Notices. Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting
21,063 words·~96 min read·
/register/2006/12/26/06-9848·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S 71 247 Tuesday, December 26, 2006 Notices JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries. ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting. SUMMARY: The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (portions of which will be open to the public) in Washington, DC at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel on January 8 and 9, 2007.
DATES: Monday, January 8, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, January 9, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel, 1401 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 202-622-8225. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel, 1401 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC on Monday, January 8, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, January 9, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the November 2006 Pension (EA-2A) Joint Board Examination in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass score. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the May 2007 Basic (EA-1) Examination and the May 2007 Pension (EA-2B) Examination will be discussed.
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions which may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and review of the November 2006 Joint Board examination fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.
The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1 p.m. on January 8 and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements should notify the Executive Director in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and should submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally.
Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All persons planning to attend the public session should notify the Executive Director in writing to obtain building entry. Notifications of intent to make an oral statement or to attend must be faxed, no later than December 31, 2006, to 202-622-8300, Attn: Executive Director. Any interested person also may file a written statement for consideration by the Joint Board and the Committee by sending it to the; Internal Revenue Service, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, Attn:
Executive Director, SE:OPR, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Dated: December 1, 2006. Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries. [FR Doc. E6-22025 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket # AMS-FV-2006-0201; FV-06-314] United States Standards for Grades of Parsley AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)of the Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is soliciting comments on its proposal to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley. AMS is proposing to revise the standards to allow percentages to be determined by count rather than weight. AMS is also proposing to eliminate the unclassified category. The proposed revisions would bring the standards for parsley in line with current marketing practices, thereby improving the usefulness in serving the industry. DATES: Comments must be received by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax
(202)720-8871, E-mail: *FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov* . Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The United States Standards for Grades of Parsley are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call
(202)720-2185; E-mail: *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. AMS makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is proposing to revise the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Parsley using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last published on July 30, 1930. Background Prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revision of the grade standards, AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 41755) on July 24, 2006, soliciting comments on the possible revision to the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley. In response to our request for comments, AMS received one comment from an industry group representing receivers. The comment is available by accessing AMS's Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm* . The commenter was in favor of the proposed revision to allow the percentages for tolerances and defects to be determined by count rather than weight, and further stated that as for the “Unclassified” category, some members requested that it be preserved, while others did not. However, this section is being removed in all standards when they are revised, as this category is not a grade and it only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. It is no longer considered necessary. Therefore, AMS will eliminate the “Unclassified” category. The proposed revision will allow percentages for tolerances and defects to be determined by count rather than weight. Currently, parsley is packed and marketed by count and weight. Taking into account these marketing practices, this proposal will bring the standards for parsley in line with current marketing practices, thereby, improving the usefulness of the standards in serving the industry. The official grade of a lot of parsley covered by these standards is determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61). This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed changes to the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: December 19, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-22048 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Forestry Research Advisory Council AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Forestry Research Advisory Council will meet in Madison, WI, January 23-25, 2007. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss emerging issues in forestry research. DATES: The meeting will be held January 23-25, 2007. On January 23 the meeting will be from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m, and on January 25 from 8:30-noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, Madison WI. Individuals who wish to speak at the meeting or to propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Daina Apple, Designated Federal Officer, Forestry Research Advisory Council, USDA Forest Service Research and Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington DC 20250-1120. Individuals also may fax their names and proposed agenda items to
(202)205-1530. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daina Apple, Forest Service Office of the Deputy Chief for Research and Development,
(202)205-1665. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service, Cooperative State Research Education, and Extension Service staff and Council members. However, persons who wish to bring forestry research matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting. Dated: December 15, 2006. Jimmy L. Reaves, Acting Deputy Chief, Research & Development. [FR Doc. E6-22060 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Procedures for Third Party Facilitated Land Exchanges AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Issuance of Agency Interim Directive. SUMMARY: The Forest Service is issuing an interim directive to Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)5409.13—Land Acquisition Handbook to provide additional guidance to its employees for using third party facilitators in a real estate action. DATES: This interim directive is effective December 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: This interim directive (id_5409.13-2006-1) is available electronically from the Forest Service via the World Wide Web/Internet at *http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives.* Single paper copies of the interim directive are also available by contacting Maryanne Kurtinaitis, Lands Staff (Mail Stop 1124), Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1124 (telephone 202-205-1264). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryanne Kurtinaitis, Lands Staff,
(202)205-1264. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The interim directive to Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)5409.13, section 32.2 provides additional guidance when a third party facilitator is used in a real estate action. Several problems have been identified with facilitated land exchanges, including third party facilitators not being legally authorized in writing by non-Federal landowners to represent their interests, and non-Federal landowners not being adequately informed and involved by the third party facilitator and the Forest Service. The effect of these situations may be that while the Forest Service incurs appraisal, environmental analysis, and other costs associated with a proposed exchange, the facilitator may not have bound the non-Federal landowner or lands to enable completion of the exchange upon an affirmative decision. Dated: December 19, 2006. Dale N. Bosworth, Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E6-22063 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service RIN 0596-AC45 Forest Service Interim Guidelines for Tribal Forest Protection Act AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comment. SUMMARY: On December 13, 2005, the Forest Service issued an interim directive to provide guidance for Tribal Forest Protection Act
(TFPA)proposals. This interim directive provides internal administrative direction to guide Forest Service employees in planning, implementing, and monitoring TFPA proposals. The interim directive is issued to Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)2409.19, Renewable Resources Handbook, Chapter 60, Stewardship Contracting, as Interim Directive No. 2409.19-2005-2 and can be found at *http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/.* This direction was developed to implement the provisions as authorized in Public Law 108-278, Tribal Forest Protection Act. The agency is requesting comment on this interim directive to ensure that the public has the opportunity to comment on the implementation of this new authority. The public's comments will be considered prior to development of final agency policy. DATES: Public input must be received by February 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: USDA Forest Service, Office of Tribal Relations, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop Code 1109, Washington, DC 20250-1109. Public input on this interim directive may also be submitted via facsimile to
(202)205-1773 or by e-mail to *tribal_relations@fs.fed.us* . The agency cannot confirm receipt of comments sent via facsimile or e-mail. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays) at the USDA Forest Service Office of Tribal Relations, 2nd Floor Central, Sidney R. Yates Building, 201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to
(202)205-1514 to facilitate entry into the building. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marsha Butterfield, USDA Forest Service, Office of Tribal Relations,
(202)205-4095. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004
(TFPA)was intended to strengthen Forest Service
(FS)and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)agency relationships with federally recognized tribes and to restore forested lands. The TFPA authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to enter into contracts and agreements with tribes to carry out certain projects on FS and BLM-administered lands that will reduce threats to adjacent or bordering tribal lands. A copy of the TFPA and other information on the interim directive can be found at: *http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations.* Background The TFPA was passed in July 2004 in response to devastating wildfires that crossed from Federal onto tribal lands the prior summer. The TFPA provides a tool for tribes to propose work and enter into contracts and agreements with the FS or BLM to reduce threats on FS or BLM-administered lands adjacent to or bordering on Indian trust land and Indian communities. The Forest Service and BLM coordinated on development of policy to implement the TFPA. Forest Service policy to implement the TFPA is included with Stewardship Contracting guidance in Forest Service Handbook
(FSH)2409.19, Chapter 60. Draft policy was sent to Regional Foresters for tribal consultation and a comment period from April 25, 2005, to June 25, 2005. Comments were considered during development of the interim directive. Description of Interim Directive Key points of the policy include: 1. Tribal proposals must focus on National Forest System
(NFS)lands that:
(a)Border on or are adjacent to tribal forest lands; and
(b)pose a fire, disease, or other threat to the Indian trust land or community, or need restoration; and
(c)are not subject to some other conflicting agreement or contract; and
(d)involve a feature or circumstance unique to the proposing (i.e. treaty rights, cultural, archaeological, historical, or biological). 2. The Forest Service may utilize an array of legal instruments to enter into contracts and agreements with tribes in response to their proposals, including an emphasis on stewardship contracting. 3. To qualify, the Indian land must:
(a)Border on or be adjacent to NFS lands; and
(b)be in trust or restricted status; and
(c)be forested or have grass, brush, or other vegetative cover; and
(d)if burned over land, be capable of regenerating vegetative cover. 4. Before initiating a project proposal, tribes are encouraged to meet with Forest Service personnel and other interested stakeholders prior to submitting formal requests to the Forest Supervisor or District Ranger. 5. Within 120 days of a tribe submitting a request, the Forest Service will issue a public notice indicating:
(a)Initiation of any necessary environmental review,
(b)potential for entering into an agreement or contract with the tribe, or
(c)notify the tribe of the denial of their proposal. 6. When the Forest Service evaluates and considers entering into agreements or contracts with tribes under the TFPA, the FS may use a best value basis and give specific consideration to tribally related factors, including: status of the Indian tribe as an Indian tribe; trust status of the Indian tribe's forest land or rangeland; treaty rights or other reserved rights of the Indian tribe relating to the land subject to the proposal; cultural, traditional, historic affiliations; indigenous knowledge and skills of members of the Indian tribe; landscape and vegetation features; coordination between the tribe and the agencies; and tribal access to the land subject to the proposal. 7. If the Forest Service denies a tribe's proposal to enter into an agreement or contract, the agency will issue a notice of denial to the tribe that identifies specific factors in, and reasons for, the denial, identifies potential corrective courses of action when appropriate, and provides for consultation with the tribe on how to protect the Indian trust land and tribal interests on the Forest Service land. Before a denial is issued, agency personnel may work with the tribes to attempt to make the proposal acceptable. Regulatory Certifications Regulatory Impact This interim directive has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. This interim directive would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local Governments. This interim directive would not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this interim directive would not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this interim directive is not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Proper Consideration of Small Entities This interim directive has been considered in light of Executive Order 13272 regarding proper consideration of small entities and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). It has been determined that this interim directive would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by SBREFA. Environmental Impact Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions” that do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This interim directive sets forth administrative procedures for implementation of the TFPA and, as such, has no direct effect on Forest Service decisions for land management activities. No Takings Implications This interim directive is limited to establishment of administrative procedures to respond to American Indian and Alaska Natives proposed work projects to enter into contracts and/or agreements with the Forest Service. Projects would conduct land management activities on Forest Service and BLM lands adjacent to Indian trust land and Indian communities. This interim directive has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and it has been determined that the interim directive does not pose the risk of a taking of private property. Federalism Executive Order 13132, Federalism, requires consultation with State and local officials when planned regulations and other policies have substantial direct effects on the States. This interim directive establishes procedures for the TFPA which will be administered by the Forest Service and implemented by participating Indian tribes. Therefore, the agency has determined that there are no direct effects on the States and no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Forest Service policy and Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, formal consultation was conducted with Indian tribes on development of this new policy in 2005. The draft TFPA policy was sent to regional FS offices, where it was then sent to tribes in their respective regions that have tribal land, rangeland, or tribal communities bordering on or adjacent to NFS land, for consultation with those tribes. A 60-day comment period was provided for the consultation and comment. Energy Effects This interim directive has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this proposed guideline does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Department has assessed the effects of this interim directive on Tribal governments and the private sector. This interim directive does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any Tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required. Civil Justice This interim directive has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. After adoption of this interim directive as final,
(1)all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this policy or that would impede full implementation of this policy will be preempted
(2)no retroactive effect would be given to this interim directive; and
(3)this interim directive would not require the use of administrative proceedings before parties could file suit in court challenging its provisions. Dated: November 27, 2006. Sally Collins, Associate Chief, Forest Service. [FR Doc. E6-22061 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Docket 47-2006 Foreign-Trade Zone 15 - Kansas City, Missouri, Area, Application for Expansion An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Greater Kansas City Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 15, requesting authority to expand its zone in the Kansas City, Missouri, area, adjacent to the Kansas City CBP port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on December 14, 2006. FTZ 15 was approved on March 23, 1973 (Board Order 93, 38 FR 8622, 4/4/73) and expanded on October 25, 1974 (Board Order 102, 39 FR 39487, 11/7/74); on February 28, 1996 (Board Order 804, 61 FR 9676, 3/11/96); on May 31, 1996 (Board Order 824, 61 FR 29529, 6/11/96); on December 8, 1997 (Board Order 934, 62 FR 65654, 12/15/97); on October 19, 1998 (Board Order 1004, 63 FR 59761, 11/5/98); on January 8, 1999 (Board Order 1016, 64 FR 3064, 1/20/99); on June 17, 1999 (Board Order 1042, 64 FR 34188, 6/25/99); on April 15, 2002 (Board Order 1226, 67 FR 20087, 4/24/02); and, on April 20, 2005 (Board Order 1388, 70 FR 22630, 5/2/05). The zone project to date has consisted of the following sites in the Kansas City area: *Site 1* (5.7 acres, 250,000 sq. ft.) -- Midland International Corporation warehouse facility located at 1650 North Topping St., Kansas City; *Site 1A* (2.76 acres) -- located at 1226 Topping Drive, Kansas City; *Site 2* (64.3 acres, 2.8 million sq. ft.) -- surface/underground warehouse complex located at 8300 NE Underground Drive, Kansas City (includes a site (75,000 sq. ft.) located at 3600 Great Midwest Drive operated by Terminal Consolidation Company); *Site 3* (9,615 acres) -- located within the 10,000-acre Kansas City International Airport facility; *Site 3A* (1 acre, 33,541 sq. ft.) -- located at 10201 N. Everton, Kansas City; *Site 3B* (3 parcels, 384 acres total) -- Kansas City: *Parcel 1* (68 acres) -- within the 330-acre Air World Center Business Park, located at Interstate 29 and 112th Street; *Parcel 2* (155 acres) -- Congress Corporate Center Industrial Park, located at the northwest corner of 112th Street and North Congress; and, *Parcel 3* (161 acres) -- city-owned Harley Davidson Site; *Site 4* (416 acres) -- Carefree Industrial Park, 1600 NM-291 Highway, Sugar Creek/ Independence; *Site 5* (1,000 acres, 5.75 million sq. ft.) -- CARMAR Underground Business Park/CARMAR Industrial Park, No. 1 Civil War Road, Carthage; *Site 6* (28,000 sq. ft., 11 acres) -- Laser Light Technologies, Inc., facility located within the Hermann Industrial Park, 5 Danuser Drive, Hermann (expired 12/31/05); *Site 7* (1,750 acres) Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport/Industrial Park complex, 1540 Maxwell, Kansas City; *Site 8* (13.57 acres) located at Ryan Road and Brunswick, Chillicothe; *Site 8T* (6 acres, 85,000 sq. ft.) - temporary site located at 411 S. Brunswick Road, Chillicothe (expires 12/1/08); and, *Site 9* (50 acres, 2 parcels) St. Joseph: *Parcel 1* (200,000 sq. ft., 25 acres) located at 2307 Alabama Street and *Parcel 2* (169,000 sq. ft., 25 acres) located at 2326 Lower Lake Road. The applicant is requesting authority to include additional sites in the Kansas City, Missouri area: Expand Site 8 to include an additional parcel located at 411 South Brunswick Road, Chillicothe (this will include Site 8T on a permanent basis); *Proposed Site 10* (72.31 acres) - warehouse located at 8201 E. 23rd Street, Kansas City; *Proposed Site 11* (49 acres, 3 parcels) located at an industrial park in Grandview: *Parcel A* (18 acres)-tract of undeveloped land, 13700 S. US 71 Hwy; *Parcel B* (9 acres)-tract of undeveloped land, 5610 East 139th Street; *Parcel C* (22 acres)-warehouse located at 13500 15th Street; and, *Proposed Site 12* (125 acres)- Botts warehouse located at 14100 Botts Road, Grandview. The applicant is also requesting that six acres at Site 8 be restored to zone status. (A minor modification was approved in November 13, 2006 (A(27f)-62-2006) removing six acres from Site 8 to establish the temporary site (Site 8T).) The applicant is further requesting to remove 183 acres from Site 7 due to changed circumstances (new total - 1,567 acres). No specific manufacturing requests are being made at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis.In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board. Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is February 26, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to March 12, 2007. A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, Suite 650, 2345 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2814B, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Dated: December 14, 2006. Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22079 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-846 Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 31, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006). This administrative review covers 16 firms. However, due to the large number of firms subject to this administrative review, and the Department's experience regarding the administrative burden to review each company for which a request has been made, the Department exercised its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for individual review. *See* Section 777(A)(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”); See also Memorandum to Wendy Frankel from Blanche Ziv regarding the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents (“Selection Memo”), dated August 18, 2006. The following respondents were selected for individual review: Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Haimeng”), Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Winhere”), and Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. (“Meita”). *See* Selection Memo. On May 30, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of new shipper review of brake rotors from the PRC covering the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. *See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 30655 (May 30, 2006). On October 2, 2006, the Department received a letter from counsel to Qingdao Golrich Autoparts Co., Ltd. (“Golrich”), agreeing to waive the new shipper review time limits in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.214(j)(3). Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.214(j)(3), on October 4, 2006, the Department acknowledged respondent's waiver of the new shipper review time limits and aligned the new shipper review with the administrative review. *See* Department's Memorandum to the File on the Alignment of 2005-2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, dated October 4, 2006. The preliminary results are currently due by January 2, 2007. In November 2006, the Department conducted verifications of sales and factors of production (“FOP”) for the new shipper review and one of the three administrative review companies selected as mandatory respondents. Also, in November 2006, the Department conducted a separate-rate verification for one of the companies not selected as a mandatory respondent requesting its own separate-rate. Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an antidumping duty order for which a review is requested and issue the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively. The Department determines that completion of the preliminary results of these reviews within the statutory time period is not practicable, given the extraordinarily complicated nature of the proceeding. The 2005-2006 administrative and new shipper reviews cover four companies, and to conduct the sales and factor analyses for each requires the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information pertaining to each company's sales practices and manufacturing methods. In addition, the Department must analyze the responses of thirteen separate-rate respondents to determine their eligibility for a separate-rate. Therefore, the Department requires more time to complete these analyses. Additionally, the Department requires additional time to analyze the verification findings of the three companies verified. Therefore, given the number and complexity of issues in this case, and in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 40 days to 285 days. Therefore, the preliminary results will be due no later than February 9, 2007. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: December 19, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22073 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-122-847 Certain Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: Based on the withdrawal of a request for review, the Department of Commerce is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Certain Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada for the period October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-3813. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 57558 (Oct. 3, 2005), for the above-cited segment of this antidumping duty proceeding. On October 31, 2005, the Department received a timely filed request for review from the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board also timely filed a request to defer for one year the initiation of the administrative review. The Department received no objections to this request from any party cited in 19 CFR 351.213(c)(1)(ii). On December 1, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 70 FR 72107 (Dec. 1, 2005), which granted the Canadian Wheat Board's request for deferral of administrative review for one year. On November 27, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 68535 (Nov. 27, 2006), in which the Department automatically initiated the above-referenced deferred administrative review of Certain Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada. On December 6, 2006, we received a timely filed submission from the Canadian Wheat Board withdrawing its request for an administrative review. Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review The Canadian Wheat Board filed its withdrawal request within the deadline established by section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. No other parties have requested a review of the Canadian Wheat Board or any other producer or exporter of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we are rescinding the above-cited administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the company for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 41 days of publication of this notice. Cash Deposit Rates The Department has revoked the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Certain Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada. *See Antidumping Duty Investigation and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada: Notice of Panel Decision, Revocation of Countervailing and Antidumping Duty Orders and Termination of Suspension of Liquidation* , 71 FR 8275 (Feb. 16, 2006). The effective date of the revocation is January 2, 2006. Therefore, the CBP has been directed to terminate the suspension of liquidation for all shipments of Certain Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 2, 2006. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: December 19, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22078 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-201-817 Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Preliminary Results of the Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Mexico. On the basis of the notice of intent to participate, adequate substantive responses, and rebuttal comments 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 the continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Preliminary Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-0195 or 202-482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 1, 2006, the Department published its notice of initiation of the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 31153 (June 1, 2006) (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”). The Department received notices of intent to participate on behalf of United States Steel Corporation and IPSCO Tubulars Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, Koppel Steel (NS Group), Maverick Tube Corporation, Newport Steel (NS Group) and V&M Star LP (collectively “the domestic interested parties”), within the 15-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties 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 complete substantive responses to the notice of initiation from the interested parties Hylsa S.A. de CV (“Hylsa”) and Tubos de Aceros de Mexico, S.A. (“TAMSA”) (collectively “respondent interested parties”) within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department received rebuttal responses from domestic interested parties to the substantive responses from the respondent interested parties on July 5, 2006, and July 14, 2006, respectively. 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 July 21, 2006, the Department found that respondent interested parties accounted for more than 50 percent of exports by volume of the subject merchandise from Mexico to the United States. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from John K. Drury entitled, “Adequacy Determination: Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico,” (July 21, 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. On September 25, 2006, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department extended the deadlines for the preliminary and final results of this sunset review by 90 days. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico; Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary and Final Results of Full Five-year (“Sunset”) Review of Antidumping Duty Order* , 71 FR 55774. The final results of the full sunset review of this antidumping duty order are due on or before April 27, 2007. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is OCTG, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited-service OCTG products). The scope of this order does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The Department has determined that couplings, and coupling stock, are not within the scope of the antidumping order on OCTG from Mexico. *See* Letter to Interested Parties; Final Affirmative Scope Decision, August 27, 1998. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) from Mexico; Preliminary Results,” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 18, 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 memorandum, 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 OCTG from Mexico is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) TAMSA 21.70 Hylsa 0.62 All Others 21.70 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 five 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 April 27, 2007. This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 18, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22076 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-905) Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain polyester staple fiber (“PSF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Holton or Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1324 or 482-0413, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation On June 23, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a petition on imports of PSF from the PRC filed in proper form by Dak Americas LLC., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation America, and Wellman, Inc. (“Petitioners”) on behalf of the domestic industry and workers producing PSF. This investigation was initiated on July 13, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 41201 (July 20, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). Additionally, in the *Initiation Notice* , the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market economy (“NME”) investigations. The new process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. *See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries* , (April 5, 2005), (“ *Policy Bulletin 05.1* ”) available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov* . However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over its export activities) has not changed. On August 7, 2006, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of PSF. The ITC's determination was published in the **Federal Register** on August 11, 2006. *See* Investigation No. 731-TA-1104 (Preliminary), *Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China* , 71 FR 46241 (August 11, 2006). Scope Comments The Department also set aside a 20-day period from the publication of the initiation for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding product coverage during the 20-day period and subsequently, did not change the scope in the *Initiation Notice* . Quantity and Value On July 19, 2006, the Department requested quantity and value (“Q&V”) information from a total of 106 companies that Petitioners identified as potential producers or exporters of PSF from the PRC. Also, on July 19, 2006, the Department sent a letter requesting Q&V information to the China Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports (“BOFT”) of the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) requesting that BOFT transmit the letter to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, or produce the subject merchandise for the companies who were engaged in exporting the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. For a complete list of all parties from which the Department requested Q&V information, *see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Holton, Sr. International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , dated September 18, 2006, (“ *Respondent Selection Memorandum* ”). Between August 8, 2006, and August 21, 2006, the Department received Q&V responses from 19 interested parties. The Department did not receive any type of communication from BOFT regarding its request for Q&V information. *See Respondent Selection Memorandum* at 1. On September 18, 2006, the Department selected Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Cixi Jiangnan”), Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. (“Far Eastern”) and Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Ningbo Dafa”) as mandatory respondents in this investigation. *See Respondent Selection Memorandum* at 4. Surrogate Country On September 28, 2006, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries* , dated September 28, 2006. On October 5, 2006, the Department requested comments on the surrogate country selection from the interested parties in these reviews. Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments on October 27, 2006. Far Eastern submitted surrogate country comments on November 9, 2006. On November 20, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal surrogate country comments. No other interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, *see* “Surrogate Country” section below, and the *Memorandum to the File through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country* , dated December 15, 2006 (“ *Surrogate Country Memorandum* ”). Separate Rates Applications Between August 16, 2006, and August 21, 2006, we received separate-rate applications from seventeen companies, including the mandatory respondents: Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. On September 13, 2006, and September 14, 2006, we received applications from Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou Taifu”) and Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd., respectively. Questionnaires On September 6, 2006, the Department requested comments from all interested parties on proposed product characteristics and model match criteria to be used in the designation of control numbers (“CONNUMs”) to be assigned to the subject merchandise. The Department received comments from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Springs Global US, Inc. (“Springs Global”) and Petitioners. The Department also received rebuttal comments from Ningbo Dafa. On September 20, 2006, the Department issued its sections A, C, D, and E, questionnaire with product characteristics and model match criteria used in the designation of CONNUMs and assigned to the merchandise under consideration. On November 27, 2006, the Department requested supplemental information from Hangzhou Taifu. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa between October and November 2006, and received responses between October and December 2006. On December 7 and 8, 2006, Petitioners submitted Comments on Cixi Jiangnan's, Far Eastern's and Ningbo Dafa's December 4, 2006, supplemental questionnaires responses. On December 11, 2006, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa responded to Petitioners' comments. The Department was unable to fully consider Petitioners' December 7 and 8, 2006, comments and respondents' December 11, 2006, comments because they were filed less than 10 days before the preliminary determination. Surrogate Value Comments On November 9, 2006, Petitioners, Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan and Ningbo Dafa submitted comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On November 20, 2006, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On December 4, 2006, Ningbo Dafa submitted additional surrogate value comments. Critical Circumstances On September 29, 2006, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of PSF from the PRC. On October 5, 2006, the Department issued questionnaires requesting data for monthly exports to the United States from January 2003 through September 2006 from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and received responses on October. For a detailed discussion, please see the “Critical Circumstances” section below. Postponement of Preliminary Determination On November 16, 2006, the Department informed Petitioners, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa of our intent to postpone the preliminary determination pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act by fifteen days to December 15, 2006. On December 5, 2006, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty determination on PSF from the PRC. *See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 70508 (December 5, 2006). Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2006. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (June 23, 2006). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The merchandise subject to this proceeding is synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. The following products are excluded from the scope:
(1)PSF of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.0025 and known to the industry as PSF for spinning and generally used in woven and knit applications to produce textile and apparel products;
(2)PSF of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches and that are generally used in the manufacture of carpeting; and
(3)low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer, non-polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS 5503.20.0015). Certain PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive. Non-Market-Economy Country For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as a non-market economy. *See Initiation Notice* , 71 FR at 41203. The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, (“TRBs”) From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in *Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review: TRBs from the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the normal value section below. As detailed in the *Surrogate Country Memorandum* , the Department has preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country on the basis that:
(1)it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise;
(2)it is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) of the Act; and
(3)we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. Thus, we have calculated normal value using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Cixi Jiangnan's, Far Eastern's and Ningbo Dafa's factors of production. *See Memorandum to the File from Paul Walker, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination* , dated December 15, 2006 (“ *Factor Value Memorandum* ”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Affiliations Based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and based on the evidence presented in Far Eastern's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Far Eastern is affiliated with Far Eastern Polychem Industries (“FEPI”), WuHan Far Eastern Industrial Trading Ltd. (“WHFE”), Alberta & Orient Co., Ltd (Canada) (“A&O”), Yuang Ding Investment Co. Ltd. (“YDIC”), Everest Investment (Holding) Limited (“EIHL”), Everest Textile Co. Ltd. (“Everest Textile”), Far Eastern Industrial (Suzhou) Ltd. (“FEIZ”), Far Eastern Industrial
(Wuxi)Ltd. (“FEIW”) and Far Eastern Textiles (Taiwan) Ltd.'s (“FETL”), in addition to FETL's other related parties, pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and
(G)of the Act. Additionally, based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and presented in Ningbo Dafa's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Ningbo Dafa is affiliated with Cixi Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Ferry Fly Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. and Worthal Limited Partnership pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and
(G)of the Act. We preliminarily find that it is not necessary to collapse Far Eastern or Ningbo Dafa with its affiliates because there is no record evidence demonstrating that there is significant potential for manipulation of price or production with its affiliates. We note that the Department normally considers three criteria for collapsing:
(i)the level of common ownership;
(ii)the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and
(iii)whether operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the affiliated producers. *See* 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.401(f)(2). Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, and the Separate-Rate Applicants have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of *de jure* and *de facto* government control, and therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“Sparklers”), as further developed in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. 1. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers* , 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 2) the applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates Memorandum* , dated December 15, 2006 (“ *Separate Rates Memorandum* ”). 2. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:
(1)whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide* , 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. We determine that, for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate-Rate Applicants, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of *de facto* absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following: 1) each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; 3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate-Rate Applicants demonstrate an absence of *de jure* and *de facto* government control with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide* . As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted separate company-specific rates to Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. Additionally, we have granted the Separate-Rate Applicants a weighted-average margin for the purposes of this preliminary determination. *See Separate Rates Memorandum* . The PRC-Wide Entity The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of PSF from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information during the POI. *See Respondent Selection Memorandum* . We issued our request for Q&V information to 106 potential Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to BOFT and MOFCOM. 1 We received only 19 Q&V responses and 3 Q&V responses that were improperly filed. See Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1-2. We did not receive Q&V responses from most of the companies to which we sent our request for Q&V information. *See Id* . Information on the record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous producers/exporters of PSF in the PRC. Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject merchandise from the PRC, the companies which responded to the Q&V questionnaire, the Separate-Rate Applicants, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa do not account for all imports into the United States. Although all exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that there were PRC exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI from PRC producers/exporters that did not respond to the Department's request for information. We have treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate. 1 For a list of companies to which the Department sent its request for Q&V information, see Respondent Selection Memorandum at 1. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond to our request for Q&V information and did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); *see also* “ *Statement of Administrative Action* ,” accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870
(1994)(“ *SAA* ”). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate. Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan* , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the
(a)highest margin alleged in the petition, or
(b)the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China* , 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at “Facts Available.” In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin based on information in the petition, because the margin derived from the petition is higher than the calculated margins for the selected respondents. In this case, we have applied the petition rate of 44.30 percent. Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 2 The *SAA* also states that the independent sources may include published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See SAA* at 870. 2 Secondary information is described in the *SAA* as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See SAA* at 870. The *SAA* also clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See SAA* at 870. As noted in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan* , 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 2005), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and normal value in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. *See Initiation Notice* at 41203. To corroborate the AFA margin selected, we compared the U.S. price and normal values from the petition to the U.S. price and normal values for the respondents. *See Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of PSF and parts thereof from the People's Republic of China* , dated December 15, 2006, (“ *Corroboration Memorandum* ”). Accordingly, we find that the rate of 44.30 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Consequently, we are applying 44.30 percent as the single antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa and the Separate- Rate Applicants. Margin for the Separate Rate Applicants The Department received timely and complete separate rates applications from the Separate Rates Applicants, who are all exporters of PSF from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, these companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above in the “Separate Rates” section and in the *Separate Rates Memorandum* . Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have established a weighted-average margin for the Separate Rates Applicants based on the rates we calculated for Ningbo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan and Far Eastern, excluding any rates that are zero, *de minimis* , or based entirely on AFA. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, “in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business.” However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i); *See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (“ *Allied Tube* ”). The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both the respondent and the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. In other words, the date of the invoice is the presumptive date of sale, although this presumption may be overcome. For instance, in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan* , 61 FR 14067 (March 29, 1996), the Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were established at that point. After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa. In its supplemental section A response, dated November 16, 2006, Far Eastern explained that it had incorrectly stated that it did not encounter any changes to the material terms of sale from its purchase orders. Instead, its original statement should have read that material terms of the sale from its commercial invoice had not changed during the POI. Additionally, Far Eastern provided several specific examples where it did encounter changes to the material terms of sale from its purchase orders. These examples included a cancellation of a sale and order changes that affected the price, quantity, product types and shipping destination. Petitioners, however, claim that the purchase order date is the most appropriate date of sale because Far Eastern stated that it did not encounter any changes with respect to the material terms of the sale from its purchase orders in its original section A questionnaire response, dated October 12, 2006. Petitioners have requested that the Department use the purchase order date because Far Eastern stated that the terms of sale did not change after the purchase order was issued. In *Allied Tube* , the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) found that a “party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to 'satisfy' the Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.'” *Allied Tube* 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092. Therefore, for this preliminary determination, the Department finds that based on the information on the record, Petitioners have failed to rebut the presumption that the invoice date is not the appropriate date of sale for Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern or Ningbo Dafa. Each respondent has provided various examples of material changes to their purchase orders during the POI. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 79054 (December 27, 2005). Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of PSF to the United States by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) to normal value (“NV”), as described in the “U.S. Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. We compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. U.S. Price Export Price For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa, we based U.S. price on EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign movement expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and international freight expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Where foreign movement or international ocean freight was provided by PRC service providers or paid for in Renminbi (“RMB”), we valued these services using surrogate values (see “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). For a complete discussion of specific respondent calculations of the U.S. price, *see Memorandum to the File from Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Cixi Jiangnan* , dated December 15, 2006 (“Cixi Jiangnan Analysis Memorandum”); *Memorandum to the File from Michael Holton, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Far Eastern* , dated December 15, 2006 (“Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum”); and *Memorandum to The File from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst, Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memo for Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.* , dated December 15, 2006 (“Ningbo Dafa Analysis Memorandum”). Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. During the POI, Far Eastern did not have production of all types of merchandise for which it had POI sales. Consequently, Far Eastern reported in the factors of production database the most closely resembling CONNUM produced during the POI for the merchandise that was sold, but not produced during the POI. At the Department's request, Far Eastern also submitted factors of production information covering the six-month period prior to the POI for the merchandise that was sold, but not produced during the POI, which included factors of production most closely resembling the CONNUM produced during the POI. Therefore, the Department has determined to use the additional six-month information provided by Far Eastern. *See Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum* . In addition, Ningbo Dafa produced subject merchandise in more than one facility. Ningbo Dafa has stated that all subject merchandise sales to the United States and their respective CONNUMs may be tied to a single production facility. The Petitioners have argued that the Department should calculate normal value using factors of production from all of Ningbo Dafa's production facilities. However, absent record information to the contrary, for this preliminary determination, the Department has only included the factors of production from this single facility in our calculation of normal value. *See Ningbo Dafa Analysis Memorandum* for a more complete explanation. The Department will continue to examine this issue for the final determination. Critical Circumstances On September 29, 2006, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of PSF from the PRC. On October 19, 2006, Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern and Ningbo Dafa submitted information on their exports from January 2003 through September 2006 as requested by the Department. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.206(c)(2)(i), because Petitioners submitted critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations not later than the date of the preliminary determination. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or
(ii)the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and
(B)there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine:
(i)the volume and value of the imports;
(ii)seasonal trends; and
(iii)the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins ( *i.e.* , the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time. In accordance with Section 733(e)(1)(A)(I) of the Act and as discussed in the *Critical Circumstances Memorandum* , the Department preliminarily finds that there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States and elsewhere of the subject merchandise based on the existence of foreign antidumping duty orders of PSF, and the ITC's preliminary determination of material injury. *See Memorandum to Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Operations from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances* (“ *Critical Circumstance Memorandum* ”). For the reasons set forth in the *Critical Circumstances Memorandum* , we find that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period for Far Eastern, but not for Ningbo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, the Separate Rates Applicants and the PRC-wide entity. *See Critical Circumstance Memorandum at Attachment* 5-7. We find that some importers, exporters, or producers knew or should have known an antidumping case was pending on PSF imports from the PRC in March of 2006 because there is record evidence that many of the Chinese producers begin planning the antidumping investigation. Therefore, we relied on a period of six months as the period, which is the maximum duration for the information we have available at this time, for comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been massive. Therefore, given the analysis summarized above, and described in more detail in the *Critical Circumstances Memorandum* , we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist for imports of PSF from exist for Far Eastern, but do not exist for imports of PSF from Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, Ningbo Dafa, the Separate-Rates Applicants and the PRC-wide entity. We will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances for all producers/ exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC when we make our final dumping determination in this investigation, which is currently 75 days after the preliminary determination. Factor Valuation Methodology In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP data reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the *Factor Value Memorandum* and company-specific analysis memorandum. Additionally, for detailed descriptions of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, *see* the company-specific analysis memoranda dated December 15, 2006. *See Cixi Jiangnan Analysis Memorandum; Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum* ; and *Ningbo Dafa Analysis Memorandum* . For this preliminary determination, the Department will use Far Eastern's reported market economy price of ethylene glycol from its unaffiliated supplier. However, the Department will continue to review whether Far Eastern is affiliated with its ethylene glycol supplier. If the Department finds that Far Eastern and its ethylene glycol supplier are affiliated, the Department will consider whether these purchases were made at arms-length in the final determination. *See Far Eastern Analysis Memorandum* . For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' material inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOP in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam* , 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics represents import data that is contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002); *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) (“ *CTVs from the PRC* ”). We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See* H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa, certain inputs into the production of the merchandise under investigation were purchased from market economy suppliers and paid for in market economy currencies. For these inputs all purchases were made from a market economy supplier and paid in a market economy currency, and the Department has therefore used the weighted-average POI price experienced by each respondent for these inputs. Therefore, we used the individual market economy prices experienced by Cixi Jiangnan, Far Eastern, and Ningbo Dafa when the inputs were obtained from a market economy, paid for in a market economy currency, and was a significant portion of the total purchases of that input. The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Far Eastern, Cixi Jiangnan, and Ningbo Dafa used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, except where listed below. Absent adequate information on the record to value PSF waste (fiber, “popcorn” and lump), for this preliminary determination, we are using an average of three Indian HTS numbers, 5503.20.00, 3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90, which represent values for raw PET bottles, finished PSF and plastic scrap, respectively. We note that the Department “need not prove that its methodology was the only way or even the best way to calculate surrogate values for factors of production, as long as it was a reasonable way.” *See Coalition for the Pres. of Am. Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermakret Mfs. v. u.S.s.* , 23 CIT 88, 118, 44 F.Supp.2d 229, 258 (1999); *Shakeproof Assembly Components v. U.S.* , Slip-Op 06-129 (August 25, 2006). We find that, given the information on the record, that averaging HTS numbers 5503.20.00, 3915.90.42 and 3915.90.90 is the most reasonable way to value PSF waste. For a detailed description of PSF waste and all other surrogate values used for respondents, *see Factor Value Memorandum* . To value electricity and diesel fuel, the Department used rates from *Key World Energy Statistics 2003* , published by the International Energy Agency. Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation using WPI. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . For natural gas, we applied a surrogate value obtained from the Gas Authority of India Ltd. website, a supplier of natural gas in India, covering the period January through June 2002. In addition, based on the February 1, 2005, article from *Chemical Weekly* , we note that the Petroleum Ministry had been considering raising the price but no action was taken. Therefore, consistent with the Department's recent determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, we took the average of the base and ceiling prices, added the transportation charge, and inflated the calculated value using the appropriate WPI inflator. *See* Surrogate Value Memo and *Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 27991 (May 15, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. The Department valued steam following the methodology used in the investigation of *Certain Tissue Paper Products and Certain Crepe Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , but updated the natural gas price. *See Factor Value Memorandum* and *Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination for Certain Tissue Paper Products* , 69 FR 56407 (September 21, 2004), unchanged in the final determination, *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 (February 14, 2005). For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* . The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . Because water is essential to the production process of the subject merchandise, the Department considers water to be a direct material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a surrogate value according to our practice. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11. Although some suppliers have reported that they obtain water from a well, we find that whether the producer pays for water is irrelevant in determining whether it should be considered a direct material input. Further, there is no evidence on the record that the Indian producer of polyester staple fiber from which we are obtaining an overhead financial ratio accounts for water as an overhead expense. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( *www.midcindia.org* ) since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 for the “inside industrial areas” usage category and 193 for the “outside industrial areas” usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to be from *www.infreight.com* . This source provides daily rates from six major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POI. The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the POI from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data accordingly. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . Consistent with the calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as reported by *www.infreight.com* to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram per kilometer. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses. The Department averaged December 2003-November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the AD administrative review of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India with October 2002-September 2003 data contained in Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the AD investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India ( *see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India* , 69 FR 67306 (November 17, 2004)). The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Pidilite Industries in their public versions is ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POI. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . To value marine insurance, the Department obtained a price quote from *http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html* , a market-economy provider of marine insurance. See Factor Value Memo Memorandum. To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the audited financial statements from Indo Rama's 2005/2006 Annual Report and Reliance Industries Ltd.'s 2005/2006 Annual Report. *See Factor Value Memorandum* . Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information upon which we will rely in making our final determination. Combination Rates In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. *See Initiation Notice* , 70 FR 35625, 35629. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . The Policy Bulletin 05.1, 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.” *See Policy Bulletin 05.1* at 6. Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: PSF from the PRC - Weighted-average Dumping Margins Exporter & Producer Weighted-Average Deposit Rate Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Co., Ltd. 15.30%% Far Eastern Industries (Shanghai) Ltd. 10.45%% Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 4.39%% Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Cixi Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd., 9.25%% Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Hangzhou Sanxin Paper Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory 9.25%% Nantong Luolai Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd. 9.25%% Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Xiamen Xianglu Fiber Chemical Co. 9.25%% Zhaoqing Tifo New Fiber Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., Ltd. 9.25%% Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.. 9.25%% PRC-Wide Rate 44.30%% Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of PSF from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Ningo Dafa, Cixi Jiangnan, the Separate Rate Applicants and the PRC-wide entity on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. For Far Eastern, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of any entries of PSF from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of our preliminary determination. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of PSF, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date of the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. We will make our final determination no later than 75 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 15, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22071 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-878 Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Based on the withdrawal of the requests for review with respect to two companies, we are rescinding this administrative review, in part. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890, (July 3, 2006). We received timely requests for review from Amgal Chemical Products
(1989)Ltd. (“Amgal”), Shanghai Fortune Chemical Company, Ltd. (“Shanghai Fortune”), and Suzhou Fine Chemical Co. Group Ltd. (“Suzhou”). On August 30, 2006, the Department published a notice of the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. * See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part * , 71 FR 51573, (August 30, 2006). On October 16, 2006, Suzhou withdrew its request for an administrative review. On November 14, 2006, Amgal withdrew its request for an administrative review. Rescission of Review The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws its request at a later date if the Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. Suzhou and Amgal, the only parties to request a review for these companies, respectively, withdrew their requests within the 90-day limit. Therefore, we are rescinding these reviews of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, with respect to Suzhou and Amgal. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which these reviews are rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: December 18, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22080 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C-475-817) Oil Country Tubular Goods from Italy: Final Results of Five-year (Sunset) Review and Revocation of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the notice of initiation of the second five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on oil country tubular goods
(OCTG)from Italy, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 31153 (June 1, 2006) ( *Second Sunset Review* ). The Department has conducted an expedited sunset review as provided for in section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Therefore, the Department is revoking this countervailing duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2006 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun Jack Zhao or Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1396 or
(202)482-3964, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The countervailing duty order on OCTG from Italy was published in the **Federal Register** on August 10, 1995. *See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) From Italy* , 60 FR 40822 (August 10, 1995). On March 8, 2001, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the final results of the first sunset review of the countervailing duty order on OCTG from Italy, pursuant to the Act. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) From Italy; Final Results of Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order* , 66 FR 13910 (March 8, 2001). In that review, the Department determined that the revocation of the CVD order would likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the same rate as found in the final determination. Following the affirmative injury determination by the International Trade Commission
(ITC)and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(4), the Department published a notice of continuation of the order. *See Continuation of Countervailing and Antidumping Duty Orders on Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea and Mexico, and Partial Revocation of Those Orders From Argentina and Mexico With Respect to Drill Pipe* , 66 FR 38630 (July 25, 2001) ( *Continuation of Orders* ). On June 1, 2006, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the countervailing duty order on OCTG from Italy. *See Second Sunset Review* . The Department received notices of intent to participate from United States Steel Corporation, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, Koppel Steel (NS Group), Maverick Tube Corporation, Newport Steel (NS Group), V&M Star LP (collectively, “domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. manufacturers of the domestic like product. Moreover, certain domestic interested parties were petitioners in the original investigation and have participated in subsequent reviews before the Department. The Department received substantive responses within the deadline specified in section 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i) from domestic interested parties, the Government of Italy (GOI), the European Union/Delegation of the European Commission (EU), Dalmine S.p.A. (Dalmine), and Arvedi Tubi Acciaio S.p.A. (Arvedi). 1 The Department also received timely filed rebuttal comments from the domestic interested parties. 2 1 Dalmine is a manufacturer and exporter of the subject merchandise. Arvedi indicated in its substantive response that it no longer produces the merchandise subject to this order. Therefore, Arvedi is not an interested party in accordance with 771(9)(A) of the Act. 2 On June 29 and July 5, 2006, the Department received a substantive response and rebuttal comments, respectively, from IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, Koppel Steel (NS Group), Maverick Tube Corporation, Newport Steel (NS Group), V&M Star LP. On July 3 and July 14, 2006, the Department received a substantive response and rebuttal comments, respectively, from United States Steel Corporation. In addition to meeting the other requirements of section 351.218(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, the GOI provided information on the volume and value of exports of subject merchandise to the United States. Further, Dalmine reported exports of zero during the period of this sunset review (January 2001 through December 2005). The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary “normally will conclude that respondent interested parties have provided adequate response to a notice of initiation where it receives complete substantive responses . . . from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 percent, on a volume basis (or value, if appropriate), of the total exports of subject merchandise to the United States over the five calender years preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation.” ( *See* 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A)). Dalmine's exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period 2001 - 2005 did not account for more than 50 percent of total exports of subject merchandise. As such, the Department found the respondents' responses to be inadequate and therefore, has conducted an expedited sunset review of the countervailing duty order, 3 pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department notified the ITC that respondent interested parties provided inadequate response to the notice of Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review. 4 3 *See* July 21, 2006 Memorandum from the sunset team to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, through Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, *Adequacy Determination: Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Italy (Second Review)* 4 *See* July 25, 2006 letter to Robert Carpenter, Director, Office of Investigations, ITC, from Edward C. Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator, AD/CVD Operations, Office of China/NME Compliance, Import Administration. On October 2, 2006, the Department extended the deadline to issue the final results to December 19, 2006, in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and 751(c)(5)(C) of the Act. *See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Italy: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of Countervailing Duty Order* , 71 FR 57922 (October 2, 2006). On November 8 and 10, 2006, the Department conducted verification in Italy of the GOI's and Dalmine's substantive responses. On November 17, 2006, the Department issued verification reports on GOI and Dalmine. *See* November 17, 2006 memoranda to the file *Countervailing Duty Sunset Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Italy: Verification of the Government of Italy's
(GOI)Substantive Questionnaire Response* and *Countervailing Duty Sunset Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Italy: Verification of Dalmine's Sales and Substantive Questionnaire Response* . On November 27, 2006, the Department received comments from the GOI regarding the verification report. The Department did not receive comments from other interested parties. Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are oil country tubular goods, hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing, tubing, and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute
(API)or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.21.30.00, 7403.21.60.00, 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in substantive responses and in comments on the verification reports by parties in this sunset review are addressed in the *Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Italy* , from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 29, 2006 ( *Decision Memo* ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in Room B-099, the Central Records Unit, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the *Decision Memo* can be accessed directly on the Department's Web page at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn* . The paper copy and electronic version of the *Decision Memo* are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on OCTG from Italy would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. As a result, we are revoking this order effective July 25, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the notice of continuation of the CVD order on OCTG from Italy. *See Continuation of Orders* . We will notify the ITC of these results. Furthermore, we intend to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 15 days after the publication of this notice, to terminate suspension of liquidation, effective July 25, 2006. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: December 18, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22077 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of application. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification is sought and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five
(5)copies, plus two
(2)copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-B H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 06-00003.” A summary of the application follows. Summary of the Application *Applicant:* American Sugar Alliance (“ASA”). 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600. Arlington, VA 22201. *Contact:* Robert C. Cassidy, Jr. Counsel for ASA. *Telephone:*
(202)663-6740. *Application No.:* 06-00003. *Date Deemed Submitted:* December 14, 2006, Members (in addition to applicant) *ASA Executive Committee:* American Sugarbeet Growers Association, American Sugar Cane League, Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc., Gay & Robinson, Inc., Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co., Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers Inc., Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, U.S. Beet Sugar Association, and *Sugar Beet Processors and Cane Sugar Refiners (“Producers”):* Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC (owned by Snake River Sugar Company), American Sugar Refining Inc. (owned by Florida Crystals Corporation and the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida), American Crystal Sugar Company and Sidney Sugars (a subsidiary of American Crystal Sugar Company), Florida Crystals Corporation, Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company, Imperial Sugar Company, Michigan Sugar Company, Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative and Spreckels Sugar Company (a subsidiary of Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative), U.S. Sugar Corporation, Western Sugar Cooperative and Wyoming Sugar Company LLC. Under the proposed Export Trade Certificate of Review, ASA would allocate Certificates of Prior Approval (“CPAs”) to Producers, permitting duty-free entry of U.S. sugar into Mexico under the tariff-rate quota (“TRQ”) for U.S.-origin sugar. ASA seeks an Export Trade Certificate of Review to cover the following specific Export Trade, Export Markets, and Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation. Export Trade Products *U.S.-origin sugar and syrups meeting the following definitions:* H.S. Code Description 1701.11.01 Sugar, with a dry sucrose content that has polarization of 99.4 but not exceeding 99.5 degrees. 1701.11.02 Sugar, with a dry sucrose content that has polarization of 96 but not exceeding 99.4 degrees. 1701.11.03 Sugar, with a dry sucrose content that has polarization of 96 degrees. 1701.12.01 Sugar, with a dry sucrose content that has polarization of 99.4 but not exceeding 99.5 degrees. 1701.12.02 Sugar, with a dry sucrose content that has polarization of 96 but not exceeding 99.4 degrees. 1701.12.03 Sugar, with a dry sucrose content that has polarization of 96 degrees. 1701.91.01 Containing added flavoring or coloring matter. 1701.99.01 Sugar, with a dry sucrose content that has polarization of 99.5 but not exceeding 99.7 degrees. 1701.99.02 Sugar, with a dry sucrose content that has polarization of 99.7 but not exceeding 99.9 degrees. 1701.99.99 Others. 1701.90.01 Refined liquid sugar and inverted sugar. 1806.10.01 With a sugar content weighting not less than 90%. 2106.90.05 Flavored syrups or with added coloring matters (except syrups which have a sugar content less than 90%). Export Markets U.S.-origin sugar for which Certificates of Prior Approval (“CPAs”) are allocated will be exported only to Mexico. Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation The ASA will allocate CPAs to any Producer that requests CPAs. CPA Administration The ASA will allocate all CPAs at one time. In the event that any CPAs are returned to ASA for any reason, ASA will reallocate those CPAs among interested Producers. Certificate System Under the procedures for the TRQ published on October 16, 2006, in the Mexican Diario Oficial, an importer in Mexico must file with the Mexican Government a CPA issued by ASA to obtain a license to allow U.S.-origin sugar to enter into Mexico free of duty under the TRQ. The ASA shall allocate CPAs among all Producers who express an interest in obtaining the CPAs, based on each Producer's share of total U.S. sugar refining capacity in 2006, as reported to ASA. The ASA shall issue CPAs to such Producers. CPAs issued by ASA shall be freely transferable by Producers. Transfers of CPAs after they are issued by ASA will be subject to the normal application of antitrust laws. Confidential Information Each Member may provide to the ASA information regarding its capacity to produce refined sugar in the United States for the purpose of calculating the allocation of CPAs. Allocation of CPAs will not involve any agreement or exchange of sensitive information among Members. Annual U.S. refining capacity information is currently available to the ASA, and no further information should be necessary. If additional information should be required, and this information is non-public, company-specific business information, ASA shall consider the information to be “confidential”, and ASA shall maintain its confidentiality. ASA shall not disclose this confidential information to any party other than the submitter, or to any officers, agents, or employees of any party other than the submitter, and shall not disclose confidential information to any other person except to another neutral third party as necessary to make the determination for which the information was submitted, to allocate CPAs, or in connection with reports to the Department of Commerce as required by the Export Trade Certificate of Review or the arbitration of a dispute. Cooperation With the U.S. and Mexican Governments The ASA will consult with the U.S. Government and the Government of Mexico when necessary and provide to them whatever information may be useful in order to facilitate cooperation between the governments concerning the implementation and operation of the CPA System. Furthermore, directly or through the U.S. Government, the ASA will endeavor to accommodate any information requests from the Government of Mexico (while protecting confidential information entrusted to the ASA), and will consult with the Government of Mexico as appropriate. Dated: December 19, 2006. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-22053 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration The President's Export Council: Meeting of the President's Export Council AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. SUMMARY: The President's Export Council
(PEC)will hold a full Council meeting to discuss topics related to export expansion. The meeting will include discussion of trade priorities and initiatives, PEC subcommittee activity, and proposed letters of recommendation to the President. The PEC was established on December 20, 1973, and reconstituted May 4, 1979, to advise the President on matters relating to U.S. trade. It was most recently renewed by Executive Order 13316. *Date:* January 18, 2007. *Time:* 10 a.m. (EST). *Location:* U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4832, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Because of building security, all non-government attendees must pre-register. Please RSVP to the PEC Executive Secretariat no later than January 12, 2007, to J. Marc Chittum, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone
(202)482-1124, or e-mail *Marc.Chittum@mail.doc.gov.* This program will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Seating is limited and will be on a first come, first served basis. Requests for sign language interpretation, other auxiliary aids, or pre-registration, should be submitted no later than January 12, 2007, to J. Marc Chittum, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone
(202)482-1124, or e-mail *Marc.Chittum@mail.doc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The President's Export Council Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (phone: 202-482-1124), or visit the PEC Web site, *http://www.trade.gov/pec.* Dated: December 19, 2006. J. Marc Chittum, Staff Director and Executive Secretary, President's Export Council. [FR Doc. 06-9848 Filed 12-20-06; 10:35 am]
Connectionstraces to 26
Traces to 26 documents
U.S. Code
register
CFR
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Sunset reviews under section 751(c) of the Act.§ 351.218
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Period of investigation; requests for exclusions from countervailing duty orders based on investigations conducted on an aggregate basis.§ 351.204
- Time limits for submission of factual information.§ 351.301
- In general.§ 351.401
- Critical circumstances.§ 351.206
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Publishing notices in the Federal Register.§ 325.6
10 references not yet in our index
- 7 USC 1621-1627
- 7 CFR 36
- Pub. L. 108-278
- 19 USC 81a-81u
- 15 CFR 400
- 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
- 132 F. Supp. 2
- 117 F.3d 1401
- 44 F. Supp. 2d 229
- 15 USC 4001-21
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting
Cites 36 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources