonfeld. 5 4 Although Bed Bath & Beyond submitted comments and new information with Christmas Tree Shops' subsidiary Nantucket Distributing, Inc., it did not file a case brief. 5 Christmas Tree Shops, Inc. and Christmas Tree Shops' subsidiary Nantucket Distributing, Inc., Amscan, CVS, and Shonfeld submitted four individual briefs containing identical arguments. These parties will be hereinafter be referred to as “Merchandisers.” On July 13, 2006, Petitioners submitted a letter stating that Target's case brief contained significant portions of untimely submitted new, non-publicly available information and should be resubmitted without the new information. On July 17, 2006, the Department informed parties that it was keeping the new information contained within Target's case brief and extended the deadline for parties to submit rebuttal briefs until July 24, 2006. On July 24, 2006, the Department received rebuttal case briefs from the following parties:
(1)Petitioners;
(2)CCCFNA;
(3)CCA and
(4)Target. On July 27, 2006, Target submitted a letter stating that Petitioners' rebuttal brief contained significant portions of untimely submitted new, non-publicly available information and should be resubmitted without the new information. On July 28, 2006, the Department informed parties that it was keeping the new information contained within Petitioners' rebuttal brief and provided parties an opportunity to rebut Petitioners' new information with additional coents and information. On August 3, 2006, CCCFNA and CCA 6 submitted additional comments and information. 6 In its new factual information comments, CCA stated that Petitioners' factual information should be rejected by the Department as untimely new factual information. According to CCA, Petitioners had ample opportunity to submit factual information to bolster their argument during the course of this anticircumvention inquiry. Additionally, CCA states that Petitioners have twice ignored the Department's schedule for submitting factual information and submitted factual information past the established deadline. *See CCA's Response to Petitioners' New Factual Information* , (August 3, 2006) at 3. Moreover, CCA argues that Petitioners have not provided any justification for submitting this untimely new information and as such, the Department should reject Petitioners' new information for the final results of this anticircumvention inquiry. However, for the final determination, the Department has kept Petitioners' factual information on the record. Scope Of Order The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; round, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were classified under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (“TSUS”) 755.25, Candles and Tapers. The products covered are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item 3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience purposes, our written description remains dispositive. *See Order* and *Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 77990 (December 29, 2004). Final Rescission Of Minor Alterations Anticircumvention Inquiry Due to the issuance of the affirmative final determination that mixed-wax candles are a later-developed product, the minor alterations anticircumvention inquiry, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act, has been rescinded as the products subject to that inquiry have already been determined to be within the scope of the *Order* , pursuant to the instant inquiry under section 781(d) of the Act. Later-Developed Merchandise Statutory Provisions Section 781(d) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise is developed after an investigation is initiated (“later-developed merchandise”). In conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 781(d)(1) of the Act, the Department must examine the following criteria:
(A)whether the later-developed merchandise has the same general physical characteristics as the merchandise with respect to which the order was originally issued (“earlier product”);
(B)whether the expectations of the ultimate purchasers of the later-developed merchandise are the same as for the earlier product;
(C)whether the ultimate use of the earlier product and the later-developed merchandise is the same;
(D)whether the later-developed merchandise is sold through the same channels of trade as the earlier product; and
(E)whether the later-developed merchandise is advertised and displayed in a manner similar to the earlier product. In addition, section 781(d)(2) of the Act also states that the administering authority may not exclude later-developed merchandise from a countervailing or antidumping duty order merely because the merchandise
(A)is classified under a tariff classification other than that identified in the petition or the administering authority's prior notices during the proceeding, or
(B)permits the purchaser to perform additional functions, unless such additional functions constitute the primary use of the merchandise, and the cost of the additional functions constitute more than a significant proportion of the total cost of production of the merchandise. Legislative History and Case Precedent The statute does not provide further guidance in defining the meaning of further development. The only other source of guidance available is the brief discussion of later-developed products in the legislative history for section 781(d) of the Act, which although addressing later-developed products with respect to the ITC's injury analysis, we find is also relevant to the Department's analysis. The Conference Report on H.R. 3, Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 defines a later-developed product as a product that has been produced as a result of a “ **significant technological advancement or a significant alteration of the merchandise involving commercially significant changes** .” *See* H.R. Conf. Rep No. 576, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988), reprinted in 134 Cong. Rec. H2031, H2305 (daily ed. April 20, 1988) ( *emphasis added* ). In addition, in the first section 781(d) determination involving portable electric typewriters, the Department also cited a U.S. Senate report: [s]ection 781(d) was designed to prevent circumvention of an existing order through the sale of later developed products or of products with minor alterations that contain features or technologies not in use in the class or kind of merchandise imported into the United States at the time of the original investigation. *See* S. Rep No. 40., 100 th Cong., 1 st Sess. 101 (1987). Additionally, the Department noted the following: The Senate amendment is designed to address the application of outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders to merchandise that is essentially the same merchandise subject to an order, but was developed after the original investigation was initiated. Sec. 323(a) of Sen. amendment to H.R. 3, October 6, 1987. H.R. Conf. Rep No. 576, 100 th Cong., 2d Sess. (1988), reprinted in 134 Cong. Rec. H2031, H2305 (daily ed. April 20, 1988). The language of the statute and legislative history makes clear that for **any product to be considered later-developed it must be an advancement of the original product** subject to the investigation, as opposed to a product recently found to be within the scope of the order. *See Portable Electric Typewriters from Japan: Preliminary Scope Ruling* , 55 FR 32107, 32114 (August 7, 1990) (“ *PET Prelim* ”) ( *emphasis added* ). In addition to the legislative history, prior later-developed merchandise cases also provide further guidance, foremost of which is that the Department has considered “commercial availability” at the time of the underlying less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation in some form in its prior later-developed merchandise anticircumvention inquiries: *PET Final* ; *EMD Final* ; and *EPROMs Final* . *See Portable Electric Typewriters from Japan: Final Scope Ruling* , 55 FR 47358 (November 13, 1990) (“ *PET Final* ”); *Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Japan: Final Scope Ruling* , 57 FR 395 (January 6, 1992) (“ *EMD Final* ”); and *Eraseable Programmable Read Only Memories from Japan: Final Scope Ruling* , 57 FR 11599 (April 6, 1992) (“ *EPROMS Final* ”). In each case, the Department addressed the “commercial availability” of the later-developed merchandise in some capacity, such as the product's presence in the commercial market or whether the product was fully “developed,” *i.e.* , tested and ready for commercial production. 7 7 The fourth later-developed merchandise inquiry conducted by the Department was Television Receiving Sets, Monochrome and Color, from Japan. In that inquiry, the Department found that hand-held LCD televisions (LCD TVs) were later-developed merchandise. *See Television Receiving Sets, Monochrome and Color, from Japan: Final Scope Ruling* , 56 FR 66841 (December 26, 1991) (“ *TV Final* ”). In its final determination, the Department reviewed LCD TVs based upon the later-developed merchandise provision and noted that the LCD TV technology did not exist at the time the original product descriptions were developed. If the technology did not exist, the Department concluded, LCD TVs could not have been “commercially available” at the time of the investigation. In other later-developed merchandise inquiries, such as *EPROMs Final* , the Department addressed “commercial availability” in some form as a factor in its later-developed merchandise analysis because the technology to “develop” the new product existed at the time of the original investigation. *See EPROMs Final* , 57 FR at 11602-3. Based upon the legislative history of the anticircumvention provision and prior later-developed merchandise inquiries, the Department continues to include a “commercial availability” standard in its analysis of this proceeding, as was indicated in the *Preliminary Determination* . *See Preliminary Determination* , 71 FR at 32038. As noted above, both the legislative history and prior later-developed merchandise inquiries place emphasis on evaluating the “commercial availability” of the specific product to determine whether that product is later-developed, pursuant to section 781(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department will evaluate whether mixed-wax candles were not “commercially available” at the time of the LTFV investigation in order to be properly considered later-developed merchandise. Analysis We have analyzed the information, comments, and rebuttal comments of interested parties in this anticircumvention inquiry. Based on all of the information on the record, the Department considered whether the merchandise subject to this anticircumvention inquiry was “developed” as a result of a significant technological development *or* a significant alteration of the merchandise involving commercially significant changes. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that the technology required to produce the kind of mixed-wax candles at issue was hydrogenation, but that the Department had serious concerns that required further inquiry regarding the precise significant technological advancement that allowed for the commercial sale of mixed-wax candles. 8 *See Preliminary Determination* at 32038-40. After examining the information received since the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department finds that the record does not support a conclusion that there was a clear technological development which permitted the commercial appearance of mixed-wax candles. However, as discussed above, the relevant legislative history indicates a second, disjunctive permissible condition for finding a product to be later-developed: whether there was a significant alteration of the merchandise involving commercially significant changes. The Department finds that this standard has been met. In this case, primarily through a large number of submitted patents, manuals, and brochures, the record supports that there has been a sustained and significant series of scientific studies since the LTFV investigation centered on the composition of waxes and the application of those waxes to candle-making. *See Evidence Memorandum* for further discussion. As such, it is evident that the composition of the wax content of a candle is a significant constituent component of the candle and, accordingly, changes to the content in excess of 50 percent of the total wax are significant. Moreover, the record also supports that the addition of vegetable and/or palm-oil based waxes to previously 100 percent petroleum wax candles is commercially significant. First, such a capability permits a manufacturer to optimize candle production to take into account varying input costs with obvious commercial benefits. *See CCA's New Factual Information Submission* , (June 23, 2006) at Exhibit 7. Second, although such an addition yields a comparable product properly considered within the scope of the *Order* , as discussed in Comments 5 and 6 of the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , creative marketing has begun to highlight the vegetable or palm-oil based wax component of mixed-wax candles to create a new niche market centered on renewable resources or health concerns. This second aspect of the significant change to the candle composition, in that it creates a new marketing possibility, while not creating a separate class of merchandise, also has commercial significance. Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the one of the two requisite conditions for finding that a product is later-developed has been satisfied. Accordingly, the Department finds that this can be categorized as a “significant alteration of the merchandise involving commercially significant changes,” and thus, satisfies one of the legislative history's criterion for finding these mixed-waxed candles are later-developed merchandise, pursuant to the section 781(d) of the Act. *See Issues and Decisions Memorandum* , at Comment 3. 8 Hydrogenation of oils is essentially chemically modifying palm and vegetable oils through heat, the addition of hydrogen and other catalysts, to form a carbon chain chemistry that allows the long chains to fit closely together so that the oil can be converted into wax. Additionally, based on further information and evidence submitted by parties, the Department considered whether mixed-wax candles were “commercially available” at the time of the LTFV investigation. In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that, due to the limited data, it was unable to establish that mixed-wax candles were available at the time of the LTFV investigation. *See Preliminary Determination* , 71 FR at 32040. Since the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department has not received any information, either through relevant product brochures, annual sales data, or any other information, that allows it to definitively conclude that mixed-wax candles were available in the market at the time of the LTFV investigation. *See Issues and Decisions Memorandum* , at Comment 4. As a result of our analysis, we continue to find that U.S. imports of mixed-wax candles are later-developed products of the subject merchandise, within the meaning of section 781(d) of the Act. Moreover, based on further comments and evidence submitted by parties, the Department considered whether mixed-wax candles were within the scope of the *Order* . In the *Preliminary Determination* , the Department found that, because the Department had only limited information with which to establish a distinction, if any, between subject and non-subject mixed-wax candles, it concluded that mixed-wax candles containing up to 87.80 percent non-petroleum wax were within the scope of the *Order* . *See Preliminary Determination* , 71 FR at 32040. Since the *Preliminary Determination* , no information on the record indicates that mixed-wax candles above a certain percentage are not sufficiently different from other in-scope mixed-wax candles and petroleum wax candles to draw a useful distinction. Additionally, there is further evidence on the record demonstrating that mixed-wax candles are produced in proportions higher than 87.80 percent non-petroleum wax. Accordingly, we find that mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum wax are within the scope of the *Order* . However, we recognize that there may be types of mixed-wax candles containing a given amount of vegetable-based wax that places these mixed-wax candles outside the scope of the *Order* . Therefore, we note that interested parties may submit a scope request, pursuant to 351.225 of the Department's regulations, regarding whether a certain type of mixed-wax candle is outside the scope of the *Order* . *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* , at Comments 5 and 6. Consequently, pursuant to section 781(d) of the Act, we continue to find that mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum wax are later-developed merchandise and are within the scope of the *Order* . All issues raised by the interested parties to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum* , which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this inquiry and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum, which are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Continuation Of Suspension Of Liquidation Section 351.225(l)(2) of the Department's regulations states: “If liquidation has not been suspended, the Secretary will instruct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the product entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the scope inquiry.” In accordance with section 351.225(l)(2) of the Department's regulations, we will continue to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum wax, from the People's Republic of China that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 25, 2005, the date of initiation of this anticircumvention inquiry. *See Notice of Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order: Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 63 FR 18364, 18366 (April 15, 1998); *Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order: Anti-Circumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 63 FR 54672, 54675-6 (October 13, 1998). In the *Preliminary Determination* , the merchandise subject to suspension of liquidation were mixed-wax candles containing up to 87.80 percent of non-petroleum wax. *See Preliminary Determination* , 71 FR at 32043-4. However, in this determination, the Department has found that mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum wax are within the scope of the Order. *See Issues and Decision Memorandum* , at Comments 5 and 6. Section 351.225(l)(3) of the Department's regulations states: If the Secretary issues a final scope ruling under either paragraph
(d)or (f)(4) of this section, to the effect that the product in question is included within the scope of the order, any suspension of liquidation under paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of this section will continue. Where there has been no suspension of liquidation, the Secretary will instruct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the product entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the scope inquiry. Because the Department in the *Preliminary Determination* did not suspend liquidation for those entries of mixed-wax candles containing an amount of non-petroleum wax greater than 87.80 percent, with the publication of this notice, the Department hereby suspends liquidation of those entries of mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum wax that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 25, 2005, the date of initiation of this anticircumvention inquiry, pursuant to section 351.225(l)(3) of the Department's regulations. Accordingly, the merchandise subject to suspension of liquidation based on this determination are mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum wax. CBP shall require a cash deposit in the amount of 108.30 percent for all such unliquidated entries, which is the most recently calculated PRC-wide rate. *See Amended Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20858, 20859 (April 19, 2004). This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. Notice To Parties This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 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. This final circumvention determination is in accordance with section 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(j). Dated: September 29, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16613 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. International Trade Administration A-570-832 Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Final Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Bolling or Hua Lu, 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)482-3434 and
(202)482-6478, respectively. Background On April 10, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 18067 (April 10, 2006) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). In the *Preliminary Results* , we stated that we would issue our final results of review no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results (i.e., August 8, 2006). On July 31, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice extending the time limit for the final results of the administrative review from August 8, 2006, to September 7, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Final Result of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 43110 (July 31, 2006). Additionally, on September 12, 2006, the Department published a notice extending the time limit for the final results of review until September 29, 2006. *See Notice of Extension of Final Results of the 2004-2005 Administrative Review of Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 53662 (September 12, 2006). The final results of review are currently due no later than September 29, 2006 . Extension of Time Limit for Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the final results in an administrative review within 120 days of publication date of the preliminary results. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, the Department may extend the time limit for the final results to 180 days. Completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable because this review involves certain complex issues involving valuation of various factors of production . Therefore, we are fully extending the time period for issuing the final results of review to 180 days until October 7, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. However, because October 7, 2006, falls on a Saturday, and the next business day October 9, 2006 is a federal holiday, the final results will be due on October 10, 2006, the next business day. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act . Dated: September 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration [FR Doc. E6-16522 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-357-809, A-351-826, A-428-820) Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil and Germany: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless line pipe) from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 31153 (June 1, 2006) ( *Sunset Initiation* ). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and only one notice of intent to participate filed on behalf of a German respondent interested party, Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH (Benteler Stahl), the response for which was determined by the Department to be inadequate, the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the *Final Results of Review* section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein or Dena Crossland, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1391 or
(202)482-3362, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 1, 2006, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on seamless line pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Sunset Initiation* . The Department received notices of intent to participate from two domestic interested parties, United States Steel Corporation (US Steel) and Koppel Steel Corporation (Koppel Steel) (collectively, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the domestic like product. We received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i) on July 3, 2006. The Department received one substantive response from the German respondent interested party, Benteler Stahl, on July 3, 2006. On July 14, 2006, we received rebuttal responses from domestic interested parties and Benteler Stahl. After reviewing its substantive and rebuttal responses, the Department determined that Benteler Stahl's submissions were inadequate, pursuant to sections 218(e)(1)(ii)(A) and
(C)of the Department's regulations. *See* Memorandum from Dena M. Crossland, Import Compliance Specialist, through Richard O. Weible, AD/CVD Operations Office 7 Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Import Administration, regarding Adequacy Determination: Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Seamless Standard Line, and Pressure Pipe from Germany, dated July 21, 2006. No other respondent interested parties submitted responses. As a result of the timely filed, substantive responses from domestic interested parties, and the inadequacy of the substantive response for Germany (the sole substantive response from a respondent interested party in these sunset reviews), the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these orders, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). Scope of the Orders The products covered by the orders are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the orders also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically included within the scope of the orders are seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. The seamless pipes subject to the orders are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gases in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes is use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/ hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications. The scope of the orders includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of the orders. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of the orders. Specifically excluded from the scope of the orders are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods
(OCTG)are excluded from the scope of the orders, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being used in a covered application. If such information is provided, we will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in covered applications as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-161 specification is being used in a standard, line or pressure application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally we will require only the importer of record to certify to the end use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these cases are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 28, 2006, (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders are revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading “September 2006.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on pipe fittings from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/exporters/producers Weighted-average margin (percent) Argentina Siderca SAIC 108.13 All Others 108.13 Brazil V & M do Brasil, S.A. 124.94 All Others 124.94 Germany Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes - V&M Deutschland GmbH 57.72 All Others 57.72 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(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 the return or 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 the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 29, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16601 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-533-809 Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received requests for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (flanges) from India issued on February 9, 1994. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* , 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d) (2005), we are initiating antidumping new shipper reviews of Micro Forge (India), Ltd. (Micro) and Pradeep Metals Limited (Pradeep), exporters and producers that requested new shipper reviews. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Michael Heaney, or Robert James, 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)482-2924,
(202)482-4475, or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d), the Department received timely requests submitted by Micro and Pradeep (producers and exporters of flanges) for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India. *See* August 31, 2006, letters from Micro and Pradeep to the Secretary of Commerce requesting new shipper reviews. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b), Micro and Pradeep certified that they are both exporters and producers of the subject merchandise, that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of the investigation
(POI)(July 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992), and that since the investigation was initiated, they have not been affiliated with any producer or exporter who exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. They also submitted documentation establishing the date on which they first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, the volume of those shipments, and the date of their first sales to unaffiliated customers in the United States. They also certified they had no shipments to the United States during the period subsequent to their first shipments. Initiation of Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(d) of the Department's regulations, we find that the requests submitted by Micro and Pradeep meet the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review. Accordingly, we are initiating new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India manufactured and exported by Micro and Pradeep. These reviews cover the period February 1, 2006, through July 31, 2006. We intend to issue the preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days after the date on which these reviews are initiated, and the final results within 90 days after the date on which we issue the preliminary results. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond under Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Micro and Pradeep must continue to post a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current all-others rate of 162.14 percent. Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and this notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and sections 351.214(d) and 351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Dated: September 29, 2006. Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16517 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-401-806] Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Sweden: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a timely request by the petitioners, 1 the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod (“SSWR”) from Sweden with respect to Fagersta Stainless AB (“FSAB”). The period of review (“POR”) is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. 1 The petitioners include the following companies: Carpenter Technology Corporation, Dunkirk Specialty Steel, LLC Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation. We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (“NV”). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. If the 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. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room B-099, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1766. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 15, 1998, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an antidumping duty order on SSWR from Sweden. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden,* 63 FR 49329 (“ *SSWR Order* ”). On September 30, 2005, the petitioners submitted a letter timely requesting that the Department conduct an administrative review of the sales of SSWR made by FSAB, pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to FSAB. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Reviews,* 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005). On November 7, 2005, we issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to FSAB. FSAB submitted its section A questionnaire response in December 2005 and responses to the remaining sections of the questionnaire in January 2006. We also issued to FSAB a section A supplemental questionnaire in January 2006 and a sections B and C supplemental questionnaire in February 2006. We received FSAB's timely responses to these supplemental questionnaires in March and April 2006, respectively. On April 13, 2006, we issued a decision memorandum which outlined the Department's basis for collapsing FSAB with its affiliates, AB Sandvik Materials Technology (“SMT”) and Kanthal AB (“Kanthal”), and treating them as a single entity in this review. *See* April 13, 2006, Memorandum from the Team to The File, entitled, *Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Whether to Collapse FSAB, SMT, and Kanthal.* Also, on April 13, 2006, we issued to FSAB a supplemental sections D and E questionnaire to which it submitted its response on May 11, 2006. On April 26, 2006, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until August 1, 2006. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2004-2055 Administrative Review,* 71 FR 25813 (May 2, 2006). On May 19, 2006, we issued to FSAB a second sections B and C supplemental questionnaire for which it submitted its response on June 19, 2006. On June 8, we issued to FSAB a sections D and E second supplemental questionnaire to which it submitted its response on July 6, 2006. On June 19 and 22, 2006, we met with counsel for FSAB and the petitioners, respectively, at their requests, to discuss FSAB's proposal that the Department include an additional criterion ( *i.e.* , electro-slag refining (“ESR”)) to the current model-matching criteria used in this administrative review ( *see* June 21, 2006, Memorandum to the File, entitled, *Ex-Parte Meeting with FSAB;* and June 28, 2006, Memorandum to the File, entitled, *Ex-Parte Meeting with Counsel for the Petitioners* ). As a result of the above-mentioned meetings, we issued letters to FSAB and the petitioners on July 10, 2006, in which we invited them to comment further on this matter. On July 12, 2006, we met with a Swedish Embassy official, at the Swedish Embassy's request, to discuss the ESR matter ( *see* July 13, 2006, Memorandum to the File, entitled, *Ex-Parte Meeting with Swedish Embassy Official* ). In response to the Department's July 10, 2006, letters, both parties submitted comments on July 17, 2006. On July 24, 2006, only FSAB submitted rebuttal comments on this matter. In order to fully consider the parties' comments on the ESR matter, we fully extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this review until October 2, 2006. *See Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2004-2055 Administrative Review,* 71 FR 40698 (July 18, 2006). On July 28, 2006, we issued to FSAB a third sections D and E supplemental questionnaire to which it submitted its response on August 18, 2006. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, SSWR comprises products that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter. Certain stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the order. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The following proprietary grades of Kanthal AB are also excluded: Kanthal A-1, Kanthal AF, Kanthal A, Kanthal D, Kanthal DT, Alkrothal 14, Alkrothal 720, and Nikrothal 40. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows: SF20T Carbon 0.05 max Chromium 19.00/21.00. Manganese 2.00 max Molybdenum 1.50/2.50. Phosphorous 0.05 max Lead added (0.10/0.30). Sulfur 0.15 max Tellurium added (0.03 min). Silicon 1.00 max K-M35FL Carbon 0.015 max Nickel 0.30 max. Silicon 0.70/1.00 Chromium 12.50/14.00. Manganese 0.40 max Lead 0.10/0.30. Phosphorous 0.04 max Aluminum 0.20/0.35. Sulfur 0.03 max Kanthal A-1 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 5.30 min, 6.30 max. Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance. Manganese 0.40 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max. Kanthal AF Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.80 min, 5.80 max. Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance. Manganese 0.40 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal A Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.80 min, 5.80 max. Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance. Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal D Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.30 min, 5.30 max. Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance. Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Kanthal DT Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 4.60 min, 5.60 max. Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance. Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 20.50 min, 23.50 max Alkrothal 14 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 3.80 min, 4.80 max. Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance. Manganese 0.50 max Chromium 14.00 min, 16.00 max Alkrothal 720 Carbon 0.08 max Aluminum 3.50 min, 4.50 max. Silicon 0.70 max Iron balance. Manganese 0.70 max Chromium 12.00 min, 14.00 max Nikrothal 40 Carbon 0.10 max Nickel 34.00 min, 37.00 max. Silicon 1.60 min, 2.50 max Iron balance. Manganese 1.00 max Chromium 18.00 min, 21.00 max The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of SSWR by FSAB to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared 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 Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by FSAB covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2)(ii), we compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by FSAB in the following hierarchical order: grade, diameter, further processing, and coating. Electro-Slag Refining In its January 11, 2006, section B questionnaire response (“section B response”), FSAB requested that the Department include an additional characteristic, ESR, 2 in the above-noted model-matching criteria and also consider it as one of the most significant physical characteristics in the product matching hierarchy. In support of its request, FSAB provided data in its questionnaire responses 3 to demonstrate that ESR, one of two remelting methods 4 used by FSAB, is a separate processing stage in the production of billets, which are used in the production of certain subject SSWR products. FSAB states that ESR removes certain inclusions, or impurities, from the steel ( *e.g.* , aluminum nitride), making it stronger and less prone to breaking under stress. Through subsequent supplemental questionnaires issued to FSAB on its ESR process, we requested that FSAB provide more information on the ESR method of remelting, as well as VAR remelting. As mentioned in the “Background” section of this notice, we also met with FSAB representatives on June 19, 2006, to discuss the ESR matter. In addition, we provided the parties in this review the opportunity to comment on this matter. 2 FSAB subsequently stated in its July 17, 2006, submission that its request to include ESR in the matching criteria also included other forms of remelting, as well. 3 *See* January 11, 2006, section B Response at pages B-2 through B-6, Exhibit B-1, and Exhibit B-2; January 18, 2006, section C Response at page C-3; April 4, 2006, Supplemental Questionnaire Response at pages 9 through 19, and Exhibits S-6 through S-12; and June 19, 2006, Supplemental Response at pages 1-2. 4 Remelting may be done using different methods, such as ESR and vacuum arc refining (“VAR”). As support for its request that remelting be added to the model-matching criteria, FSAB claims that ESR and VAR remelting impart important physical characteristics, as evidenced by the fact that it uses both remelting methods to produce many of its SSWR grades. 5 FSAB also emphasizes that ESR has a significant impact on the price and production costs of certain SSWR grades which, if not taken into account, results in inaccurate product comparisons. As such, FSAB argues that the addition of ESR to the model-matching criteria will result in more reasonable price-to-price comparisons. Also, FSAB asserts that although remelting was never considered in the less-than-fair-value (“LFTV”) segment of the proceeding, it should be considered in this review. Finally, FSAB notes that the Department has recognized ESR remelting as a significant product matching criterion in proceedings concerning stainless steel bar (“SSB”), another stainless steel product. 5 Although FSAB's main focus is with ESR, FSAB subsequently clarified in its July 17, 2006, submission that it also views VAR in the same manner. However, because VAR, unlike ESR, has not been argued extensively by FSAB, we have for the most part limited our discussion of remelting to ESR. The petitioner maintains that the Department should not alter the existing model-matching criteria because, while remelting has been used in SSWR production since before the Department conducted the LTFV segment of this proceeding, the Department has never used it as a matching criterion in this proceeding. The petitioner asserts that, unlike in SSB production, ESR is only required in limited situations ( *e.g.* , aeronautical use) and is not commonly used in the SSWR industry. Moreover, the petitioner argues that if the Department were to consider including remelting ( *i.e.* , both ESR and VAR) in the matching criteria, the Department would also need to consider other additional production steps or special operations ( *e.g.* , double annealing, shaving) as matching criteria. When identical merchandise is not available in the home market for comparison to merchandise sold to the United States, the Department will compare “similar” merchandise based upon the physical characteristics of the merchandise being compared. *See* section 771(16)(B) of the Act. The statute also instructs the Department to compare merchandise that is produced in the same country and by the same person as the subject merchandise; like that subject merchandise in component material or materials and in the purposes for which used; and approximately equal in commercial value to the subject merchandise. Section 771(16)(C) of the Act instructs that, where no matches can be found under section 771(16)(B) of the Act, three criteria must be met to consider a product similar to the U.S. model:
(1)The comparison-market model must be produced in the same country and by the same person and of the same general class or kind as the merchandise which is the subject of the investigation;
(2)the comparison-market model must be like that merchandise in the purposes for which used; and
(3)the comparison-market model must be found to be reasonably comparable to the U.S. model by the Department. When the Department has an established model-matching methodology in a proceeding, it may alter its established methodology if there is a reasonable basis for doing so. *See NTN Bearing Corp.* v. *United States,* 295 F. 3rd 1263, 1269 (CIT 2002). With respect to changes to its model-matching methodology, the Department has applied a “compelling reasons” standard, which is fully consistent, if not more rigorous, than the principles applied by the courts in reviewing the Department's determination to alter or change its practice. *See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 70 FR 54711 (September 16, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (“ *Ball Bearings* ”). Compelling reasons that warrant a change to the model-matching methodology may include, for example, greater accuracy in comparing foreign like product to the *single most* similar U.S. model, in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act, or a greater number of reasonable price-to-price comparisons in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. According to the information contained in FSAB's questionnaire responses, FSAB used ESR remelting for the production of only one select grade of SSWR sold in the home market during the POR, while the same grade, produced without ESR remelting, was sold in the U.S. market during the POR. As such, the ESR remelting issue pertains to only one grade used in the price-to-price comparisons. Moreover, FSAB made just one sale of this single grade in the home market during the POR. Finally, FSAB's data also indicate that FSAB had no sales of SSWR in either market for which any other form of remelting, such as VAR, was used in the production process. The data contained in FSAB's questionnaire responses indicate that remelting ( *i.e.* , ESR and VAR) appears to impart certain physical characteristics ( *e.g.* , fewer impurities, increased tolerance) to the billets used to produce subject merchandise compared to billets for which remelting was not used. In addition, there appear to be certain price and cost differences associated with ESR remelting with respect to the production of FSAB's one affected grade. However, FSAB has not demonstrated that the addition of ESR to the model-matching criteria would result in greater accuracy in comparing the foreign like product to the single most similar U.S. model. In particular, the physical differences associated with remelting appear to be minor, specifically with respect to the chemical composition of the steel grade itself. In addition, price and cost differences associated with a different production process do not necessarily warrant an alteration of the model-matching criteria. The important question is whether the different production process has a significant impact on the physical characteristics of the subject merchandise. In this case, again, we find that the impact is minor. Further, because the physical differences resulting from ESR remelting are associated with just a single sale of one particular grade in the home market, we preliminarily find that altering our model-matching criteria by adding ESR remelting as a matching criterion would not have a significant impact on the number of reasonable price-to-price comparisons. FSAB further argues that the Department should use remelting as a model matching criterion in this review because it is used for matching purposes in a proceeding involving another stainless steel product ( *i.e.* , SSB). However, we note that in other proceedings involving stainless steel products, the Department has not used remelting as a model-matching criterion. 6 Moreover, in SSB, the Department determined that remelting was an appropriate product matching criterion based on the case-specific information on the record of that proceeding ( *see* September 29, 2006, memorandum to the file, which includes discussion of remelting in the SSB proceeding). 6 Other cases involving stainless steel products for which remelting is not a model-matching characteristic include the following: stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings ( *e.g.* , A-475-828), stainless steel sheet and strip and coils ( *e.g.* , A-583-831), and stainless steel plate in coils ( *e.g.* , A-583-830). After considering the information provided by FSAB and the determination in *Ball Bearings,* we believe that record evidence does not provide a reasonable basis for changing the model-matching criteria as suggested by FSAB. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined to not modify the model-matching criteria used in this review. Constructed Export Price We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was either sold for the account of FSAB by its subsidiary, FSI, in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers, or subsequently further manufactured into non-subject merchandise by its affiliate, SMT U.S., in the United States and then resold to its unaffiliated customers. We based CEP on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified the correct starting price by adjusting for alloy surcharges, freight revenue, and billing adjustments associated with the sale, and by making deductions for early payment discounts and volume rebates, where applicable, as required by section 772 of the Act. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These expenses included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight (including freight from the plant to the port of exportation), brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses (including freight from the U.S. port to the U.S. customer or warehouse and freight from the warehouse to the unaffiliated customer), U.S. customs fees (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), and warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit expenses, warranty expenses, advertising expenses, and repacking expenses) and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the country of exportation and the United States. We also deducted an amount for further-manufacturing costs, where applicable, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, and made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. To calculate the cost of further manufacturing, we relied on SMT U.S.'s reported cost of further manufacturing materials, labor, and overhead, plus amounts for further manufacturing and financial expenses. We adjusted FSAB's reported general and administrative expenses (“G&A”) for further manufacturing by including material costs in the denominator of the further manufacturer's G&A expense rate calculation. We applied the G&A expense rate to the sum of SMT U.S.'s COM and FSAB's COP for that merchandise. For further details regarding this adjustment, please see the Memorandum from Michael Harrison, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director of Accounting, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Fagersta Stainless AB” (“ *COP/CV Memo* ”) dated September 29, 2006. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the 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)(B) of the Act. Because FSAB's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that its home market was viable. B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test During the POR, FSAB sold the foreign like product to an affiliated customer. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a product-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all discounts and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the Department's practice, where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that 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, 69187 (November 15, 2002) (establishing that the overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 percent and 102 percent in order for sales to be considered in the ordinary course of trade and used in the NV calculation). Sales to the affiliated customer in the home market that were not made at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered these sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. *See* 19 CFR 351.102(b). Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the export price (“EP”) or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing ( *Id.* ); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) ( *Plate from South Africa* ). 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), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third country prices), 7 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc.* v. *United States* , 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 1 Where NV is based on constructed value (“CV”), we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G & A expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. When the Department is unable to match U.S. 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 at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under 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 there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability ( *i.e.* , no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR at 61732. We obtained information from FSAB regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. FSAB only sold SSWR to end-users in the home market, but sold to both end-users and distributors in the U.S. market. FSAB reported that it made CEP sales in the U.S. market through the following two channels of distribution:
(1)Sales of FSAB-produced SSWR to its U.S. affiliate FSI (“U.S. Channel 1”), and
(2)sales of FSAB-produced SSWR to its U.S. affiliate SMT U.S. (which further manufactured the SSWR into wire products for sale to its unaffiliated U.S. customers) (“U.S. Channel 2”). We compared the selling activities performed in each channel, and found that the same selling functions ( *i.e.* , sales process/marketing support and freight/delivery) were performed at the same relative level of intensity in both channels of distribution. With regard to the other two selling functions considered in this analysis ( *i.e.* , warehousing/inventory and quality assurance/warranty service), we find that the differences are insignificant between U.S. Channel 1 and U.S. Channel 2. As a result, both U.S. channels, on balance, are at the same LOT. Accordingly, we find that all CEP sales constitute one LOT. For further discussion on this matter, see September 29, 2006, Memorandum to the File, entitled, *Preliminary Results Level of Trade Analysis for FSAB* (“ *LOT Memo* ”). With respect to the home market, FSAB reported one channel of distribution ( *i.e.* , factory direct sales) through which it sold SSWR to both affiliated and unaffiliated end-user customers. According to FSAB, its direct sales to both affiliated and unaffiliated home market customers constitute one distinct LOT in the home market. In determining whether separate LOTs exist in the home market, we compared the selling functions performed across all channels of distribution. After our analysis of the information submitted for the record of this review, we find that all home market sales were made at the same LOT. *See LOT Memo* . Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for home market sales are either performed at the same degree of intensity (or only vary slightly) as the selling functions performed for U.S. sales. Specifically, we find that three of the four selling functions ( *i.e.* , freight/delivery, warehousing/inventory, and quality assurance/warranty service) are performed by FSAB at the same level of intensity in both the U.S. and home markets. With respect to the remaining selling function ( *i.e.* , sales process/marketing support), we find that there is only a slight difference in the level of intensity between the home and U.S. market. Therefore, we find that the NV LOT and single U.S. LOT are at the same LOT. As home market and U.S. sales were made at the same LOT, we have matched CEP sales to home market sales at the same LOT. Cost of Production Analysis In the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of November 7, 2005, the date the questionnaire was issued in this review, we found that FSAB had made sales below the cost of production. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Sweden* , 63 FR 10841, 10846 (March 5, 1998); affirmed in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden* , 63 FR 40449, 40452 (July 29, 1998) (“ *SSWR from Sweden LTFV Final* ”). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that FSAB made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. Accordingly, we instructed FSAB to respond to the section D (Cost of Production) questionnaire. A. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated FSAB's cost of production (“COP”) based on the sum of FSAB's costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses and interest expenses ( *see* “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by FSAB in its August 18, 2006, supplemental section D questionnaire response, except in the following instances noted below. In accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act, the Department adjusted FSAB's transfer price of billets purchased from its affiliate, Outokumpu. For further details regarding this adjustment, please see the *COP/CV Memo.* B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices On a product-specific basis, 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 the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges, freight revenue, service charge revenue, processing charge revenue and billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate, as discussed below under the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made:
(1)Within an extended period of time,
(2)in substantial quantities, and
(3)at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. C. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)or the Act:
(1)Whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and
(2)whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because:
(1)They 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 our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the 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 specific products, more than 20 percent of FSAB's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Price-to-Price Comparisons As discussed in the “Normal Value” section above, we calculated NV based on delivered prices (inclusive of alloy surcharges) to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that were determined to be at arm's length. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for billing adjustments, discounts, and rebates. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight (from the plant to the customer) and inland insurance, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also made deductions from the starting price for credit, warranty, and other direct selling expenses, under section 773 of the Act. We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. Calculation of Constructed Value We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, which states that CV shall be based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the subject merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the submitted CV information except for the adjustments described above under “Calculation of Cost of Production.” Price-to-Constructed Value Comparisons We based NV on CV for comparison to certain U.S. sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For comparisons to FSAB's CEP sales, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting from CV the weighted-average home market direct selling expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005, is as follows: Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin Fagersta Stainless AB (which also includes AB Sandvik Materials Technology and Kanthal AB) 30.18 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be scheduled after determination of the briefing schedule. 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, Room B-099, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)The party's name, address and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(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 respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted in accordance with a schedule to be determined. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed company did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the All Others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. However, for subject merchandise produced by FSAB but imported on behalf of its U.S. affiliate, SMT U.S., we do not have the actual entered value because FSAB was unable to obtain the entered value data for their reported sales from the importer of record. Therefore, for those entries of subject merchandise imported by SMT U.S., we intend to calculate the importer-specific assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all of the U.S. sales examined and dividing that amount by the total quantity of the sales examined. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case 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 original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.71 percent, the “All Others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See SSWR Order.* These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: September 29, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16518 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-890 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, 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)482-6412. Background The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on January 4, 2005. * See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China * , 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). On March 7, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of WBF from the PRC and new shipper reviews for the period June 24, 2004, through December 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 11394 (March 7, 2006) and *Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 11404 (March 7, 2006) (“ *Initiation of Second Annual New Shipper* Reviews”). On August 24, 2006, the Department aligned the deadlines and the time limits of the new shipper reviews of WBF with the 2004-2005 administrative review of WBF. *See* Memorandum to the File from Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst, through Wendy Frankel, Office Director, dated August 24, 2006. The preliminary results of these reviews are currently due no later than October 3, 2006 . Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results . Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time period to a maximum of 365 days. Completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable because the Department needs additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondents' sales practices, factors of production, and corporate relationships, to evaluate certain issues raised by the petitioners, and to issue and review responses to supplemental questionnaires . Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are fully extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review to 365 days until January 31, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a) and 777(i) of the Act . Dated: September 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16521 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of renewal. In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and the General Services Administration
(GSA)rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR part 101-6, and after consultation with GSA, the Secretary of Commerce has determined that the renewal of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board is in the public interest in connection with the performance of the duties imposed on the Department by law. The Committee was first established in October 1996 to advise MEP regarding their programs, plans, and policies. In renewing the Board, the Secretary has established it for an additional two years. During the next two years, the Board plans to address the implementation of the Next Generation MEP, including the development of new service offerings in the areas of innovation and technology adoption, and strategic partnerships focused on the development of a highly-skilled, entrepreneurial workforce. The Board will consist of five to eleven individuals appointed by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to assure a balanced membership that will represent the views and needs of customers, providers, and others involved in industrial extension throughout the United States. The Board will function solely as an advisory body and in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Copies of the Committee's revised charter will be filed with the appropriate committees of the Congress and with the Library of Congress. Inquiries or comments may be directed to Karen Lellock, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800; telephone: 301-975-4269. Dated: October 2, 2006. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-16612 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 100306A] Gulf of Mexico 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 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene its Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (LEAP). DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 24, 2006, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Royal Sonesta, 300 Bourbon St., New Orleans, LA 70130; telephone:
(504)586-0300. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Richard Leard, Deputy Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will convene the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel
(LEAP)to review a Draft Joint Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (FMP)/Amendment 14 to the Shrimp FMP. This amendment contains alternatives to regulate the harvest and bycatch of red snapper by both the directed commercial and recreational fisheries and the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. The need for this amendment arose from the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process through which a recent stock assessment showed that the red snapper stock in the Gulf was overfished and overfishing was continuing. In addition, the LEAP will review progress and possible actions with regard to an amendment to potentially allow offshore aquaculture and a reef fish amendment to address individual fishing quotas
(IFQs)for grouper and possibly other reef fish species. Finally, the LEAP will review the status of various FMP amendments and other regulatory actions and approve the Operations Plan for 2007. The LEAP consists of principal law enforcement officers in each of the Gulf States, as well as the NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA)General Counsel. A copy of the agenda and related materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at
(813)348-1630. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the LEAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the LEAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take 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 Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: October 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-16594 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 100306B] Gulf of Mexico 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 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a public meeting of the Ad Hoc Grouper Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ)Advisory Panel (AHGIFQAP). DATES: The AHGIFQAP meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 25 and conclude no later than 3 p.m. on Thursday, October 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Quorum Hotel Tampa, 700 North Westshore Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33609; telephone:
(813)289-8200. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stu Kennedy, Fishery Biologist, telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council has begun deliberation of a Dedicated Access Privilege System
(DAP)for the Commercial grouper fishery. The Council has appointed an AHGIFQAP, composed of commercial grouper fishermen and others knowledgeable about DAP systems, to assist in the development of such a program. The Panel will discuss the scope and the general configuration of an IFQ program for the Gulf of Mexico commercial grouper fishery. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the AHGIFQAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the AHGIFQAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. Copies of the agenda can be obtained by calling
(813)348-1630. Special Accommodations This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: October 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-16595 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 100306C] 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 of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's Non-Target Species Committee. SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Non-Target Species Committee will meet in Seattle, WA. DATES: The meeting will be held on October 26, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and October 27, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fishery Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Building 4, Center Director's conference room, Seattle, WA. *Council address* : North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane DiCosimo, Council staff, telephone:
(907)271-2809. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The committee will review: status of the other species analysis; status of non-target species initiative; Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement findings on rockfish; present the findings of the Center for Independent Experts, along with the reviews and preliminary response to recommendations. The committee may make recommendations for the management of
(1)other species;
(2)non-target species; and
(3)rockfish. 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 Council'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 Gail Bendixen at
(907)271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date. Dated: October 3, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-16596 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam October 3, 2006. AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA). ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Web site ( *http://www.cbp.gov* ), or call
(202)344-2650. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel Web site at *http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended. The Bilateral Textile Agreement of July 17, 2003, as amended, between the Governments of the United States and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, establishes limits for certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing. A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel Web site at *http://otexa.ita.doc.gov* ). See 70 FR 75156 (December 19, 2005). Philip J. Martello, Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements October 3, 2006. Commissioner, *U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229* Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on December 13, 2005, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, and man-made fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Vietnam and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2006 and extends through December 31, 2006. Effective on October 6, 2006, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the terms of the current bilateral textile agreement between the Governments of the United States and Vietnam: Category Restraint limit 1 332 167,867 dozen pairs. 345 147,356 dozen. 359-C/659-C 2 201,700 kilograms. 632 376,096 dozen pairs. 645/646 162,445 dozen. 1 The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December 31, 2005. 2 Category 359-C: only HTS numbers 6103.42.2025, 6103.49.8034, 6104.62.1020, 6104.69.8010, 6114.20.0048, 6114.20.0052, 6203.42.2010, 6203.42.2090, 6204.62.2010, 6211.32.0010, 6211.32.0025 and 6211.42.0010; Category 659-C: only HTS numbers 6103.23.0055, 6103.43.2020, 6103.43.2025, 6103.49.2000, 6103.49.8038, 6104.63.1020, 6104.63.1030, 6104.69.1000, 6104.69.8014, 6114.30.3044, 6114.30.3054, 6203.43.2010, 6203.43.2090, 6203.49.1010, 6203.49.1090, 6204.63.1510, 6204.69.1010, 6210.10.9010, 6211.33.0010, 6211.33.0017 and 6211.43.0010. The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Sincerely, Philip J. Martello, *Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.* [FR Doc. E6-16663 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary of Defense Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices
(AGED)announces a closed session meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held at 9 a.m., Tuesday, October 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at ITS Noesis Business Unit, 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22203. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vicki Schneider, ITS Noesis Business Unit, 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22203, 703-741-0300. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices. The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development efforts in electronics and photonics with a focus on benefits to national defense. These reviews may form the basis for research and development programs initiated by the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to be conducted by industry, universities or in government laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on molecular electronics, microelectronics, electrooptics, and electronic materials. In accordance with section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public. Dated: September 29, 2006. C.R. Choate, Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-8532 Filed 10-5-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 20
Traces to 20 documents
CFR
- Sunset reviews under section 751(c) of the Act.§ 351.218
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Scope rulings.§ 351.225
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Comparison of normal value with export price (constructed export price).§ 351.414
- Sales used in calculating normal value; transactions between affiliated parties.§ 351.403
- Definitions.§ 351.102
- Levels of trade; adjustment for difference in level of trade; constructed export price offset.§ 351.412
- Differences in physical characteristics.§ 351.411
- Differences in circumstances of sale§ 351.410
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- De minimis net countervailable subsidies and weighted-average dumping margins disregarded.§ 351.106
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
5 references not yet in our index
- 19 USC 81a-81u
- 15 CFR 400
- 243 F.3d 1301
- 41 CFR 101
- Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order Final Determination We determine that candles composed of petroleum wax and over fifty percent or more palm and/or other vegetable oil-based waxes (“mixed-wax candles”) are later-developed merchandise and thus, are circumventing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) under the later-developed merchandise provision, pursuant to section 781(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”)
Cite19 USC 81a-81u
Cite15 CFR 400
Cites 25 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources