Notices. Final Notice to amend a Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-18, “Employees Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices of Other Agencies
20,786 words·~94 min read·
/register/2006/10/10/06-8567A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Secretary [Docket No.: 060615168-6243-02] Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records AGENCY: Department of Commerce. ACTION: Final Notice to amend a Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-18, “Employees Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices of Other Agencies.” SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) publishes this notice to announce the amendment of a Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-18, “Employees Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices of Other Agencies.
” DATES: The system of records becomes effective on October 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: For a copy of the system of records please mail requests to Brenda Dolan, Department of Commerce Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Room 5327, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-3258. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Dolan, Department of Commerce Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Room 5327, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-3258.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 6, 2006, the Commerce published and requested comments on a proposed amended Privacy Act System of Records notice entitled COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-18, “Employees Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices of Other Agencies.” No comments were received in response to the request for comments. By this notice, the Department is adopting the proposed system as final without changes effective October 10, 2006. Dated: October 2, 2006. Brenda Dolan, Department of Commerce, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer. [FR Doc.
E6-16693 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-BW-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Census Coverage Measurement Independent Listing and Relisting Operations ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *Dhynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Magdalena Ramos, U.S.
Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Room 4H265, Washington, DC 20233, 301-763-4295 (or via the Internet at *Magdalena.Ramos@census.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract In preparation for the 2010 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau will conduct a Census Coverage Measurement
(CCM)test as part of the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal. The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal will be conducted in two sites, one urban, and the other one, a mix of urban and suburban. San Joaquin County, California is the urban site. South Central North Carolina has been selected as the urban/suburban mix test site. This area consists of Fayetteville and nine counties surrounding Fayetteville (Chatham, Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, Richmond, and Scotland). As is typical, the CCM operations and activities will be conducted separate from and independent of the census operations. The CCM program for the dress rehearsal is designed to test that all planned coverage measurement operations are working as expected, that they are integrated internally, and that they are coordinated with the appropriate census operations. This is particularly important because the dress rehearsal is the first time in the 2010 census cycle that CCM operations for housing units will be conducted. The CCM operations planned for the dress rehearsal, to the extent possible, will mirror those that will be conducted for the 2010 Census to provide estimates of net coverage error and coverage error components (omissions and erroneous enumerations) for housing units and persons in housing units (see Definition of Terms). The data collection and matching methodologies for previous coverage measurement programs were designed only to measure net coverage error, which reflects the difference between omissions and erroneous inclusions. The Independent Listing Operation is the first step in the CCM process. It will be conducted to obtain a complete housing unit inventory of all the addresses within the CCM sample block clusters before the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal enumeration commences. In both dress rehearsal sites, enumerators will canvass every street, road, or other place where people might live in their assigned block clusters and constructs a list of housing units. Enumerators will contact a member (or proxy) of each housing unit to ensure all units at a given address are identified. They also identify the location of each housing unit by assigning map spots on block cluster maps provided with their assignment materials. If an enumerator is uncertain whether a particular living quarters is a housing unit, it will be listed and flagged for followup (this will be a part of the Initial Housing Unit Followup). Following the completion of each block cluster, the listing books are keyed for matching against the census Decennial Master Address File
(DMAF)for the same areas. Completed Independent Listing Books are subject to Quality Control
(QC)wherein QC listers return to the field to check 12 units per cluster to ensure that the work performed is of acceptable quality and to verify that the correct blocks were visited. If the cluster fails the QC, then the QC lister reworks the entire cluster. The Independent Listing results will be computer and clerically matched to the DMAF from the census in the same areas. As the result of the matching an additional relisting operation can occur for block clusters suspected of high levels of geocoding errors in the original independent listing. The methods and procedures for relisting will be the same as those for the listing operation. There will be one Independent Listing Form, DX-1302, that will be used for listing, QC, and relisting. The addresses that remain unmatched or unresolved after matching will be sent to the field during the next field operation of the CCM, Initial Housing Unit Followup, to collect additional information that might allow a resolution of any differences between the independent listing results and the census DMAF. Cases will also be sent to resolve potential duplicates and unresolved housing unit/group quarter status. The forms and procedures to be used in the Initial Housing Unit Followup phase of the CCM in the 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal and all subsequent CCM phases will be submitted separately. II. Method of Collection The independent listing and relisting operations will be conducted using person-to-person interviews. Definition of Terms *Components of Coverage Error* —The two components of census coverage error are census omissions (missed persons or housing units) and erroneous inclusions (persons or housing units enumerated in the census that should not have been). Examples of erroneous inclusions are: persons or housing units enumerated in the census that should not have been enumerated at all, persons or housing units enumerated in an incorrect location, and persons or housing units enumerated more than once (duplicates). *Net Coverage Error* —Reflects the difference between census omissions and erroneous inclusions. A positive net error indicates an undercount, while a negative net error indicates an overcount. For more information about the Census 2000 Coverage Measurement Program, please visit the following page of the Census Bureau's Web site: *http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/refroom.html* . III. Data *OMB Number:* Not available. *Form Number:* DX-1302. *Type of Review:* Regular. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 40,000 Housing units
(HUs)for Independent Listing, 4,000 HUs for Independent Listing QC, 400 HUs for Relisting, and 40 HUs for Relisting QC. *Estimated Times per Response:* 2 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 1,480. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Public:* No cost to the respondent except for their time to respond. *Respondent Obligation:* Mandatory. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, U.S. Code, Sections 141, 193, and 221. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: October 3, 2007. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-16618 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-549-813) Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 30, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit
(CPF)from Thailand. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006) ( *Initiation Notice* ). In that notice, the Department did not initiate a review of Tropical Food Industries Co. Ltd. (TROFCO) because the company's request for review was untimely filed. After considering the facts on the record, the Department is now initiating a review of TROFCO. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-4162 and
(202)482-5193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 3, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on CPF from Thailand. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). The Department received a request for review from one producer/exporter, Vita Food Factory
(1989)Ltd. (Vita), by the July 31, 2006 deadline, and initiated a review of Vita on August 30, 2006 ( *see Initiation Notice* , 71 FR 51573). On August 9, 2006, the Department received an untimely request for a review from the exporter/producer TROFCO. On September 5, 2006, we notified TROFCO that its review request was untimely filed, and thus we did not initiate a review of TROFCO. On September 18, 2006, the Department received a letter from DHL Express, the company used by TROFCO to transmit its review request, explaining that TROFCO sent its review request on July 22, 2006, and it should have been delivered to the Department, at the latest, by July 26, 2006; however, due to a delivery error by DHL, the request was not delivered to the Department until August 9, 2006. On September 20, 2006, TROFCO submitted a letter to the Department with a copy of the shipment/airwaybill and DHL tracking information showing that the request for review was correctly addressed but was initially delivered to the wrong address by DHL. 1 On September 26, 2006, petitioners 2 submitted a letter to the Department contending that the Department may not now initiate an administrative review of TROFCO because neither statutorily-required condition precedent to conducting an administrative review was satisfied; namely, the Department did not receive a timely review request from TROFCO, and did not publish a notice initiating a review of TROFCO. 3 *See* section 751 (a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR § 351.103(b). 1 The Department rejected TROFCO's earlier attempt to file this submission because it was improperly filed. *See* the memorandum to the file from Magd Zalok dated concurrently with this notice. 2 The petitioners are Maui Pineapple Company Ltd. and the International Longshoreman's and Warehouseman's Union. 3 In support of their argument, the petitioners cite, among other cases, *Cosco Home and Office Products v. United States* , 350 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (Dec. 7, 2004), in which the Court of International Trade affirmed the Department's decision not to initiate an administrative review where there was no evidence that an exporter had filed a review request with the Department's Docket Center. Petitioners also cite to *Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada; Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 24530 (May 10, 2005), in which the Department rejected an exporter's review request filed one day late but continued the review based on petitioner's timely review request. Initiation of Review Although TROFCO's review request was not received by the Department until after the deadline for requesting an administrative review, the record of this proceeding indicates that if not for an error by DHL, TROFCO's review request would have been received by the Department on or before the deadline. Specifically, in DHL's September 18, 2006 letter to the Department a DHL official certified that TROFCO's review request was sent to the Department via DHL on July 22, 2006 and, under normal circumstances, should have been delivered to the Department by July 26, 2006 (five days before the July 31, 2006 deadline). Moreover, the tracking information supplied to the Department by TROFCO shows that the review request was received at a location near Washington D.C. on July 25, 2006 ( *i.e.* Arlington Virginia), six days before the deadline for requesting a review. 4 Lastly, we note that TROFCO sent its review request to the petitioners' counsel via DHL on the same day that it sent the request to the Department via DHL, and the request was delivered to the petitioners' counsel in the Washington D.C. area on July 25, 2006, six days before the review request was to be filed with the Department. While TROFCO's service of its review request on petitioners' counsel does not constitute an official filing, and the Department is not initiating a review of TROFCO based upon that service, delivery of that request before the July 31, 2006 deadline provides further support to conclude that TROFCO's request would have been delivered to the Department in a timely fashion but for the delivery error acknowledged by DHL. Although the Department's practice is to reject untimely requests for review, it nonetheless retains some flexibility to, where appropriate, relax its procedural rules. *See Ferro Union, Inc. and Asoma Corporation v. United States* , 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1316 (CIT 1999) citing *American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service* , 397 U.S. 532, (1970)(“{i}t is always within the discretion of a court or an administrative agency to relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of business before it when in a given case the ends of justice require it.”). *See also Notice of Initiation of Expedited Reviews of the Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 67 FR 59252 (September 20, 2002) (accepting untimely filed requests for expedited reviews because the respondents made a good faith effort to properly file the requests and the requests were untimely for reasons beyond their control). Given the facts in this case, we have determined that it is appropriate to initiate an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on canned pineapple fruit from Thailand, for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, with respect to TROFCO. We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review no later than July 31, 2007. 4 DHL apparently initially delivered the review request to the wrong address, despite the fact that the shipment/airway bill lists “Import Administration Central Records Unit, Room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce Pennsylvania Avenue and 14 th Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20230” as the delivery address. During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping order under 19 CFR § 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR § 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with *FAG Italia v. United States* , 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. This initiation and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR § 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: October 4, 2006. Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16815 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-848) Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is currently conducting the 2004/2005 administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (“NV”) with respect to certain exporters who participated fully and are entitled to a separate rate in the administrative and new shipper reviews. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”) for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Erin Begnal, 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)482-1386 or
(202)482-1442, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 15, 1997, the Department published an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. *See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 62 FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). On September 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. *See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation* , 70 FR 52072 (September 1, 2005). Based on timely requests from various interested parties, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC with respect to the following companies: China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. (aka China Kingdoma Import & Export Co., Ltd. and Zhongda Import & Export Co., Ltd.) (“China Kingdom”), Jiangsu Hilong International Trading Company, Ltd. (“Jiangsu Hilong”), Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-Manufactures Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu JOM”), Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Sunbeauty”), Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (“Ningbo Nanlian”), Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao JYX”), Qingdao Wentai Trading Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Wentai”), Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Zhengri”), Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Weishan Zhenyu”), Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (“Xuzhou Jinjiang”), Yancheng Haiteng Aquatic Products & Foods Co., Ltd. (“Yancheng Haiteng”), Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. (“Yancheng Hi-King”), and Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Yancheng Yaou”). *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). The period of review (“POR”) for all respondents subject to this administrative review is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. 1 1 On July 3, 2006, the Department issued its notice of rescission of antidumping duty new shipper reviews of Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao Wentai, for the period September 1, 2004, and February 28, 2005. *See Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 37902 (July 3, 2006) (“ *Rescission of New Shipper Review* ”). Accordingly, this administrative review only covers these companies' entries not already covered by the above-referenced new shipper reviews. Therefore, this administrative review, for Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao Wentai, covers entries from March 1, 2005, through August 31, 2005. Additionally, on September 21, 2005, and September 30, 2005, Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (“Xiping Opeck”) and Xuzhou Jinjiang, respectively, requested new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c). On November 4, 2005, the Department initiated new shipper reviews of Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck covering the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 70 FR 67138 (November 4, 2005). The POR for the new shipper review of Xiping Opeck is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. The POR for Xuzhou Jinjiang's new shipper review is September 1, 2004, through October 5, 2005. *See* Memorandum to the File, though Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Expansion of the Period of Review in the New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co. Ltd.* (September 22, 2006) expanding the POR to include an entry related to Xuzhou Jinjiang's sale(s) to the United States made during the normal POR. On February 15, 2006, the administrative review was rescinded for China Kingdom, Jiangsu Hilong, Qingdao Zhengri, Weishan Zhenyu, Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng Yaou, and Ningbo Nanlian, because the requesting parties, the Crawfish Processors Alliance (“Petitioners”), the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, and Bob Odom, Commissioner (collectively, the Domestic Interested Parties) and Ningbo Nanlian withdrew their requests for administrative review pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 7915 (February 15, 2006) (“ *Partial Rescission of Administrative Review* ”). Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty, Qingdao JYX, Qingdao Wentai, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Yancheng Hi-King remain subject to the administrative review. On February 16, 2006, and February 21, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck, respectively, in accordance with section 351.214(j)(3) of the Department's regulations, agreed to waive the applicable time limits for their new shipper reviews so that the Department could conduct the new shipper reviews concurrently with the 2004/2005 administrative review of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Time Limits for New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews in Conjunction With Administrative Review* , 71 FR 13963 (March 20, 2006). On May 19, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of the administrative and new shipper reviews until October 2, 2006. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 29121 (May 19, 2006). Scope of Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in 2000, and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Respondents On November 10, 2005, the Department issued a quantity and value questionnaire to all respondents for which an administrative review was initiated. The Department received timely responses from: Yancheng Hi-King (November 16, 2005), Yancheng Haiteng (November 22, 2005), Qingdao JYX (November 25, 2005), Xuzhou Jinjiang (November 25, 2005), Weishan Zhenyu (November 25, 2005), Qingdao Wentai (November 25, 2006), Jiangsu JOM (November 26, 2005), Shanghai Sunbeauty (November 26, 2005), and Ningbo Nanlian (November 29, 2005). Both Yancheng Hi-King and Yancheng Haiteng responded to the Department's request for sales quantity and value information indicating they had no sales, entries or exports of subject merchandise during the POR. Qingdao Wentai indicated that it did not export freshwater crawfish tail meat to the United States between March 1, 2005, and August 31, 2005 ( *i.e.* , the period not covered by its semi-annual new shipper review). On November 28, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the two new shippers: Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck. *See* letters to Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, New Shipper Review (9/1/04 - 8/31/05)* , (November 28, 2005). On December 5, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Jiangsu JOM, Ningbo Nanlian, Qingdao JYX, Shanghai Sunbeauty, and Weishan Zhenyu. *See* letters to Jiangsu JOM, Ningbo Nanlian, Qingdao JYX, Shanghai Sunbeauty, and Weishan Zhenyu from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, Administrative Review (9/1/04-8/31/05)* , (December 5, 2005). On December 27, 2005, Weishan Zhenyu responded to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On December 29, 2005, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck submitted their responses to section A of the Department's questionnaire. Additionally, on January 4, 2006, Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty, Ningbo Nanlian responded to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On January 4, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire. The Department received responses to sections C & D of its questionnaire from Wieshan Zhenyu (January 10, 2006); Xiping Opeck (January 17, 2006); Xuzhou Jinjiang (January 18, 2006); Qingdao JYX (January 19, 2006); Jiangsu JOM (January 20, 2006); and Shanghai Sunbeauty (January 24, 2006). On January 12, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM. On January 23, 2006, the petitioners filed a letter timely withdrawing their request for review of China Kingdom, Jiangsu Hilong, Qingdao Zhengri, Weishan Zhenyu, Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng Yaou, and Ningbo Nanlian. In addition, Ningbo Nanlian filed a letter, on January 23, 2006, withdrawing its own request for an administrative review. Therefore, the Department rescinded the administrative review for these companies. *See Partial Rescission of Administrative Review* . On January 25, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its supplemental section A response. On February 2, 2006, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Xiping Opeck and Shanghai Sunbeauty, who replied on February 16, 2006. On February 17, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Sunbeauty and Xiping Opeck. On March 2, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Xuzhou Jinjiang, and on March 3, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM. On March 16, 2006, Shanghai Sunbeauty withdrew from the administrative review and indicated it would not respond to the Department's February 17, 2006, sections C & D supplemental questionnaire. On March 20, 2006, and March 21, 2006, Xiping Opeck responded to the Department's February 17, 2006, questionnaire. On March 30, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its reply to the importer-specific portion of the Department's questionnaire. On April 3, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its response to the Department's March 3, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On April 5, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted its response to the Department's March 2, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On May 9, 2006, the Department issues a supplemental questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM, and on May 22, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its response. On May 25, 2006, Xiping Opeck responded to the Department's May 11, 2006, questionnaire. On June 15, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its reply to the Department's June 1, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. Finally, on July 21, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted its response to the Department's July 7, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On August 7, 2006, and August 14, 2006, the Department issued verification outlines to Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck, respectively. The Department conducted verification of the responses of Xuzhou Jinjiang from August 14 through August 17, 2006, and Xiping Opeck from August 21 through 24, 2006. Jiangsu JOM did not allow the Department to conduct verification during production season. *See Verification* section below. On August 21, 2006, Xiping Opeck submitted minor corrections presented at verification. On September 27, 2006, the Department released the verification reports for Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck. *See Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* (September 27, 2006) (“Xuzhou Jinjiang Verification Report”); *Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* (September 27, 2006) (“Xiping Opeck Verification Report”); Surrogate Country and Factors On December 16, 2005, the Department provided parties with an opportunity to submit publicly available information (“PAI”) on surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary results. The Department received surrogate value proposals from Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao Wentai on February 16, 2006. Verification On November 22, 2005, and November 29, 2005, domestic interested parties requested that the Department conduct verification of the data submitted by all of the firms for which the Department initiated an administrative or new shipper review, respectively. However, due to the Department's resource constraints in conducting these reviews, we only selected Xuzhou Jinjiang, Xiping Opeck and Jiangsu JOM for verification pursuant to section 782(i)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.307. As noted above, Jiangsu JOM did not allow the Department to conduct verification of the information it placed on the record of the administrative review during production season. *See* Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-Manufacturers Co., Ltd.* (October 2, 2006) (“Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo”). For the companies we did verify, we used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification report for each company. For a further discussion, see Xuzhou Jinjiang Verification Report and Xiping Opeck Verification Report. Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2004/2005 Administrative Review With respect to Yancheng Hi-King, the firm informed the Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In order to corroborate its submissions, we reviewed PRC freshwater crawfish tail meat shipment data maintained by CBP, and noted no discrepancies with the statements made by this firm. Qingdao Wentai indicated that its semi-annual new shipper review covered all of its exports of freshwater crawfish tail meat which would be subject to the administrative review. Moreover, the Department has determined that Qingdao Wentai's single sale was not *bona fide* and could not serve as the basis for the calculation of a dumping margin. *See Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* . Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to Yancheng Hi-King and Qingdao Wentai. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Xiping Opeck & Xuzhou Jinjiang For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's reported U.S. sales during the POR appear to be *bona fide* based on the totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that:
(1)The prices of Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales were within the range of the prices of other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR;
(2)Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales were made to unaffiliated parties at arm's length; and
(3)there is no record evidence that indicates that Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales were not made based on commercial principles. While the quantity of Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales were low compared to other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR, absent other factors, single sales of low quantities are not inherently commercially unreasonable. *See* Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.* (October 2, 2006); *see also* Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd.* (October 2, 2006). Non-Market Economy Country In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See* , *e.g.* , *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that
(A)are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and
(B)are significant producers of comparable merchandise. Of the five countries identified by the Office of Policy as economically comparable to the PRC, none are significant producers of crawfish tail meat. *See* Letter to “All Interested Parties” from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations 9, regarding *Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)* at Attachment I (December 16, 2005). However, India does have a seafood processing industry that is a comparable industry with respect to factory overhead, SG&A and profit. Therefore, we used India as the primary surrogate country to value all inputs with the exception of the raw material (whole live crawfish) and the by-product (crawfish scrap shell). Because we have determined that other forms of seafood are not sufficiently comparable to serve as surrogate values for the primary input and India does not have a crawfish industry, we have considered other countries in which to value the crawfish input. As done in prior segments of this proceeding, we have decided to use Spain as the surrogate country for the valuation of whole live crawfish because we have found that Spain is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, *i.e.* , whole crawfish, and has publicly available import statistics that are contemporaneous to the POR. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Administrative and New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuation (October 2, 2006) (“Factor Valuation Memo”); and *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Revew, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) (“ *1999-2000 Final Results* ”). In addition, we have decided to use Indonesia as the surrogate country for the valuation of the crawfish by-product scrap because Indonesia is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC, has significant production of merchandise comparable to the by-product scrap, and has publicly available data ( *i.e.* , a public price quote from an Indonesian company) that has been used in prior segments of this proceeding. *See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu through Maureen Flannery re: Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, Administrative Review 9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01* (August 5, 2002), which was placed on the record of this review in the *Factor Valuation Memo* , Attachment 3. We have not received comments from interested parties suggesting other possible surrogate values for these factors and have found no other data. We note that Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao Wentai also suggested the use of Spanish import data to value whole live crawfish. For further discussion of our surrogate country selection, *see* Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 and Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *2004/2005 Administrative and New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country* (October 2, 2006) (“ *Surrogate Country Memorandum* ”). Facts Available - Jiangsu JOM & Shanghai Sunbeauty For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts available to Jiangsu JOM and Shanghai Sunbeauty. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party:
(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. The Department expressed a need to conduct verification during production season in order to witness first-hand the production process and the consumption of the reported factors of production during production operations. However, despite several attempts by the Department to find a date which would be acceptable for Jiangsu JOM, the company would not permit the Department to conduct verification during the production season. *See Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo* . Because Jiangsu JOM would not permit the Department to verify the information it placed on the record of the administrative review, we find that Jiangsu JOM did not provide the Department with verifiable information. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate in reaching the applicable determination for Jiangsu JOM. Additionally, as noted above, Shanghai Sunbeauty submitted a letter to the Department withdrawing from the administrative review on March 16, 2005, in lieu of responding to a request for information. By not responding to the Department's request for information, Shanghai Sunbeauty failed to provide critical information to be used for the Department's margin calculation, significantly impeded the review, and provided unverifiable information. *See* Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd.* (October 2, 2006) (“Shanghai Sunbeauty AFA Memo”). Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and
(D)of the Act, the Department must apply facts available. By failing to respond to the Department's requests for information and by not allowing the Department to conduct verification, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM, respectively, have not proven they are free of government control and are therefore not eligible to receive a separate rate. In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that if one of the companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. *See Initiation Notice* at n.1. For these preliminary results, both Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM will be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). As explained above, the PRC-wide entity (including Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM) would either not permit the Department to verify information placed on the record or informed the Department that it would not participate further in this review and did not respond to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts available (“AFA”) as the basis for these preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity. Selection of AFA Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)a final determination in the investigation,
(3)any previous review or determination, or
(4)any information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. *See* , *e.g.* , *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) and the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (“ *Rhone Poulenc* ”); *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV investigation); *see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States* , 24 CIT 678, 689
(2000)(upholding a 51.16%% total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and *Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States* , Slip Op. 05-22, at 16 (CIT February 17, 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870; *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil* , 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *See Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 223.01 percent, the highest rate calculated in any segment of the proceeding, to the PRC-wide entity (including Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM) as AFA. *See* , *e.g.* , *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002). As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated. Corroboration of Secondary Information Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The *SAA* states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. *See SAA* at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. *See* SAA at 870; *see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). The *SAA* also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan* , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada* , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). The reliability of the AFA rate was determined by the calculation of the margin based on sales and production data of a respondent in a prior review, and on the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in that review, as well as information gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. *See 1999-2000 Final Results* . The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. This rate has been used as AFA in every subsequent segment of this proceeding and the Department has received no comments challenging the reliability of the margin. No information has been presented in the current review. Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the 1999-2000 review is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. *See D & L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present here. As there is no information on the record of this review that indicates that this rate is not relevant as AFA for the PRC-wide entity, we determine that this rate is relevant. Because the rate is both reliable and relevant it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in any segment of this administrative proceeding ( *i.e.* , 223.01 percent) is corroborated ( *i.e.* , it has probative value). Separate Rates To establish whether a company operating in an NME is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. As discussed above, Jiangsu JOM would not permit verification, and Shanghai Sunbeauty refused to respond to the Department's requests for information and withdrew from the administrative review. *See Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo* , and *Shanghai Sunbeauty AFA Memo* . Therefore, the Department was unable to verify Jiangsu JOM's and Shanghai Sunbeauty's questionnaire responses concerning their eligibility for a separate rate. The Department therefore determines that both Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM have not established that they are eligible for a separate rate. *See* “ *Facts Available - Jiangsu JOM & Shanghai Sunbeauty* ” section above. De Jure Control The Department considers the following criteria in determining whether an individual company is free of *de jure* absence of government control over export activities:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20588. In their questionnaire responses, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX stated that they are independent legal entities, and evidence placed on the record indicates that the government does not have *de jure* control over their export activities. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX submitted evidence of their legal right to set prices independent of all governmental oversight. Furthermore, the business licenses of Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX indicate that they are permitted to engage in the exportation of freshwater crawfish tail meat. We also found no evidence of *de jure* governmental control restricting Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX's exportation of freshwater crawfish tail meat. In their responses, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX stated that no export quotas apply to crawfish. Prior verifications have confirmed that there are no commodity-specific export licenses required and no quotas for the seafood category “Other,” which includes crawfish, in *China's Tariff and Non-Tariff Handbook* for 1996. In addition, we have previously confirmed that freshwater crawfish tail meat is not on the list of commodities with planned quotas in the 1992 PRC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation document entitled *Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities* . *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review* , 64 FR 8543 (February 22, 1999), and *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of New Shipper Review* , 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999) ( *Ningbo New Shipper Review* ). The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this review, indicate a lack of *de jure* government control. The *Company Law of the People's Republic of China* , made effective on July 1, 1994, with the amended version promulgated on August 28, 2004, states that a company is an enterprise legal person, that shareholders shall assume liability towards the company to the extent of their shareholdings and that the company shall be liable for its debts to the extent of all its assets. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX also provided copies of the *Foreign Trade Law of the PRC* , promulgated on May 12, 1994, which identifies the rights and responsibilities of organizations engaged in foreign trade, grants autonomy to foreign-trade operators in management decisions and establishes the foreign trade operator's accountability for profits and losses. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX also provided copies of their business licenses stating their right to conduct business within the scope of their licenses. The Department, therefore, preliminarily determines that there is an absence of de jure control over the export activities of Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX. De Facto Control The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to *de facto* government control over its exports:
(1)Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have each asserted the following:
(1)Each establishes its own export prices;
(2)each negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations;
(3)each makes its own personnel decisions; and
(4)each retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Moreover, the Department verified that Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou Jinjiang are free of *de facto* government control. Based upon information on the record, there is a sufficient basis to preliminarily determine that Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have all demonstrated absence of *de facto* governmental control of their export functions. Therefore, because Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao HYX operate free of *de jure* and *de facto* government control, the Department has preliminarily determined that Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have satisfied the criteria for separate rates based on the documentation each has submitted on the record. Normal-Value Comparisons To determine whether Xiping Opeck's, Xuzhou Jinjiang's and Qingdao JYX's sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below NV, their United States prices were compared to NV, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. United States Price For Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao JYX, the Department based U.S. price on export price (“EP”) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sales to unaffiliated purchasers were made prior to importation, and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on packed prices from the exporter to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where applicable, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and ocean freight were deducted from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors of production (“FOP”) methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. The Department will base NV on the factors of production because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part* , 70 FR 29744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in final results). For purposes of calculating NV, we selected surrogate values for the PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to, hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, including depreciation. *See* section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In choosing surrogate values, we selected, where possible, a publicly available value which was an average country-wide, non-export value, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) (“ *Chlorinated Isocyanurates* ”). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. *See Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 63 FR 12442 (March 13, 1998). Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao JYX for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities was multiplied by publicly available surrogate values. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to reflect delivered prices. For a detailed explanation of all surrogate values used for respondents, *see Factor Valuation Memo* . Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using September 2004-August 2005 weighted-average Indian import values derived from the *World Trade Atlas* online (“ *WTA* ”) ( *see Factor Valuation Memo* ). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the *WTA* were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India and are contemporaneous with the POR. As the Indian surrogate values were denominated in rupees, they were converted to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate for India on the date of the applicable sale. The daily exchange rate was the exchange rate data from the Department's website, which are taken from publicly available data from the Federal Reserve and Dow Jones. *See* http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the publicly available information for inflation using Indian wholesale price indices (“WPIs”) as published in the International Monetary Fund's *International Financial Statistics* (“ *IFS* ”). *See Factor Valuation Memo* . In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets ( *i.e.* , Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. *See* , *also* , *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final determination at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with generally available export subsidies. Surrogate Valuations To value the input of whole live crawfish we used publicly available data for Spanish imports of whole live crawfish from Portugal. The Department obtained the data from “aduanas e I.especiales,” the Spanish Customs database for foreign trade statistics (Estadisticas Comercio Exterior). *See Factor Valuation Memo* , Attachment 2. The Department derived a price for polyethylene bags during the POR from Indian import statistics for HTS subheading 3923.21 from the *WTA* . *See Factor Valuation Memo* , at Attachment 4. To value a by-product, crawfish shell scrap, the Department used a price quote from Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp shells. *See Factor Valuation Memo* , at Attachment 3; *see also Surrogate Country Memorandum* . Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for China published by Import Administration on its website. *See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* . To calculate the cost of coal, the Department used Indian import data for steam coal (HTS subheading 2710.19.04 ) for calendar year 2005 obtained from the *WTA* . *See Factor Valuation Memo* , at Attachment 7. We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD's International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics from the first quarter of 2005. *See Factor Valuation Memo* , at Attachment 9. To value water, the Department used the industrial water rates within the Maharashtra Province of India from June 2003. To achieve comparability of water prices to the factors reported for the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation to the POR using the WPI for India, as published in the 2005 *IFS* . *See Factor Valuation Memo* , at Attachment 8. To value SG&A, factory overhead and profit, the Department used the 2002-2003 financial statements from Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd. (“Nekkanti”), an Indian seafood processor. *See Factor Valuation Memo* , at Attachment 11. For foreign inland freight, respondents reported that all raw materials were delivered by truck. Respondents reported the distance of the material inputs in kilometers, from the supplier of the material input to the factory. In calculating the freight rate, the Department used the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To value the cost of truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost based on Indian market truck freight rates obtained from the web site http://www.infreight.com., and inflated the value to be contemporaneous to the POR. To derive the freight cost for each material input, the Department multiplied the surrogate freight value by the freight distance and subsequently multiplied this value by the reported quantity of the input consumed in the production of one unit of the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department added the freight expense to the cost of the material input to determine gross material costs ( *see Factor Valuation Memo* , at Attachment 12). To value the inland freight expense for packaged crawfish tail meat from the producer to the port of export, the Department used an Indian refrigerated truck freight rate based on price quotations from CTC Freight Carriers of Delhi, India, placed on the record of the antidumping investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the PRC and inflated the value to be contemporaneous with the POR. The Department has placed this information on the record of this proceeding ( *see Factor Valuation Memo* , at Attachment 13). To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a simple average of the publicly summarized versions of the average value for brokerage and handling expenses reported in the:
(1)U.S. sales listings of the February 28, 2005, submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (“Essar Steel”) taken from the administrative review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, for which the POR was December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, and
(2)U.S. sales listings of the March 2, 2006, submission from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. (“Agro Dutch”), taken from the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India, for which the POR was February 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006); *Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); *see also* Public version of section C questionnaire response from Essar Steel Limited; and public version of section C questionnaire response from Agro Dutch. The reported rates of Essar Steel and Agro Dutch were contemporaneous with the POR. The Department has placed this information on the record of this proceeding ( *see Factor Valuation Memo* , Attachment 15). Where respondent used an NME shipper, we valued international freight expenses using freight quotes from Maersk Sealand, a market-economy shipper. These quotes have been used in prior reviews of this case. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Partial Rescission of Administrative Review* , 66 FR 20634 (April 24, 2001). We obtained quotes for each month from September 2003 through August 2004, from the PRC to the West Coast of the United States, took a simple average, and inflated the value as necessary. *See Factor Valuation Memo* , Attachment 14. Finally, we note that Xiping Opeck erred in reporting its electrical consumption and the distance from the factory to port of export. For a more detailed explanation, *see* Xiping Opeck Verification Report. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are amending the reported consumption of electricity, and the reported distance from factory to port of export. *See* Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China— Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd.* (October 2, 2006). Currency Conversions We made currency conversions using exchange rates obtained from the website of Import Administration at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html* . Preliminary Results of Reviews We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for Xiping Opeck and Qingdao JYX during the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005; and for Xuzhou Jinjiang during the period September 1, 2004, through October 5, 2005: Company Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. 35.66 Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 0.00 Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. 51.60 PRC-Wide Rate Margin (Percent) PRC-Wide Rate 2 223.01 2 The PRC-wide entity includes Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM. We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case 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. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(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 briefs. The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to these reviews directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews. For assessment purposes for companies with a calculated rate, where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on a per-unit basis. Specifically, the Department divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( *i.e.* , per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. However, 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 these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed review;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These administrative, new shipper reviews, and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: October 2, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16677 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-844] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From The Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. Ltd. (DSM), a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, and petitioners, 1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers seven producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review
(POR)is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. 1 The petitioners are the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual members-Gerdau Ameristeel, CMC Steel Group, Nucor Corporation, and TAMCO. As discussed below, the Department has preliminarily determined to collapse DSM, Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO), and Hwanyoung Steel Industries Co. (HSI), into a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. We preliminarily determine that DSM/KISCO/HSI made sales at less than normal value
(NV)during the POR. Further, as a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that three respondents had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these respondents. One remaining respondent, Dongil Industries Co. Ltd. (Dongil), failed to respond to our questionnaire. As a result, we are basing our preliminary results for Dongil on total adverse facts available (AFA). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review. Unless we extend the deadline, we will issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Manning or Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5253, or
(202)482-4406, respectively. Background On September 7, 2001, the Department published an antidumping duty order on rebar from Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine,* 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001). On September 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Korea. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 70 FR 52072 (September 1, 2005). On September 21, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), DSM requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on September 30, 2005, petitioners requested that the Department conduct a review of DSM, Dongil, Hanbo Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Hanbo), INI Steel (INI), Kosteel Co., Ltd (Kosteel), and KISCO. On October 25, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative review of Dongil, DSM, Hanbo, INI, Kosteel Co., and KISCO. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,* 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005). On October 19, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Dongil, DSM, Hanbo, INI, Kosteel, and KISCO. In December 2005, DSM and KISCO responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. 2 Additionally, KISCO's affiliate, HSI, responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire in December 2005. Thereafter, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to DSM, KISCO, and HSI, and received timely responses. The petitioners submitted comments regarding the respondents' supplemental questionnaire responses on May 26, 2006, and September 13, 2006. 2 KISCO and its affiliate, HSI, reported that they had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, because DSM and KISCO were found to be affiliated and were collapsed in a prior review, the Department reviewed KISCO and HSI's submissions regarding, *inter alia,* their corporate structure and affiliations, home market sales, and cost of production.26, 2006, and September 13, 2006. On October 21, 2005, Hanbo and INI notified the Department that neither they nor any of their affiliates had any sales or exports of subject merchandise during the POR. On August 2, 2006, the Department sent a letter to Kosteel and Dongil informing these companies that we did not receive a response from them to the antidumping questionnaire. In the letter, the Department stated that, if they did not respond to the antidumping questionnaire because they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, they should inform the Department of this fact; otherwise, the Department may conclude that these companies decided not to cooperate with the Department's review. In response, on August 8, 2006, Kosteel reported that it had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Dongil did not respond to the Department's August 2, 2006, letter. Because it was not practicable to issue the preliminary results of this review within the normal time frame, on May 30, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the extension of time limits for these preliminary results. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from the Republic of Korea: Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 30658 (May 30, 2006). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as September 30, 2006. The first business day after this deadline is October 2, 2006. Period of Review The POR is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all rebar sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds ( *i.e.* , non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, Hanbo, INI, and Kosteel informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We obtained entry data from CBP and found that these data support the statements made by these respondents, that they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Hanbo, INI, and Kosteel. ( *See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review,* 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998); and *Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 14, 1997)). Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that if any interested party:
(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form or manner requested;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in making its determination. If the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not decline to consider information submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination, but does not meet all of the Department's applicable requirements, if:
(1)The information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, “may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” *See also* Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). Application of Facts Available The evidence on the record of this review establishes that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of total facts available
(FA)is warranted in determining the dumping margin for U.S. sales of rebar made by Dongil because it failed to provide any requested information to the Department. As stated above, on October 19, 2005, the Department issued the antidumping questionnaire to six manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise. Five companies responded to the questionnaire, with three of the five companies ultimately advising the Department that they did not have shipments or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The remaining company, Dongil, failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. On August 2, 2005, we informed Dongil that, because it failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, and had not informed the Department as to whether it had sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we may use AFA to determine its dumping margin. Dongil did not respond to the Department's August 2, 2005, letter. Because Dongil failed to provide the necessary information requested by the Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we must establish the margins for this company based on the facts otherwise available. Use of Adverse Inferences In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, an adverse inference is warranted when the Department has determined that a respondent has “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” Section 776(b) of the Act goes on to state that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from
(1)The petition;
(2)a final determination in the investigation under this title;
(3)any previous review under section 751 or determination under section 753, or
(4)any other information on the record. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* SAA at 870; *Timken Co. V, United States, 354 F.3d 1334, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG* v. *United States,* 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 n.7 (CIT 1999). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in *Nippon Steel Corporation* v. *United States,* 337 F. 3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003), provided an explanation of the “failure to act to the best of its ability” standard, holding that the Department need not show intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but merely that a “failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's ability” existed, *i.e.* , information was not provided “under circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has been shown.” *Id.* at 1383. The CAFC did acknowledge, however, that “deliberate concealment or inaccurate reporting” would certainly be a reason to apply AFA, although it indicated that inadequate responses to agency inquiries “would suffice” as well. *Id.* To examine whether the respondent “cooperated” by “acting to the best of its ability” under section 776(b) of the Act, the Department considers, *inter alia,* the accuracy and completeness of submitted information and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. *See Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG* v. *United States,* 120 F.Supp. 2d 1075,1096 (CIT 2000). The record shows that Dongil failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. In reviewing the evidence on the record, the Department finds that Dongil failed to provide requested information. Moreover, Dongil failed to offer any explanation for its failure to respond to our antidumping questionnaire or August 2, 2005, letter. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the Department to assume that Dongil possessed the records necessary to participate in this review; however, by not supplying the information the Department requested, Dongil failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. As Dongil has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, we are applying an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA for Dongil, we have used a rate of 102.28 percent, which is the highest margin from any segment of the proceeding. Specifically, this rate was the highest margin alleged for any Korean company in the petition and is the rate used as AFA for Hanbo in the final determination of the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the Republic of Korea,* 66 FR 33526 (June 22, 2001). This rate was also used as AFA for both Hanbo and Dongil in the last completed administrative review of this order. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 69 FR 54642 (September 9, 2004). Corroboration of Information Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(d). The SAA further provides that the term “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. During the LTFV investigation, we examined the reliability of the 102.28 percent rate selected as AFA for Hanbo and found it to be reliable. *See* Memorandum to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, “The Use of Facts Available for Hanbo Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., and Corroboration of Secondary Information,” dated January 16, 2001, and placed on the record of this review concurrently with these preliminary results. There is no information on the record of this review to demonstrate that this rate is no longer reliable. As to the relevance of the AFA rate, the CAFC has stated that Congress “intended for an adverse facts available rate to be a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent's actual rate, albeit with some built-in increase intended as a deterrent to non-compliance.” *F.Lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A.* , v. *U.S.* , 216 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Department considers information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the selected margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996). With respect to the rate selected for Dongil, we note that in determining the relevant AFA rate, the Department assumes that if an uncooperative respondent could have demonstrated that its dumping margin is lower than the highest prior margin, it would have provided information showing the margin to be less. *See Rhone Poulenc, Inc.* v. *United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( *Rhone Poulenc* ). In *Rhone Poulenc* , the CAFC found that the presumption that, “the highest prior margin was the best information of current margins” was a permissible interpretation of 19 U.S.C. 1677e(c). *See Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2d at 1190. In upholding this presumption, the CAFC cited the rationale underlying the adverse inference rule, that the presumption “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” *Id* . In other proceedings, the Department has used the highest margin in the proceeding as AFA. *See, e.g.* , *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504, 19508 (April 21, 2003). In fact, the Department used the 102.28 percent rate as AFA in the final determination of the LTFV investigation with respect to Hanbo and, subsequently, applied it to both Dongil and Hanbo in the last completed administrative review. Therefore, Dongil had notice that the 102.28 percent rate may be used as the AFA rate that would be applied for its failure to cooperate. Consequently, in keeping with *Rhone Poulenc* , we consider the 102.28 percent rate to be the most probative evidence of current margin for Dongil because, if it were not so, Dongil, knowing 102.28 percent rate may be assigned as AFA, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less. Further, since Dongil's current margin is 102.28 percent, assigning a rate less than this amount as AFA would allow Dongil to benefit from its non-cooperation. Therefore, we consider the 102.28 percent rate to be relevant. Accordingly, we have determined, to the extent practicable, that the rate selected as AFA are both reliable and relevant. Therefore, we have corroborated this rate in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Affiliation We preliminarily find that DSM, KISCO, HSI, and Dongkuk Industries Co., Ltd.
(DKI)3 are affiliated through to sections 771(33)(A) and 771(33)(F) of the Act. Pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act, the following persons, among others, are affiliated: “Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants. * * * ” *See* section 771(33)(A) of the Act. The record shows that certain senior executives of DSM, KISCO, HSI, and DKI are descendants of a common progenitor, the late Kyung-Ho Chang. These members of the Chang family are related as uncles, nephews, and first cousins. Since the details of these relationships are business proprietary information, please see the Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Whether to Collapse Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and Hwanyoung Steel Ind. Co. Ltd. Into a Single Entity,” dated October 2, 2006 (Collapsing Memorandum). Accordingly, consistent with the definition of “family” under section 771(33)(A) of the Act, the Department's prior practice, the controlling precedent ( *see Ferro Union Inc.* v. *Wheatland Tube Co.* , 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1325-1326 (CIT 1999) ( *Ferro Union Inc.* )), our findings in the LTFV investigation ( *see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the Republic of Korea* , 66 FR 33526 (June 22, 2001) ( *LTFV Final Determination* )), and the most recently completed review in which the Department calculated a dumping margin for DSM/KISCO ( *see Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From The Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 69 FR 19399 (April 13, 2004)), the Department preliminarily determines that certain senior executives of DSM, KISCO, DKI, and HSI are members of the Chang family, and thus are affiliated. *See* Collapsing Memorandum. 3 DKI is a manufacturer of cold-rolled steel, pickled and oiled coils, and hot-dip galvanized coil. DKI is also a trading company that exports various steel products. DKI does not produce subject merchandise. Section 771(33)(F) of the Act states that, “two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, any person,” shall be considered to be affiliated. A person includes any interested party as well as any other individual, enterprise, or entity. *See* 19 CFR 351.102. The courts have agreed that a family group is an entity and thus is a “person,” for purposes of section 771(33)(F) of the Act. *See Ferro Union Inc.* , 44 F. Supp. 2d at 1326; *Dongkuk Steel Mill Co.* , v. *United States* , Slip Op. 05-75 at 13 (CIT June 22, 2005) ( *Dongkuk* ). As further defined by section 771(33) of the Act, “a person shall be considered to control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.” *See* section 771(33) of the Act. The record shows that certain members of the Chang family are senior executives of these companies. *See* Collapsing Memorandum. Additionally, these same members of the Chang family are the largest shareholders of DSM, KISCO, and DKI. *Id.* Further, KISCO is the largest shareholder of HSI. Accordingly, the Chang family's leadership positions within these companies, as well as the fact that they control the largest blocks of outstanding shares in DSM, KISCO, and DKI (and KISCO is the largest shareholder in HSI), puts the Chang family in a position to legally and/or operationally control DSM, KISCO, DKI, and HSI, thus satisfying the requirements of affiliation under section 771(33)(F) of the Act. The Court of International Trade
(CIT)upheld the Department's similar finding of affiliation in the *2001-2002 Final Results* . *See Dongkuk* , Slip. Op 05-75 at 4. In addition, section 771(33)(E) of the Act states that two or more persons shall be considered to be affiliated if any person directly or indirectly owns 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting shares of an organization. In this case, record evidence demonstrates that KISCO directly owns over 5 percent of HSI's outstanding shares. Therefore, we find that KISCO is affiliated with HSI pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act. *See* Collapsing Memorandum. Collapsing Section 351.401(f)(1) of the Department's regulations states that in an antidumping proceeding the Department “will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where those producers have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and the Secretary concludes that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production.” *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). Section 351.401(f)(2) of the Department's regulations identifies factors to be considered to determine whether there is a significant potential for manipulation. These include:
(i)The level of common ownership;
(ii)the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and
(iii)whether operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the affiliated producers. As discussed above, and in the accompanying Collapsing Memorandum, based on the evidence on the record in this review, we have preliminarily determined that DSM is affiliated with KISCO and HSI by virtue of common control by the Chang family. *See* sections 771(33)(A) and
(F)of the Act. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily determines that the first of the three requirements for collapsing the companies has been met. The CIT upheld the Department's decision to collapse DSM and KISCO in the *2001-2002 Final Results. See Dongkuk,* Slip. Op 05-75 at 16-17. Having determined that DSM, KISCO, and HSI are affiliated, the Department examines whether the producers have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require “substantial retooling * * * in order to restructure manufacturing priorities.” *Cf. Notice of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta From Italy* , 69 FR 319, 321 (January 5, 2004). Based on the questionnaire responses submitted by DSM, KISCO, and HSI, the Department has preliminarily determined that the three companies' production facilities would not require substantial retooling to restructure manufacturing priorities. *See* Collapsing Memorandum. Further, based on the record of this proceeding, the Department preliminarily determines that significant potential for manipulation of price or production exists. In analyzing whether there exists a potential for price or production manipulation, the Department may consider the following factors:
(1)The level of common ownership;
(2)the extent to which managerial employees or directors of one firm also sit on the board of the other firm; and
(3)whether operations are intertwined. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). Based on information supplied by DSM, KISCO, and HSI, the Department preliminarily determines that each of these factors has been satisfied in this segment of the proceeding. *See* Collapsing Memorandum for a full discussion of the issues. As the CIT recognized in *Dongkuk* , the agency's concern is with the potential for manipulation, which continues to exist in this case. *See Dongkuk* , Slip. Op 05-75 at 17. Based on these reasons, we find that DSM, KISCO, and HSI are affiliated producers with similar or identical production facilities that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities. We also find that there exists a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. Therefore, we have collapsed DSM, KISCO, and HSI, and are treating them as a single entity for purposes of these preliminary results. Comparison Methodology In order to determine whether the respondents sold rebar to the United States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the constructed export price
(CEP)of individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. *See* section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; *see also* section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of the order, that were produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject merchandise and sold by respondents in the comparison market during the POR, to be foreign like products, for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to rebar sold in the United States. The Department compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month in which the U.S. sale was made until two months after the month in which the U.S. sale was made. In making product comparisons, the Department selected identical foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of importance: type of steel, yield strength, size, and coating. The Department reclassified the yield strength designation of certain merchandise based on its preliminary finding that the merchandise was weldable. For further information, see the analysis memorandum for DSM/KISCO/HSI, dated concurrently with this notice. Duty Drawback Before increasing a respondent's reported U.S. sales prices by the amount of duty drawback, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department's practice is to examine whether:
(1)Import duties and rebates are directly linked to, and are dependent upon, one another, or, in the context of a duty exemption, the exemption is linked to the exportation of subject merchandise and
(2)the company claiming the adjustment can demonstrate that there are sufficient imports of raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on exports of the manufactured product. *See Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 55965, 55968 (October 30, 1996); *see also, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 6889 (February 11, 2003) and accompanying *Issues and Decision Memorandum* at Comment 5. DSM reported that it received duty drawback pursuant to Korea's Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refundment of Customs Duties, Etc., Levied on Raw Materials for Export (Duty Refund Program). DSM reported that it received certain “drawback” amounts associated with duties paid on imported inputs pursuant to the Korean Government's individual application system, where the duty is rebated based upon each applicant's use of the imported input. Since the applicable criteria have been met in this case, in calculating CEP for DSM/KISCO/HSI, the Department has preliminarily added an amount for duty drawback to the reported prices. We made additions to the starting price for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Level of Trade and CEP Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the CEP sales. The NV LOT is that of the starting price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed export sale from the exporter to its affiliate. The Department adjusts CEP, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as articulated in 19 CFR 351.412. *See Micron Technology, Inc.* v. *United States,* 243 F.3d, 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,* 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In determining whether the respondents made sales at separate LOTs, we obtained information from DSM, HSI and KISCO regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and comparison market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by respondents for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller at each level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar. In implementing these principles in this review, we asked DSM/KISCO/HSI to identify the specific differences and similarities in selling functions and support services between all phases of marketing in the home market and the United States. DSM/KISCO/HSI identified one channel of distribution in the home market: direct sales from its factory to its customers. DSM/KISCO/HSI also identified three types of home market customers: end-users, distributors or government entities. Regardless of the type of customer, DSM/KISCO/HSI performed the same type of selling functions in the home market. Because DSM/KISCO/HSI provided these services to each type of customer through one channel of distribution, we have determined that one level of trade exists for DSM/KISCO/HSI's HM sales. For the U.S. market, DSM/KISCO/HSI reported one channel of distribution-sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers through Dongkuk International, Inc. (DKA), DSM's affiliated U.S. sales company. 4 All of DSM/KISCO/HSI's U.S. sales were CEP transactions and DSM/KISCO/HSI performed the same selling functions in each instance. Therefore, the U.S. market has one LOT. 4 As noted above, all U.S. sales were made by DSM. When we compared CEP sales (after deductions made pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act) to HM sales, we determined that for CEP sales, DSM/KISCO/HSI's U.S. affiliate performed many services associated with its U.S. sales. The differences in selling functions performed for DSM/KISCO/HSI's home market and CEP transactions indicate that HM sales involved a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. In the home market, DSM/KISCO/HSI provides services normally found further down the chain of distribution that are normally performed by the affiliated reseller in the U.S. market. Based on our analysis, we determined that CEP and the starting price of HM sales represent different stages in the marketing process, and are thus at different LOTs. Therefore, when we compared CEP sales to HM sales, we examined whether a LOT adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, DSM/KISCO/HSI sold at one LOT in the home market; therefore, there is no basis upon which to determine whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between levels of trade. Further, we do not have the information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns of DSM/KISCO/HSI's sales of other similar products, and there is no other record evidence upon which such an analysis could be based. Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in Korea for DSM/KISCO/HSI is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP sales, a CEP offset is appropriate in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as claimed by DSM/KISCO/HSI. Therefore, we applied the CEP offset to NV. *See* Memorandum to the File from the Team, Level of Trade Analysis: DSM/KISCO/HSI, dated concurrently with this notice. Constructed Export Price We based the price of DSM/KISCO/HSI's U.S. sales of subject merchandise on CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because DSM sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States after importation through its U.S. affiliate, DKA. We calculated CEP using prices, less discounts, for packed subject merchandise delivered to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) and
(3)of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for the following expenses: foreign and U.S. inland freight, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, U.S. warehousing expense, direct and indirect selling, to the extent these expenses are associated with economic activity in the United States, and CEP profit. Normal Value After testing home market viability, whether comparison market sales to affiliates were at arm's-length prices, and whether comparison market sales were at below cost prices, we calculated NV for DSM/KISCO/HSI as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice. A. Home Market Viability In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the aggregate volume of DSM/KISCO/HSI's home market sales of the foreign like product to the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Because the aggregate volume of DSM/KISCO/HSI's home market sales of foreign like product is more than five percent of the aggregate volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we based NV on sales of the foreign like product in the respondent's home market. *See* section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act. B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, *i.e.* , sales at arm's-length. *See* 19 CFR 351.403(c). Sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market that were determined not to be at arm's-length were excluded from our analysis. DSM/KISCO/HSI reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance with the Department's practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). DSM/KISCO/HSI's sales to its affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's-length test. Therefore, we have excluded these sales from our analysis. C. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed proceeding segment in which DSM/KISCO received a calculated dumping margin, the Department determined that these companies sold certain foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. *See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from The Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 57883, 57885 (October 7, 2003) (no change at final). Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that during the instant POR, DSM/KISCO/HSI sold foreign like product at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. As a result, the Department initiated a cost of production
(COP)inquiry with respect to DSM/KISCO/HSI. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each unique foreign like product sold by DSM/KISCO/HSI during the POR, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the respondent's materials and fabrication costs, general and administrative expenses, interest expenses, and import duties normally associated with imported material. *See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* 68 FR 6889 (February 11, 2003). For further information, see the analysis memorandum for DSM/KISCO/HSI, dated concurrently with this notice. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP on a product specific basis, we compared the respondent's weighted-average COP to the prices of its home market sales of foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, in determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made:
(1)In substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and
(2)at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared the COP to home market sales prices, less any applicable movement charges and direct and indirect selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below cost sales of that product because the below cost sales are not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we determine that such sales are made in “substantial quantities” and within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average costs, we also determine, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that such sales are not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In the instant review, based on this test, we did not disregard below cost sales for DSM/KISCO/HSI. Price-to-Price Comparisons Where it was appropriate to base NV on prices, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same LOT as the comparison U.S. sale. We calculated NV using prices, less any discounts or rebates, for packed foreign like product delivered to unaffiliated purchasers or, where appropriate, affiliated purchasers in the home market. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Act, where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price the following home market expenses: movement, packing, and credit. Additionally, we added interest revenue to the starting price. We added to the starting price the following U.S. expenses: Packing, credit, and other direct selling expenses. Finally, where appropriate, we made price adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise and made a reasonable allowance for other selling expenses where commissions were paid in only one of the markets under consideration. *See* 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(e). Currency Conversion Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts 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 following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent) Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. Ltd./Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd./Hwanyoung Steel Ind. Co. Ltd. 0.00 Dongil Industries Co Ltd. 102.28 Public Comment Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of this review, we will disclose to interested parties any calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Also, interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument:
(1)A statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. Unless the deadline for issuing the final results of review is extended, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in the **Federal Register** . Assessment Rates In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), in these preliminary results of review we calculated importer-specific assessment rates because the importer is known for all of the sales made by the collapsed entity. Since the collapsed entity reported the entered value, we calculated *ad valorem* assessment rates for the collapsed entity by summing, on an importer-specific basis, the dumping margins calculated for all of the collapsed entity's sales to the importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. If the importer-specific assessment rate is above *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , 0.50 percent *ad valorem* or greater), we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly, as appropriate, on all entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were entered by the importer or sold to the customer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions based on the final results of review directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of those final results. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rates for the companies examined in the instant review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except that if the rate for a particular company is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed 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 LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 22.89 percent, the “all others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. *See LTFV Final Determination.* These cash deposit rates, 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)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing 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 and countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 2, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-16678 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 100306I] New England 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 New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Research Steering Committee in October, 2006 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. DATES: This meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 25, 2006, at 9 a.m. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Sheraton Colonial, One Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; telephone:
(781)245-9300; fax:
(781)245-0842. *Council address* : New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(978)465-0492. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Research Steering Committee will review: three cod-tagging projects undertaken as part of the overall Northeast Regional Cod Tagging Program coordinated by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI); the GMRI cod tagging program itself; two Northeast Consortium-funded cod projects and the National Marine Fisheries Service-sponsored cod industry-based survey that was the subject of a peer-review in August. Additionally, the committee will review the scientific basis for NMFS policies that guide the issuance of Exempted Fishing Permits in the Northeast Region. 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 listed in this notice 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 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 Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at
(978)465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 4, 2006. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-16638 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service National Technical Information Service Advisory Board AGENCY: National Technical Information Service, Commerce. ACTION: Notice; solicitation of applications for NTIS Advisory Board membership. SUMMARY: The National Technical Information Service
(NTIS)is seeking a qualified candidate to serve as one of the five members of the NTIS Advisory Board. NTIS Advisory Board will meet at least semiannually to advise the Secretary of Commerce, the Under Secretary for Technology, and the Director of NTIS on NTIS's mission, general policies and fee structure. DATES: Applications must be received no later than November 9, 2006. ADDRESSES: Applications should be submitted by mail to Ellen Herbst, Director, NTIS, 5285 Port Royal, Springfield, Virginia 22161 or electronically to *EHerbst@ntis.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Needle
(703)605-6404 or *SNeedle@ntis.gov* ; Dr. Douglas Campion
(703)605-6214 or *DCampion@ntis.gov* ; or Ms. Pat Moton
(703)605-6103 or *PMoton@ntis.gov* . These are not toll-free numbers. Alternatively, each can be reached by writing to them at National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NTIS is seeking one candidate to serve as member of its five-member Advisory Board, which was established by Section 3704b(c) of Title 15 of the United States Code. It will meet at least semiannually to advise the Secretary of Commerce, the Under Secretary of Technology, and the Director of NTIS on NTIS's mission, general policies and fee structure. The selected candidate will be appointed by the Secretary and will serve for a three-year term. Members receive no compensation but will be authorized travel and per diem expenses. NTIS is seeking a candidate who can provide guidance on trends in the information industry and changes in the way NTIS's customers acquire and use its products and services. Interested candidates should submit a resume and a statement explaining their interest in serving on the Board. Dated: October 4, 2006. Ellen Herbst, Director. [FR Doc. 06-8567 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
- Central Records Unit and Administrative Protective Order and Dockets Unit.§ 351.103
- Antidumping order and countervailing duty order.§ 351.211
- Sunset reviews under section 751(c) of the Act.§ 351.218
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Verification of information.§ 351.307
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Determinations on the basis of the facts available.§ 351.308
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Definitions.§ 351.102
- In general.§ 351.401
- Levels of trade; adjustment for difference in level of trade; constructed export price offset.§ 351.412
- Sales used in calculating normal value; transactions between affiliated parties.§ 351.403
- Differences in circumstances of sale§ 351.410
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
15 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 350 F. Supp. 2d 1294
- 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310
- 397 U.S. 532
- 291 F.3d 806
- 899 F.2d 1185
- 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
- 113 F.3d 1220
- 117 F.3d 1401
- 354 F.3d 1334
- 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302
- 337 F.3d 1373
- 120 F. Supp. 2d 1075
- 216 F.3d 1027
- 44 F. Supp. 2
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Final Notice to amend a Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/DEPARTMENT-18, “Employees Personnel Files Not Covered by Notices of Other Agencies
F. Supp.350 F. Supp. 2d 1294
F. Supp.44 F. Supp. 2d 1310
SCOTUS397 U.S. 532
Cites 38 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources