Notices. Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
15,444 words·~70 min read·
/register/2006/11/27/06-9409A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-OT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with October anniversary dates.
In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department also received a request to revoke one antidumping duty order in part. *Effective Date:* November 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-4697. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2002), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with October anniversary dates. The Department also received a timely request to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China. *Initiation of Reviews:* In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than October 31, 2007. Period to be reviewed Antidumping Duty Proceedings CANADA: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod A-122-840 10/1/05-9/30/06 Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) Sivaco Ontario Processing (a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.) CANADA: Certain Hard Red Spring Wheat 1 A-122-847 10/1/04-09/30/05 Canadian Wheat Board MEXICO: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod A-201-830 10/1/05-9/30/06 Hylsa Puebla, S.A. de C.V. Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Polyvinyl Alcohol 2 A-570-879 10/1/05-9/30/06 Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers 3 A-570-822 10/1/05-9/30/06 Hangzhou Spring Washer, Co., Ltd. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod A-274-804 10/1/05-9/30/06 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited Countervailing Duty Proceedings CANADA: Certain Hard Red Spring Wheat 4 C-122-848 1/1/04-12/31/04 Canadian Wheat Board IRAN: Roasted In-Shell Pistachios C-507-601 1/1/05-12/31/05 Tehran Negah-Nima Trading Company, Inc. Suspension Agreements None. 1 Pursuant to a request from the Canadian Wheat Board, the Department deferred the 10/01/2004-09/30/2005 antidumping duty review of hard red spring wheat for one year. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews,* 70 FR 72107 (December 1, 2005). The Department is now automatically initiating this review one year later because we have not received a request to withdraw from the Canadian Wheat Board. We did not receive a request for a review of the 10/01/2005-01/01/2006 period. 2 If the above-named company does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporter is a part. 3 If the above-named company does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporter is a part. 4 Pursuant to a request from the Canadian Wheat Board, the Department deferred the 01/01/2004-12/31/2004 countervailing duty review of hard red spring wheat for one year. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 72107 (December 1, 2005). The Department is now automatically initiating this review one year later because we have not received a request to withdraw from the Canadian Wheat Board. We did not receive a request for a review of the 1/1/2005-1/1/2006 period. During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with *FAG Italia* v. *United States, 291 F.3d 806* (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: November 20, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-20013 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-805] Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. Effective Date: November 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Patrick Edwards, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0195 or
(202)482-8029, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an antidumping new shipper review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube (“pipe and tube”) from Mexico in response to a request by Conduit S.A. de C.V. (“Conduit”). This review covers shipments to the United States for the period November 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006, by Conduit. The Department received a timely request from Conduit in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c) for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on pipe and tube from Mexico. On July 10, 2006, the Department found that Conduit's request for review met all regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated this new shipper review covering the period November 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. *See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review* , 71 FR 38851 (July 10, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). The preliminary results for this new shipper review are currently due no later than December 27, 2006. Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review from 180 days to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The Department has determined that this new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated and that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within the current time limits. As stated at initiation, the Department had concerns as to “whether Conduit's subject sale in this new shipper review constituted its first shipment of subject merchandise made to an unaffiliated customer in the United States* * *” See Memorandum to the File from The Team through Richard Weible, Office 7 Director, regarding Initiation of AD New Shipper Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico, dated June 30, 2006, (“Initiation Checklist”) at 6. Accordingly, the Department requested entry documents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to further analyze this issue. The Department only recently received the requested documents from CBP relating to the entries of subject merchandise in question and it was necessary for the Department to gather additional information from CBP officials. Additionally, there are supplemental questionnaires still pending in this new shipper review. Based on the timing of this case and the additional information that must be gathered and carefully analyzed, the preliminary results of this new shipper review cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 180 days. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of the new shipper review of Conduit by 120 days until no later than April 26, 2007, which is 300 days from the date on which this new shipper review was initiated. The deadline for the final results of this new shipper review continues to be 90 days after the publication of the preliminary results, unless extended. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 20, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-20021 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-560-820, A-570-906, A-580-856] Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin (Indonesia), Magd Zalok (People's Republic of China) or Joy Zhang (Republic of Korea), AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Office 4, and Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0656,
(202)482-4162, or
(202)482-1168, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions On October 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received petitions concerning imports of coated free sheet paper
(CFS)from Indonesia (Indonesian petition), the Republic of Korea (Korea) (Korean petition), and the People's Republic of China
(PRC)(PRC petition) filed in proper form by NewPage Corporation (the petitioner). *See* the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Against Coated Free Sheet Paper From China, Indonesia, and Korea filed on October 31, 2006. On November 3, 13, and 16, 2006, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petitions. Based on the Department's requests, the petitioner filed supplements to the petitions on November 9, 15, and 17, 2006. The period of investigation
(POI)for Indonesia and Korea is October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. The POI for the PRC is April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of CFS from Indonesia, Korea, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that the petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigations that the petitioner is requesting that the Department initiate ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” below). Scope of Investigations The merchandise covered by each of these investigations includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms “wood free” or “art” paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are:
(1)Coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics;
(2)base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and
(3)paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Comments on Scope of Investigations During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for
(1)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and
(2)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:
(i)Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or
(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petitions have the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission
(ITC)is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured and must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. *See* section 771(10) of the Act. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 1 1 *See USEC, Inc.* v. *United States,* 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), *citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.* v. *United States,* 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed Cir. 1989) *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. With regard to domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information presented by the petitioner, we have determined that there is a single domestic like product, coated free sheet paper, which is defined in the “Scope of Investigations” section above, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of the domestic like product. On November 15 and 16, 2006, we received submissions on behalf of Chinese and Indonesian producers of CFS questioning the industry support calculation. *See* “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia,” at Attachment II (Nov. 20, 2006) ( *Indonesia Initiation Checklist* ), “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea,” at Attachment II (Nov. 20, 2006) ( *Korea Initiation Checklist* ), and “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China,” at Attachment II (Nov. 20, 2006) ( *PRC Initiation Checklist* ), on file in the CRU. Our review of the data provided in the petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support representing at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition, requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Therefore, the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the domestic producers who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II, *Korea Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II, and *PRC Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation With regard to Indonesia, Korea, and the PRC, the petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured and is threatened with material injury by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than fair value. The petitioner contends that the industry's injury is evidenced by reduced market share, increased inventories, reduced shipments, lost sales, reduced production, lower capacity and capacity utilization rates, decline in prices, lost revenue, reduced employment, and a decline in financial performance. These allegations are supported by relevant evidence including import data, evidence of lost sales, and pricing information. We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and have determined that these allegations are supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III, *Korea Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III, and *PRC Initiation Checklist* Attachment III. Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate these investigations on imports of CFS from Indonesia, Korea, and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price, constructed value
(CV)(for Indonesia and Korea), and the factors of production (for the PRC only) are also discussed in the country-specific initiation checklists. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, Korea Initiation Checklist,* and *PRC Initiation Checklist.* Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate. Indonesia and Korea Export Price
(EP)The petitioner calculated a single EP using the average unit values
(AUVs)for import data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau for both Indonesia and Korea. The petitioner used a weighted average of two HTSUS numbers under which CFS is imported into the United States and that fall within the scope of the investigations. These HTSUS numbers contain imports of products which were most similar to the product on which the petitioner based normal value
(NV)in the Indonesian and Korean petitions: 4810.14.19.00 and 4810.19.19.00. 2 In addition, these HTSUS numbers account for 48 percent of the volume of imports from Indonesia and 45 percent of the volume of imports from Korea. To be conservative, the petitioner did not make any adjustments to U.S. price. 2 The petitioner based the AUV on customs data for the period October 1, 2005, through August 30, 2006, the most recently available data for the POI at the time of the petition filing. Use of a Third Country Market and Sales Below Cost Allegation With respect to NV, the petitioner stated that home market prices in Indonesia and Korea were not reasonably available. According to the petitioner, market intelligence in these countries is very difficult to obtain and sources of this information were either unable or unwilling to provide such data. The petitioner stated that it queried all available sources to identify Indonesian and Korean home market pricing data but was unsuccessful in its attempts. *See e.g.* , page 2 of the October 31, 2006, Indonesian petition and pages 1 and 2 of the November 9, 2006, supplement to the Indonesian petition; and page 2 of the October 31, 2006, Korean petition and page 1 of the November 9, 2006, supplement to the Korean petition. Consequently, for Indonesia and Korea, the petitioner used statistics on Indonesia's and Korea's third-country exports based on official Indonesian and Korean export data for determining NV. In selecting the third-country market, the petitioner chose Malaysia for Indonesia, and Australia and Bangladesh for Korea because:
(1)These countries represent the largest third-country markets (for Indonesia and Korea, respectively) for scope merchandise during the POI;
(2)the aggregate quantity of scope merchandise sold by Indonesian exporters to Malaysia, and Korean exporters to Australia and Bangladesh, accounted for more than five percent of the aggregate quantity of the scope merchandise sold in the United States; and
(3)the product sold to the Malaysian market (for Indonesia) and to the Australian and Bangladeshi markets (for Korea) is comparable to the product that served as the basis for EP. After examining this evidence, we found the selection of Malaysia for Indonesia, and Australia and Bangladesh for Korea, as the comparison market to be reasonable. The petitioner calculated third-country price for Indonesia and Korea using quantities and FOB values from official Indonesian and Korean export statistics. The petitioner has provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of CFS in the comparison markets ( *i.e.* , Malaysia for Indonesia, and Australia and Bangladesh for Korea) were made at prices below the fully absorbed cost of production (COP), within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct country-wide sales-below-cost investigations. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), submitted to the Congress in connection with the interpretation and application of the URAA, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be specific to individual exporters or producers. *See* SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994). The SAA, at 833, states that “Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.” Further, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains the requirement that the Department have “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that below-cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question are at below-cost prices. *Id.* Cost of Production Indonesia Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM); selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. The petitioner calculated the quantity of each of the inputs into COM (except factory overhead) and packing based on the input quantities of a U.S. CFS producer during the POI, multiplied by the value of inputs used to manufacture CFS in Indonesia using publicly available data adjusted for inflation. To calculate average factory overhead, SG&A and the financial expense rate, the petitioner relied on the most current financial statements of two Indonesian producers of CFS. Korea Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM; SG&A expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses. The petitioner calculated COM (except for pulp and factory overhead) and packing expenses using input quantities based on the production experience of a U.S. CFS producer during the POI, multiplied by the value of inputs used to manufacture CFS in Korea using publicly available data. For pulp, the petitioner used input quantities from an independent study, multiplied by the costs incurred to manufacture CFS in Korea using publicly available data. To calculate average factory overhead, SG&A and the financial expense rates, the petitioner relied on the most current financial statements of six Korean producers of CFS. Indonesia and Korea Based on a comparison of the Malaysian market prices of CFS for Indonesia, and the Australian and Bangladeshi market prices of CFS for Korea, to the COP calculated for Indonesia and Korea, respectively, in the petitions, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like products in Malaysia (for Indonesia) and Australia and Bangladesh (for Korea) were made at prices below COP within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating country-wide cost investigations relating to third-country sales to Malaysia (for Indonesia) and to Australia and Bangladesh (for Korea). We note, however, that if we determine that the home markets ( *i.e.* , Indonesia and Korea) are viable, our initiation of country-wide cost investigations with respect to sales to the third country markets will be rendered moot. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist* and *Korea Initiation Checklist.* Normal Value Based on CV Because it alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV for Indonesia and Korea. The petitioner calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial and packing figures used to compute the COP. The petitioner then added the average profit rate based on the most recent financial statements of two Indonesian producers of CFS for Indonesia and three Korean producers of CFS for Korea. *See Indonesia Initiation Checklist* and *Korea Initiation Checklist.* PRC EP The petitioner calculated a single EP using the AUVs for import data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. The petitioner used a weighted average of two HTSUS numbers under which CFS is imported into the United States and that fall within the scope of the investigation. These HTSUS numbers containing imports of products which were most similar to the product on which the petitioner based NV in the PRC petition: 4810.14.19.00 and 4810.19.19.00. 3 In addition, the HTSUS numbers account for over 87 percent of the imports of CFS from China, by volume. To calculate EP, the petitioner deducted foreign brokerage charges from the AUV (the petitioner did not deduct foreign inland freight charges from the AUV because it was unable to establish the distances between the Chinese mills and the ports closest to them). *See PRC Initiation Checklist.* 3 The petitioner based the AUV on customs data for the period April 1, 2006, through August 30, 2006, the most recently available data for the POI at the time of the petition filing. Normal Value The petitioner stated that the PRC was a non-market economy
(NME)and no determination to the contrary has been made by the Department. In previous investigations, the Department has determined that the PRC is an NME. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 24502 (May 10, 2005), *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 9037 (Feb. 24, 2005) and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 7475 (Feb.14, 2005). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, because available information does not permit the NV of the merchandise to be determined under section 773(a) of the Act, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. The petitioner identified India as the surrogate country, arguing that India is an appropriate surrogate, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer and exporter of CFS. *See* Volume II of the PRC petition at pages 2-3. Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe that its use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, the Department will solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. The petitioner explained that the production process for CFS begins with the manufacture of groundwood free pulp, which involves the use of wood fiber as the primary raw material. The wood is then placed into digester cooking vessels and mixed with various chemicals to produce pulp which is then washed and bleached. The chemical pulp is then placed in a paper machine which spreads the pulp into a uniform flat surface and removes water from the pulp through both mechanical and thermal means. The last section of the paper machine consists of several calendaring rolls with a reel device for winding the paper into a roll, which is then sent through a coating process. *See* Volume II of the PRC petition at pages 3 through 6, and Exhibit I-5. The petitioner stated that, to the best of its knowledge, Chinese producers manufacturing CFS use the same processes and machinery as U.S. producers, and many Chinese mills use Western technology and mills built by Western companies. According to the petitioner, many of the CFS mills in the PRC are fully integrated. *See* Volume II of the PRC petition at page 5. The petitioner provided a dumping margin calculation using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C). *See* Volume II of the PRC petition at Exhibits II-5 and 14, as revised in Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively, of the November 9, 2006, supplement to the petition. According to the petitioner, the cost model provided in Exhibit II-5 of the PRC petition, as revised in Exhibit 2 of the November 17, 2006 supplement to the petition, reflects the cost of producing the type of paper ( *i.e.* , 70 lb. (104g/m 3 ) basis weight, grade 2, double-sided CFS) that can be imported under either of the tariff categories used to derive U.S. price, categories which comprise the majority of subject merchandise imports from the PRC during the POI. *See PRC Initiation Checklist.* To determine the quantities of inputs for each raw material used by the PRC producers to produce CFS, the petitioner relied on its own production experience because it claimed that it is not aware of any publicly available information regarding the factor inputs and factor consumption rates pertaining to Chinese producers of CFS. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner valued factors of production, where possible, using reasonably available, public surrogate country data. To value certain factors of production, the petitioner used *Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India* , as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and compiled by *World Trade Data Atlas* (WTA). Since there were no Indian imports of one minor input, the petitioner used import data for Indonesia from the WTA to value this input. *See PRC Initiation Checklist.* Since Indian and Indonesian import values are expressed in a foreign currency, the petitioner converted these values into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates on Import Administration's Web site, *ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/india.txt* , for the period during which the imports were made. The petitioner then inflated the resulting amounts to a POI value using the Indian and, where applicable, Indonesian, Wholesale Price Index
(WPI)for “All Commodities.” 4 4 Source: *International Financial Statistics* , IMF, October 2006. See PRC Initiation Checklist The Department calculates and publishes the surrogate values for labor to be used in NME cases on its Web site. Therefore, to value labor, the petitioner used a labor rate of $0.97 per hour, published on the Department Web site, in accordance with the Department's regulations. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) and the *PRC Initiation Checklist.* The petitioner valued the various forms of energy used in the production of CFS based on the following sources:
(1)the Indian electricity rate as reported by the U.S. Department of Energy for the year 2000, inflated to a POI value using the WPI for power, fuel, and lubrications published by the Reserve Bank of India ( *see* Volume II of the PRC petition at page 9 and Exhibit II-9);
(2)Indian natural gas prices charged to industrial users during a period overlapping the POI, as reported by CRISIL Research India ( *see* Volume II of the PRC petition at page 9 and Exhibit II-10);
(3)prices for hydrocarbon products (to value fuel oil) quoted by Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Ltd., which is, according to the petitioner, a major supplier of oil and other fuel products throughout India ( *see* Volume II of the PRC petition at pages 9-10 and Exhibit II-11); and
(4)the price of coal from the *TERI Energy Data Directory & Yearbook 2003/04* , inflated using the Indian WPI for power, fuel and lubricants, and converted from Rupees per metric ton to U.S. dollars per million British thermal units ( *see* Volume II of the PRC petition at page 10 and Exhibit II-12). The Department revised the petitioner's value for natural gas to reflect the price in effect during the POI only. *See PRC Initiation Checklist* for further details. The petitioner calculated surrogate financial ratios (overhead, SG&A, and profit) from the annual reports of two Indian producers of CFS: The 2004-2005 Annual Reports of Ballapur Industries, Ltd. (Ballapur) and the 2005-2006 Annual Report of Seshasayee Paper and Boards, Ltd. (Seshasayee). *See* Volume II of the PRC petition at page 10 and Exhibit I-13. The Department revised the petitioner's financial ratio calculations by including in the calculations certain financial statement line items that were omitted from the calculations and by reclassifying certain expenses used in the calculations. *See PRC Initiation Checklist.* Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of CFS from Indonesia, Korea, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to CV, calculated in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the weighted-average dumping margin for CFS is 99.14 percent for Indonesia, and 71.81 percent for Korea. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act and adjusted as noted above, the weighted-average dumping margin for CFS from the PRC is 99.65 percent. Initiation of Antidumping Investigations Based upon the examination of the petitions on CFS from Indonesia, Korea, and the PRC, the Department finds that the petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of CFS from Indonesia, Korea, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Separate Rates and Quantity and Value Questionnaire The Department recently modified the process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries ( *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin* ), (Apr. 5, 2005), available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf* . The process requires the submission of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in processing the separate-rate applications in the following antidumping duty investigations, we have modified the application for this investigation to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete: *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China,* 70 FR 58374, 58379 (Oct. 6, 2005), *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China,* 70 FR 21996, 21999 (Apr. 28, 2005) ( *Artist Canvas from the PRC)* and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea,* 70 FR 35625, 35629 (June 21, 2005) ( *Sawblades from the PRC and Korea* ). The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . The separate-rate application is due no later than January 26, 2007. NME Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire For NME investigations, it is the Department's practice to request quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in the petition. In addition, the Department typically requests the assistance of the NME government in transmitting the Department's quantity and value questionnaire to all companies that manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, as well as to manufacturers that produce the subject merchandise for companies that were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters is used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. Although many NME exporters respond to the quantity and value information request, at times some exporters may not have received the quantity and value questionnaire or may not have received it in time to respond by the specified deadline. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. This procedure will be applied to this and all future NME investigations. *See Artist Canvas from the PRC,* 70 FR at 21999, * Sawblades from the PRC and Korea* , 70 FR at 35629, and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China,* 71 FR 16757, 16760 (Apr. 4, 2006). Appendix I of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters no later than December 27, 2006. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the IA Web site: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html* . The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those companies identified in Exhibit I-5 of Volume I of the PRC petition and the NME government. Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin,* states: [W]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question *and* produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. *Separate Rates and Combination* Rates Bulletin, at page 6. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, copies of the public versions of the petitions have been provided to the representatives of the Governments of Indonesia, Korea, and the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to the foreign producers/exporters named in the petitions. International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the International Trade Commission The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than December 15, 2006, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of CFS from Indonesia, Korea, and the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination with respect to any of the investigations will result in those investigations being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) permits us to investigate 1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or 2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation (see scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC, and exported/shipped to the United States during the period April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. Market United States Total Quantity Terms of Sale Total Value 1. Export Price Sales 2. a. Exporter name b. Address c. Contact d. Phone No e. Fax No 3. Constructed Export Price Sales 4. Further Manufactured Total Sales Total Quantity: • Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. Terms of Sales: • Please report all sales on the same terms ( *e.g.* , free on board). Total Value: • All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before importation into the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States; • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please do not include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Constructed Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States; • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please do not include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Further Manufactured: • Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry to the further manufacturer. [FR Doc. E6-20020 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-823-809] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine; Preliminary Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Ukraine. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, and complete substantive responses filed on behalf of the domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting a full sunset review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i). As a result of this sunset review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the level listed below in the section entitled “Preliminary Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey R. Twyman, Damian Felton, or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3534, 202-482-0133, and 202-482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 1, 2006, the Department published its notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Ukraine, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 43443 (August 1, 2006) (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from the following domestic parties: The Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual producer members, Nucor Corporation, CMC Steel Group, and Gerdau Ameristeel, as well as domestic producers TAMCO Steel and Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. (“Schnitzer”) (“domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). These companies claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic-like product in the United States. The Department received a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). In this response, Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (“Cascade”) was substituted for Schnitzer as a domestic interested party. Cascade is a wholly owned subsidiary of Schnitzer. Also, Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“SDI”) was added as a domestic producer. Because SDI did not file a notice of intent to participate in this review, it is not eligible to file a substantive response. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(iii)(A). Therefore, the domestic interested parties are now the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual producer members Nucor Corporation, CMC Steel Group, and Gerdau Ameristeel, as well as TAMCO Steel, and Cascade. The Department received a complete substantive response from respondent interested party, Open Joint Stock Company “Mittal Steel Kryviy Rih” 1 (“Mittal Steel” or the “respondent interested party”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). On September 5, 2006, the Department received a rebuttal to Mittal Steel's substantive response from the domestic interested parties. 1 Mittal Steel notified the Department in its substantive response that as of November 2005, its name was changed due to an ownership change. Mittal Steel stated that its former name was “Krivorozhstal” Steel Works. The Department has neither conducted a changed circumstances review for this company, nor made a successor-in-interest determination. 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) provides that the Secretary normally will conclude that respondent interested parties have provided an adequate response to a notice of initiation where the Department receives complete substantive responses from respondent interested parties accounting, on average, for more than 50 percent, by volume, or value, if appropriate, of the total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation. On September 20, 2006, the Department found that Mittal Steel accounted for more than 50 percent of exports by volume of the subject merchandise from Ukraine to the United States, dependent upon it demonstrating that it exported to the United States during the period. *See* Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, from Damian Felton entitled, “Adequacy Determination in Antidumping Duty Sunset Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Ukraine,” (September 20, 2006). In its substantive response, Mittal Steel also notified the Department of a name change that occurred in November 2005. Prior to this date, the company was named “Krivorozhstal” Steel Works. In November 2005, with Mittal Steel's purchase of the company, the name became Mittal Steel Kryviy Rih. On September 28, 2006, the Department sent a letter to Mittal Steel requesting proof of order date, invoice date, quantity, value, shipment date, and payment date for its reported shipments. The Department also requested that Mittal Steel confirm that the merchandise was included in the scope of the order. On October 20, 2006, Mittal Steel submitted the requested documentation. Because the Department has no evidence contradicting Mittal Steel's claim that it is the successor to “Krivorozhstal” Steel Works, which made the 2001 shipments, we are equating Mittal and “Krivorozhstal” Steel Works solely for the purpose of determining whether the respondent interested party submitted an adequate response to our notice of initiation. Based on its response to our request for supporting documentation, the Department determines that Mittal Steel has demonstrated that it represents more than 50 percent of the total exports of subject merchandise from Ukraine to the United States during this five-year sunset review period (2001-2005). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department is conducting a full sunset review of this antidumping duty order. The final results in the full sunset review of this antidumping duty order are due on or before March 29, 2007. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, 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. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Ukraine; Preliminary Results,” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (November 20, 2006) (“Decision Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the antidumping duty order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memo, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Preliminary Results of Review The Department preliminarily determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Ukraine is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margin: Manufacturers/producers/exporters Weighted-average margin (percent) All Others Rate, including Mittal Steel Kryviy Rih and “Krivorozhstal” Steel Works 2 41.69 2 As of February 1, 2006, Ukraine graduated to market economy status. *See Final Results of Inquiry Into Ukraine's Status as a Non-Market Economy Country* , 71 FR 9520 (February 24, 2006). As a result, the Ukraine wide rate is now the All Others rate. Mittal Steel is considered part of the all others rate because a successor-in-interest determination has not been made. *See, e.g., Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and Carbon Steel Plate from Taiwan; Second Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders and Antidumping Finding; Final Results* , 71 FR 11577, 11579 (March 8, 2006) (explaining that Duferco is subject to the all others rate because the Department had not yet conducted a changed circumstances review to determine the successor-in-interest to Forges de Clabecq, S.A.). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 50 days after the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after rebuttal briefs are due, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs, no later than March 29, 2007. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Date: November 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration [FR Doc. E6-20011 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-449-804] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Latvia; Preliminary Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On August 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Latvia. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate by a domestic interested party and adequate responses filed on behalf of the domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting a full sunset review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i). As a result of this sunset review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Preliminary Results of Review.” *Effective Date:* November 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey R. Twyman, Damian Felton, or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-3534, 202-482-0133, and 202-482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 1, 2006, the Department published its notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Latvia, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews,* 71 FR 43443 (August 1, 2006) ( *“Notice of Initiation”* ). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from the following domestic parties: the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual producer members, Nucor Corporation, CMC Steel Group, and Gerdau Ameristeel, as well as domestic producers TAMCO Steel and Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. (“Schnitzer”) (collectively “domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The companies claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic-like product in the United States. The Department received a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). In this response, Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. (“Cascade”) was substituted for Schnitzer as a domestic interested party. Cascade is a wholly owned subsidiary of Schnitzer. Also, Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“SDI”) was added as a domestic producer. Because SDI did not file a notice of intent to participate in this review, it is not eligible to file a substantive response. *See* 19 CFR 351.218(d)(iii)(A). Therefore, the domestic interested parties are now the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual producer members Nucor Corporation, CMC Steel Group, and Gerdau Ameristeel, as well as TAMCO Steel, and Cascade. The Department received a complete substantive response from respondent interested party, Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs (“LM” or the “respondent interested party”), within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). On September 5, 2006, the Department received a rebuttal to Liepajas Metalurgs' substantive response from the domestic interested parties. 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) provides that the Secretary normally will conclude that respondent interested parties have provided adequate response to a notice of initiation where the Department receives complete substantive responses from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 percent, by volume, or value, if appropriate, of the total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation. On September 20, 2006, the Department found that LM accounted for more than 50 percent of exports by volume of the subject merchandise from Latvia to the United States. *See* Memorandum to Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, from Damian Felton entitled, “Adequacy Determination in Antidumping Duty Sunset Review of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia,” (September 20, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2)(i), the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this antidumping duty order. The final results in the full sunset review of this antidumping duty order are due on or before March 29, 2007. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, 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. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia; Preliminary Results,” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 20, 2006 (“Decision Memo”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the antidumping duty order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memo, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Preliminary Results of Review The Department preliminarily determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars from Latvia is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters Weighted-average margin (percent) Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs 17.21 All Others 17.21 Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 50 days after the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after rebuttal briefs are due, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs, no later than March 29, 2007. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-20012 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-907, C-560-821, C-580-857] Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Coated Free Sheet Paper From the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce DATES: *Effective Date:* November 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Layton or David Neubacher (the PRC), Dana Mermelstein or Sean Carey (Indonesia), and Eric Greynolds or Darla Brown (Korea), AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0371 and
(202)482-5823,
(202)482-1391 and
(202)482-3964, and
(202)482-6071 and
(202)482-2849, respectively. Initiation of Investigations: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petitions On October 31, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received petitions filed in proper form by NewPage Corporation (petitioner). The Department received from petitioner information supplementing the petitions throughout the 20-day initiation period. In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), petitioner alleges that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of coated free sheet paper
(CFS)in the People's Republic of China ( the PRC), Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea (Korea) received countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The Department finds that petitioner filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in sections 771(9)(C) of the Act and petitioner has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to each of the countervailing duty investigations that it is requesting the Department to initiate ( *see* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below). Scope of Investigations The merchandise covered by each of these investigations includes coated free sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes. The terms “wood free” or “art” paper may also be used to describe the imported product. Excluded from the scope are:
(1)Coated free sheet paper that is imported printed with final content printed text or graphics;
(2)base paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and
(3)paper containing by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Comments on Scope of Investigations During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the relevant foreign governments for consultations with respect to the countervailing duty petitions. The Department held consultations with representatives of the government of the PRC on November 9 and November 20, 2006. *See* the November 9 and November 20, 2006, memoranda to the file regarding the consultations with officials from the PRC (public documents on file in the CRU of the Department of Commerce, Room B-099). The Department held consultations with representatives of the governments of Indonesia and Korea on November 16, 2006. *See* the November 16, 2006, memoranda to the file regarding the consultations with officials from Indonesia and Korea (public documents on file in the CRU). On November 20, 2006, the Government of Indonesia
(GOI)filed a letter reiterating their concerns regarding one of the issues the GOI raised at consultations. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for
(1)At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and
(2)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:
(i)Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or
(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission
(ITC)is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured and must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. *See* Section 771(10) of the Act. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. 1 1 *See USEC, Inc.* v. *United States* , 25 CIT 49, 55-56, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7-8 (Jan. 24, 2001) ( *citing Algoma Steel Corp.* v. *United States* , 12 CIT 518, 523, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (June 8, 1988)). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” *i.e.* , the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. With regard to domestic like product, petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information presented by petitioner, we have determined that there is a single domestic like product, coated free sheet paper, which is defined in the “Scope of Investigations” section above, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of the domestic like product. On November 15 and 16, 2006, we received submissions on behalf of Chinese and Indonesian producers of CFS questioning the industry support calculation. *See* “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Countervailing Duty Petition on Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia,” at Attachment II (Nov. 20, 2006) ( *Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist* ), “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Countervailing Duty Petition on Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea,” at Attachment II (Nov. 20, 2006) ( *Korea CVD Initiation Checklist* ), and “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Countervailing Duty Petition on Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of the PRC,” at Attachment II (Nov. 20, 2006) ( *PRC CVD Initiation Checklist* ), on file in the CRU. Our review of the data provided in the petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicate that petitioner has established industry support representing at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition, requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Therefore, the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the domestic producers who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. *See Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II, *Korea CVD Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II, and *PRC CVD Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II. Injury Test Because the PRC, Indonesia and Korea are each a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC, Indonesia and Korea materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated allegedly subsidized imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia, the PRC, and Korea. With regard to the PRC and Korea, the allegedly subsidized imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. With respect to Indonesia, while the allegedly subsidized imports from Indonesia do not meet the statutory requirement of four percent over the most recent 12-month period for which import data are available, in its analysis for threat ( *see* section 771(24)(B) of the Act), petitioner alleges and provides supporting evidence that these imports will imminently account for more than four percent of all CFS imports of the subject merchandise and, therefore, are not negligible. *See* section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act. Petitioner contends that the industry's injury is evidenced by reduced market share, increased inventories, reduced shipments, lost sales, reduced production, lower capacity and capacity utilization rates, decline in prices, lost revenue, reduced employment, and a decline in financial performance. The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs import data, lost sales, and pricing information. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation and have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist,* and *Korea CVD Initiation Checklist.* Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that
(1)alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and
(2)is accompanied by information reasonably available to petitioner supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the countervailing duty petitions on CFS from the PRC, Indonesia, and Korea and found that they comply with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating countervailing duty investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of CFS in the PRC, Indonesia, and Korea receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, *see PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist,* and *Korea CVD Initiation Checklist.* We are including in our investigations the following programs alleged in the petitions to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC, Indonesia, and Korea: I. The PRC A. *Grant Programs* B. *Policy Loans* *Uncreditworthiness* —Petitioner has provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that, in accordance with 351.505(a)(6) of the Department's regulations, that Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd. was uncreditworthy in 2004 and 2005 and Ningxia Meili Paper Industry Co., Ltd. was uncreditworthy from 2003 through 2005. See Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary regarding Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China; Shandong Chenming and Ningxia Meili Uncreditworthiness Allegation (November 20, 2006). C. *Preferential Tax Programs for Encouraged Industries Including the Paper Industry* 1. *Tax Incentives for Foreign Investment Enterprises (FIEs)* 2. *Tax & Tariff Incentives for Select Industries* D. *The “Two Free, Three Half” Program* E. *Income Tax Exemptions Program for FIEs Located in Certain Geographic Locations* F. *Local income tax exemption and reduction program for “productive” FIEs* G. *Income tax exemption program for export-oriented FIEs* H. *Corporate Income Tax Refund Program for Reinvestment of Fie Profits in Export-oriented Enterprises* I. *Debt-to-equity Infusion for APP China* *Equity Infusion/Debt-for-Equity Swap-* Petitioner has provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that, in accordance with section 351.507(a)(7) of the Department's regulations, Asia Pulp and Paper's (APP's) subsidiary, APP China, was equityworthiness from March 2001 through the year of the debt-to-equity swap. *See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist.* J. *Subsidies to Input Suppliers* 1. *Preferential Tax Policies for FIEs Engaged in Forestry and Established in Remote Underdeveloped Areas* 2. *Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises Engaged in Forestry* 3. *Special Fund for Projects for the Protection of Natural Forestry* 4. *Compensation Fund for Forestry Ecological Benefits* II. Indonesia A. *Provision of Standing Timber For Less Than Adequate Remuneration* B. *Government Ban on Log Exports* C. *Subsidized Funding for Reforestation (Hutan Tanaman Industria or HTI Program)* 1. *“Zero-Interest” Rate Loans* 2. *“Commercial Rate” Loans* —Petitioner has provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that, in accordance with 351.505(a)(6) of the Department's regulations, that Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), a member of the Sinar Mas Group
(SMG)and a cross-owned supplier of logs to PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk.
(TK)has been uncreditworthy since 2001. *See Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist.* III. Korea Industry-Wide Programs A. *Preferential Lending by the KDB and Other GOK Authorities* B. *Export Industry Facility Loans (“EIFLs”)* C. *Reduction in Taxes for Operating in Regional and National Industrial Complexes* D. *Funding for Technology Development and Recycling Program* E. *Export and Import Credit Financing from the Export-Import Bank of Korea* F. *Sale of Pulp for less than Adequate Remuneration* G. *Sale of Pulp from Raw Material Reserve for less than Adequate Remuneration* H. *Duty Drawback on Non-physically Incorporated Items and Excess Loss Rates* I. *Direction of Credit* J. *Tax Programs under Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA)* 1. *RSTA Article 71* 2. *RSTA Article 60* 3. *RSTA Article 63-2* Company-Specific Programs A. *Shinho Paper (Shinho)-GOK-Led Bailouts in 1998, 2000, and 2002* 1. *Equity Infusion—* Petitioner has provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that, in accordance with 351.507(a)(7) of the Department's regulations, that Shinho was unequityworthy in 1998, 2000, and 2002, the years in which the government-provided equity infusions were provided. *See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist.* 2. *Extension of Debt Maturities and Reduction or Elimination of Interest Obligations* 3. *Debt Forgiveness* 4. *New Loans* —Petitioner has provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that, in accordance with 351.505(a)(6) of the Department's regulations, that Shinho was uncreditworthy from 1998 through 2005. *See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist.* B. *Kye Sung Paper (Kye Sung)-GOK-Led Bailout of Subsidiary in 2004* *Equity Infusion/Debt-for-Equity Swap* —Petitioner has provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that, in accordance with sections 351.505(a)(6) and 351.507(a)(7) of the Department's regulations, Poongman Paper, Kye Sung's CFS producing affiliate, was uncreditworthy and unequityworthy in 2004, the year in which the debt-for-equity swapped occurred. *See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist.* We are not including in our investigation the following programs alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC, Indonesia, and Korea: I. The PRC Currency Manipulation Petitioner alleges that the GOC-maintained exchange rate effectively prevents the appreciation of the Chinese currency
(RMB)against the U.S. dollar. Therefore, when producers in the PRC sell their dollars at official foreign exchange banks, as required by law, the producers receive more RMB than they otherwise would if the value of the RMB were set by market mechanisms. Petitioner has not sufficiently alleged the elements necessary for the imposition of a countervailing duty and did not support the allegation with reasonably available information. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate the currency manipulation program. II. Indonesia Accelerated Depreciation Program We are not including in our investigation the Accelerated Depreciation program alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in Indonesia. Petitioner alleges that this program allows a few select industries with high fixed capital costs to significantly accelerate the depreciation of their capital assets, creating a tax advantage for capital intensive industries, such as the paper production industry. The Department, however, has recently determined that the Accelerated Depreciation program is not countervailable because it is non-specific, in accordance with section 771(5A) of the Act. *See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia* , 71 FR 47174 (August 16, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 10. Although petitioner argues that the Department should reconsider its determination of non-countervailability, no new information or evidence of changed circumstances was provided to warrant reconsideration of our finding of non-specificity. III. Korea Infrastructure Expansions and Improvements for Operating in Regional and National Industrial Complexes Petitioner alleges that the GOK developed plans to establish an exclusive plant complex for the paper industry in the military equipment industrial complex in Gunjang, North Cholla province by 2001. Petitioner alleges that the complex, known as the Gunjang National Industrial Complex and established by the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Economy, is undergoing large-scale infrastructure expansions and improvements, including upgrading access roads, railroad connections and expanding harbor facilities. Petitioner provided insufficient information regarding the existence of a benefit or specificity. In particular, we find that petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence that any CFS producers are operating in the Gunjang National Industrial Complex. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to the PRC Petitioner contends that there is no statutory bar to applying countervailing duties to imports from the PRC or any other non-market economy country. Citing *Georgetown Steel* , petitioner asserts that the court deferred to the Department's conclusion that it did not have the authority to conduct a CVD investigation, but did not affirm the notion that the statute prohibits the Department from applying countervailing duties to NME countries. *See* Petition, Part I, at 8 ( *citing Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States* , 801 F.2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ( *Georgetown Steel* )). Petitioner further argues *Georgetown Steel* is not applicable as the countervailing duty law (section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930) involved in the court's decision has since been repealed and the statute has been amended to provide an explicit definition of a subsidy. *See* section 777(5) of the Act. In addition, petitioner argues that the Chinese economy is entirely different from the economies investigated in *Georgetown Steel* and the Department should not have any special difficulties in the identification and valuation of subsidies involving a non-market economy, such as the PRC, that would not arise in a market economy countervailing proceeding. Finally, petitioner contends that the PRC's accession to the World Trade Organization
(WTO)allows the Department to investigate countervailing duties in that country. Petitioner notes that the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement), similar to U.S. law, permits the imposition of countervailing duties on subsidized imports on member countries and nowhere exempts non-market economy imports from being subject to the provisions of the SCM Agreement. As the PRC agreed to the SCM Agreement and other WTO provisions on the use of subsidies, petitioner argues the PRC should be subject to the same disciplines as all other WTO members. Petitioner has provided sufficient argument and subsidy allegations ( *see* “Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations”) to meet the statutory criteria for initiating a countervailing duty investigation of CFS paper from the PRC. Given the complex legal and policy issues involved, and on the basis of the Department's discretion as affirmed in *Georgetown Steel* , the Department intends during the course of this investigation to determine whether the countervailing duty law should now be applied to imports from the PRC. The Department will invite comments from parties on this issue. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petitions has been provided to the Governments of the PRC, Indonesia, and Korea. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petitions to each exporter named in the petitions, as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of these initiations, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of subsidized CFS from the PRC, Indonesia, and Korea are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. *See* section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 20, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-20025 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-810] Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From France: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On September 7, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE”) from France for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004 ( *see Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France* , 71 FR 52770 (September 7, 2006) ( *“CORE Preliminary Results”* )). The Department preliminarily found that Duferco Coating S.A. and Sorral S.A. (collectively, “Duferco Sorral”), the producer/exporter of subject merchandise covered by this review did not receive countervailable subsidies during the period of review (“POR”). We did not receive any comments on our preliminary results and have made no revisions to those results. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 27, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD order on CORE from France. *See Countervailing Duty Order and Amendment to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from France* , 58 FR 43759 (August 17, 1993). On September 7, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results for this review ( *see CORE Preliminary Results* ). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers Duferco Sorral, the only producer/exporter of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. In the *CORE Preliminary Results* , we invited interested parties to submit case briefs commenting on the preliminary results or request a hearing. We did not conduct a hearing in this review, as one was not requested, and did not receive case briefs. Scope of the Order This order covers cold-rolled (“cold-reduced”) carbon steel flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel-or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Final Results of Review As noted above, the Department received no comments concerning the preliminary results. Therefore, consistent with the *CORE Preliminary Results* , we continue to find that Duferco Sorral did not receive countervailable subsidies during the POR. In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, we calculated a total net subsidy rate of 0.00 percent *ad valorem* for Duferco Sorral. As there have been no changes to or comments on the preliminary results, we are not attaching a decision memorandum to this **Federal Register** notice. For further details of the programs included in this proceeding, see the *CORE Preliminary Results.* Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of this review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise by Duferco Sorral entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, without regard to countervailing duties. We will also instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on shipments of the subject merchandise by Duferco Sorral entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding. *See Certain Steel Products from France: Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Determination of Countervailing Duty Investigation* , 64 FR 67561 (December 2, 1999). These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Return of Destruction of Proprietary Information This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: November 17, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06-9409 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
Traces to 12 documents
CFR
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Review procedures.§ 351.221
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Time limits for submission of factual information.§ 351.301
- Petition requirements.§ 351.202
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Sunset reviews under section 751(c) of the Act.§ 351.218
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Determination of sufficiency of petition.§ 351.203
6 references not yet in our index
- 291 F.3d 806
- 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
- 688 F. Supp. 639
- 865 F.2d 240
- 492 U.S. 919
- 801 F.2d 1308
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
F. App'x291 F.3d 806
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
F. Supp.688 F. Supp. 639
Cites 18 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources