Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-03-07 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Issuance of scientific research permits

32,871 words·~149 min read·/register/2007/03/07/07-1060

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

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-868) Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, 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)482-4243 or
(202)482-4551, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). This review covers the period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. The preliminary results of review are currently due no later than March 2, 2007. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Review Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the administrative review of folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC within this time limit. Specifically, due to complex issues related to the selection of surrogate values, we find that additional time is needed to complete these preliminary results. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 90 days until May 31, 2007. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 1, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4048 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-809] Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission and Intent To Rescind AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India manufactured by Echjay Forgings Ltd. (Echjay), Rollwell Forge, Ltd. (Rollwell), and Shree Ganesh Forgings, Ltd. (Shree Ganesh). The period of review
(POR)covers February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine that Echjay did not sell subject merchandise in the United States at less than normal value
(NV)during the POR. In addition, we preliminarily determine to apply an adverse facts available
(AFA)rate to Rollwell's sales. We also preliminarily determine that Shree Ganesh had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issues and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2924 or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* , 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994) ( *Amended Final Determination* ). On February 1, 2006, the Department published the *Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* for this order covering the POR. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, we received requests for an administrative review for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, from Echjay and Shree Ganesh. We also received requests for a new shipper review and, failing that, an administrative review, 1 from Kunj Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (Kunj), Micro Forge (India) Ltd. (Micro), Pradeep Metals Limited (Pradeep), and Rollwell Forge, Ltd. (Rollwell). On April 5, 2006, we initiated administrative reviews of the six companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006). 1 On April 6, 2006, the Department published a notice initiating new shipper reviews of Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell. *See Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews,* 71 FR 17439 (April 6, 2006). On September 29, 2006, we rescinded the new shipper reviews with respect to Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 57468 (September 29, 2006). On November 1, 2006, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review to February 28, 2007. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India* , 71 FR 64245 (November 1, 2006). Echjay On April 5, 2006, the Department issued its initial questionnaire to Echjay. Echjay submitted its section A response on May 8, 2006, and its section B and C responses on May 30, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire on November 1, 2006, to which Echjay responded on November 15, 2006. On December 27, 2006, Echjay submitted audited financial statements, revised section B and C data and calculations for fields that changed as a result of changes in the financial statement. On February 27, 2007, Echjay submitted a sales reconciliation. On December 21, 2006, Echjay requested revocation on the basis it had three years of zero or *de minimis* margins. Echjay also submitted the required certifications pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222. However, this request was filed nearly ten months after the deadline for filing such requests under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). This delay prevented the Department from timely notifying interested parties of Echjay's possible revocation, as well as planning and conducting verification, both of which are required by 19 CFR 351.222(f). The Department will not therefore entertain this request in this review. Rollwell The Department sent its questionnaires to Rollwell on April 5, 2006. Rollwell submitted its response to the section A questionnaire on May 8, 2006. It submitted its responses to sections B and C on May 31, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental section A, B, and C questionnaire to Rollwell on November 1, 2006. Rollwell submitted its response to that supplemental questionnaire on November 21, 2006. Rollwell also submitted a revised sales listings on December 14, 2006. On February 2, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Rollwell to which Rollwell submitted its response on February 12, 2007. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order. Intent To Rescind and Partial Rescission of the Administrative Review As previously stated, in their requests for review Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell requested a new shipper review, and failing that, an administrative review. Subsequent to initiating the new shipper reviews the Department conducted a data query of entry information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). We determined, based on our review of those data, that Micro and Pradeep 2 had no entries during the POR, and therefore do not qualify for an administrative review for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. *See* Memorandum to the File dated August 23, 2006. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on this determination and received no comments. We are therefore rescinding the administrative review with respect to Micro and Pradeep. 3 2 Micro and Pradeep are the subjects of a semi-annual new shipper review for the period February 1, 2006, through July 31, 2006. *See Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 59081 (October 6, 2006). 3 As previously indicated, we rescinded the new shipper reviews with respect to Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell for the period February 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. *See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of New Shipper Reviews,* 71 FR 57468 (September 29, 2006). With respect to Kunj, we determined that Kunj qualifies for a new shipper review for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. *See id.* Therefore, since we are conducting a new shipper review of Kunj for the period covered by this administrative review, we are rescinding the administrative review for Kunj pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j). With respect to Rollwell, we determined that Rollwell does not qualify for a new shipper review for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, but does qualify for an administrative review for the same period. *See id.* With respect to Shree Ganesh, this company submitted a section C response in which it claimed it had shipments to the United States during the POR. However, our data query showed no entries from this company during the POR. *See* Memorandum to the File dated June 30, 2006, titled “U.S. Entry Documents—Stainless Steel Flanges from India.” We are therefore issuing this notice as an intent to rescind the administrative review of Shree Ganesh based on the fact that the company had no entries during the POR of subject merchandise. We invite comments from interested parties on this intent to rescind. Rollwell Use of Adverse Facts Available In accordance with sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the Department has determined that the use of AFA is appropriate for purposes of determining the preliminary dumping margin for the subject merchandise sold by Rollwell. Pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and
(2)of the Tariff Act the Department shall (with certain exceptions not applicable here) use the facts otherwise available in reaching applicable determinations under this subtitle if an interested party
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administrating authority;
(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Tariff Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this subtitle; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i). *See* Tariff Act section 776(a)(2). Moreover, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides, in relevant part, that: If the administering authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be), in reaching the applicable determination under this subtitle, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. *Id.* As described below, we find that Rollwell has significantly impeded this proceeding by failing to provide usable data upon which we can calculate an antidumping margin. Moveover, we find that Rollwell has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. We therefore determine that the use of AFA is appropriate for these preliminary results. However, because of the unusual circumstances of this review with respect to Rollwell (notably the length of time it took to ascertain the appropriate U.S. sales to analyze), we have also determined to issue Rollwell another supplemental questionnaire to provide it with yet another opportunity to correct numerous deficiences in its responses. Based on its response to this supplemental questionnaire, we will consider calculating a margin for Rollwell for the final results of review. As previously stated, the Department sent standard section A, B, and C questionnaires to Rollwell on April 5, 2006. Rollwell submitted its response to the section A questionnaire on May 8, 2006. Rollwell submitted its responses to sections B and C on May 30, 2006. However, the Department found serious deficiencies in all three of these responses, and also found reason to question whether Rollwell had reported all of its U.S. sales, and whether any of those it did report were actual consumption entries during the POR. Therefore the Department sent a supplemental section A, B, and C questionnaire to Rollwell on November 1, 2006. Rollwell submitted its response to this supplemental questionnaire on November 21, 2006. However, upon examining Rollwell's response, the Department again found that there were grounds to question whether Rollwell had consumption entries during the POR that would qualify Rollwell for an administrative review. The Department accordingly made a telephonic inquiry to Rollwell's counsel to discuss the likelihood of any additional U.S. sales. In response, Rollwell submitted a revised U.S. sales listing on December 14, 2006. The Department found there were reviewable U.S. sales in this listing which Rollwell had not reported earlier, but also found substantial discrepancies in the submission with respect to reported cost data. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire on February 2, 2007, including a request that Rollwell respond to section D of the April 5, 2006, questionnaire. Rollwell submitted its response on February 12, 2007. Upon reviewing the various submissions Rollwell has made during the POR, the Department has determined that the deficiencies in Rollwell's submitted data (described below) are so pervasive that the Department cannot rely upon Rollwell's data to calculate a margin. Furthermore, by repeatedly providing deficient responses Rollwell has failed to act to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for information. Rollwell had two shipments of subject flanges that entered the United States during the POR. Rollwell sold both of these shipments prior to the POR, but the shipments entered U.S. Customs territory during the POR. However, Rollwell did not report these U.S. sales until it made its December 14, 2006, submission, after the Department had prompted it a second time to search among its records for any U.S. shipments it may have had that would qualify for review. Furthermore, Rollwell did not report the home market sales contemporaneous with the U.S. sales until it responded to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire issued February 2, 2007. The Department had previously stated the need to report any contemporaneous home market sales in its original April 5, 2006, questionnaire and again in its November 1, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. Furthermore, the Department found Rollwell's allocation method for the costs it reported on its home market and U.S. sales listings to be inadequate because it was dependent upon estimated data rather than actual data. This inadequacy made it impossible for us to rely upon these costs in performing the twenty percent difference-in-merchandise test for purposes of determining the most suitable home market match for U.S. sales. Furthermore, when Rollwell submitted its section D response we found its reported raw material costs to be aberrational. Moreover, Rollwell did not submit a home market sales reconciliation, as requested in the April 5, 2006, questionnaire and again in the February 2, 2007, supplemental questionnaire. Thus, it has withheld information requested by the Department. *See* section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. For further examples and more specific information about the deficiencies, *see* Corroboration Memorandum, February 28, 2007. In light of the foregoing deficiencies, the Department preliminarily determines that necessary information is not available on the record to serve as the basis for the calculation of Rollwell's margin. *See* section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act. We also determine that Rollwell withheld requested information and has significantly impeded this proceeding. *See* section 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Tariff Act. As a result, we are basing Rollwell's margin on the facts otherwise available, in accordance with sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A) and
(C)of the Tariff Act. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice From Brazil* , 71 FR 2183 (January 13, 2006). *See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002); *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From Brazil* , 65 FR 5554, 5567 (Feb. 4, 2000); *Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value* , 63 FR 8909 (Feb. 23, 1998). If the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as the facts otherwise available. *See* section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See Statement of Administrative Action*
(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreement Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2nd Session, Vol. 1
(1994)at 870. In determining whether a respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department need not make a determination regarding the willfulness of a respondent's conduct. *See Nippon Steel Corp.* v. *United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1379-1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties:* Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). In determining whether a party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, the Department considers whether a party could comply with the request for information, and whether a party paid insufficient attention to its statutory duties. *See Pacific Giant Inc.* v. *United States* , 223 F. Supp 2d 1336, 1342-43 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, the Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of submitted information, and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. *See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997). The Department determines that Rollwell could comply with its requests for information but failed to do so, thereby failing to act to the best of its ability. Here, the Department finds that Rollwell has failed to provide relevant U.S. and home market sales until after it was prompted twice to do so following issuance of the original questionnaire, and has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins by failing to provide usable cost data in its sales listings and section D response. Under the statutory scheme, adverse inferences may include reliance on: Information derived from
(1)the petition;
(2)a final determination in the investigation;
(3)any previous review or determination; or
(4)any other information placed on the record. *See* section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. The SAA authorizes the Department to consider the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation. *Id.* The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse to induce the respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002). Because entries into the United States by Rollwell are currently subject to the “All Others” cash deposit rate of 162.14 percent, the Department determines that assigning the highest margin from the original petition and investigation in this case, 210.00 percent, as AFA will prevent Rollwell from benefitting from its failure to cooperate with the Department's requests for information. *See Amended Final Determination.* Furthermore, a lower rate would effectively reward Rollwell for not cooperating by not acting to the best of its ability. Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. *See SAA* at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. To assess the reliability of the petition margin in accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the calculations of export price and normal value upon which the margins in the petition were based. (For discussion of “reliance on secondary information,” standard under section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, please *see* Corroboration Memorandum.) The U.S. prices in the petition were based upon quotes to U.S. customers, most of which were obtained through market research. *See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties* , December 29, 1993. The Department was able to corroborate the U.S. price in the petition which was used as the basis of the 210.00 percent rate by comparing this price to publicly available information based on IM-145 import statistics from the U.S. International Trade Commission's Web site via Dataweb for HTS numbers 7307215000 and 7307211000. The NVs in the petition were based on actual price quotations obtained through market research. At present, the Department is not aware of other independent sources of information at its disposal which would enable it to corroborate the margin calculations in the petition further. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances which would render a margin not relevant. The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Tariff Act, codified at 19 CFR 351.308(d), states, “{t}he fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using the secondary information in question.” Additionally, the SAA at 870 states specifically that, where “corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance,” the Department may nevertheless apply an adverse inference. The SAA at 869 emphasizes that the Department need not prove that the facts available are the best alternative information. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. *See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) (the Department disregarded the highest dumping margin as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). The rate to which Rollwell's entries are currently subject is 162.14 percent. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55796 (August 30, 2002). Accordingly, the Department will apply a 210 percent AFA rate, a rate which the Department finds is sufficiently adverse to encourage Rollwell to provide the Department with complete and accurate information. Furthermore, the Department is not aware of any circumstances which would render this rate inappropriate. In fact, other Indian manufacturers currently have a 210 percent margin under this order. *See e.g., Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 29314, (May 22, 2006). Therefore, based on the Department's efforts described above to corroborate information contained in the petition, and in accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act which discusses facts available and corroboration, the Department considers the margins in the petition to be corroborated to the extent practicable for purposes of this preliminary determination. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 76, 84 (January 4, 1999). Date of Sale In determining the appropriate date of sale, the Department normally uses the date of invoice as the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i); *see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.* v. *United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (CIT 2001). Moreover, the preamble to the Department's regulations expresses a strong preference for the Department to choose a single date of sale across the full POR. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27349 (May 19, 1997). For these preliminary results, the Department will use the invoice date as the appropriate date of sale for the POR for Echjay, because this date best represents the date upon which the material terms of sale are set. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States by Echjay were made at less than NV, we compared constructed export price
(CEP)to the NV (as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below). In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, the Department calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the prices of individual EP or CEP transactions. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, the Department considered all products described by the Scope of the Order section, above, produced and sold by Echjay in the home market to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparing to U.S. sales, the Department compared these sales to constructed value (CV), pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Tariff Act. Export Price and Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, EP is defined as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections
(c)and (d). Based on the record evidence, the Department preliminarily determines that Echjay's U.S. sales, all of which were through its U.S. affiliate Echjay U.S.A., Inc., to unaffiliated customers in the United States were made in the United States within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Tariff Act and thus are properly classified as CEP sales. The Department calculated CEP based on the prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department based CEP on the packed CIF duty paid prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. The Department made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, including foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance. The Department also deducted those selling expenses incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , bank commissions and charges, documentation fees) and imputed credit. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act, the Department deducted an amount for profit allocated to the expenses deducted pursuant to sections 772(d)(1) and
(2)of the Tariff Act. *See* Analysis Memorandum for more details. Duty Drawback Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that EP or CEP shall be increased by among other things, “the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States.” The Department determines that an adjustment to U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when a company can demonstrate that there is
(i)a sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, and
(ii)sufficient imports of the imported material inputs to account for the duty drawback received for the export of the manufactured product (the so-called “two-prong test”). *See Rajinder Pipes, Ltd.* v. *United States* , 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1999). Echjay claimed it received duty drawback from the Indian government which it books in an “Export Incentives Ledger.” *See* Echjay's Section C Response at Annexure I. The Department finds that Echjay has not provided substantial evidence on the record to meet the requirement of the first prong of the two-prong test, to wit, to establish the necessary link between the import duty and the reported rebate for duty drawback. Even if Echjay provided evidence demonstrating that it received duty drawback in the form of certificates issued by the Government of India and recorded them in a particular category of the ledger, Echjay has failed to establish the sufficient link between the import duty paid and the rebate given by the Government of India. Echjay's response suggests that much of the duty drawback certificate program has no bearing on home market import duties of any kind. Therefore, the Department is denying a duty drawback credit for the preliminary results of this review. Normal Value In determining NV, the statute requires the Department to determine the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or constructed export price. In order to determine whether there is sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), the Department compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. The Department found no reason to determine that quantity was not the appropriate basis for these comparisons, so value was not used. *See* section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act; *see also* 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2). Therefore, the Department based NV for Echjay on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. The Department based its comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales to the volume of home market and third country sales on reported stainless steel flange weight, rather than on number of pieces. The record demonstrates that there can be large differences between the weight (and corresponding cost and price) of stainless steel flanges based on relative sizes, so comparisons of aggregate data would be distorted for these products if volume comparisons were based on the number of pieces. Price-to-Price Comparisons The statue requires the Department to determine whether subject merchandise is being, or is likely to be, sold at less than fair value by making a fair comparison between the EP or CEP and NV under section 773 of the Tariff Act. For Echjay, the Department compared its U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in India. As noted, the Department considered stainless steel flanges identical based on the following five criteria: Grade; type; size; pressure rating; and finish. The Department used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise (difmer) cost deviation cap as the maximum difference in cost allowable for similar merchandise, which we calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the U.S. and comparison market variable costs of manufacturing divided by the total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product. The Department made adjustments for differences in packing costs between the two markets and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Tariff Act. The Department adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale
(COS)pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Finally, for Echjay the Department made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or United States where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the “commission offset”). Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, the Department bases NV on CV if it is unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match for the U.S. sale. Where the Department based NV on CV, CV is calculated based on the cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and profit. In accordance with section 772(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, the Department bases SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, the Department uses the weighted-average comparison market selling expenses. Where appropriate, the Department has made COS adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, the Department has made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, the Department determines NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP, the Department examines stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer, for example channels of distribution processing, packing and shipping. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the Department makes a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, the Department adjusts NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP-offset provision). *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,* 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). In implementing these principles in this review, the Department obtained information from Echjay about the marketing stages involved in its U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities in the respective markets. In identifying levels of trade for CEP, the Department considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. *See Micron Technology* v. *United States,* 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports differences in levels of trade, the functions and activities should be dissimilar. Echjay reported one channel of distribution and one LOT in the home market, contending that home market sales to distributors and wholesalers were made at the same level of trade and involved the same selling activities. *See* Echjay's Section A Response at 13-15. In fact, all merchandise for both Echjay was sold in the home market on *ex works* terms. *See, e.g.* , Echjay's Section B Response at 7. After examining the record evidence provided, the Department preliminarily determines that a single LOT exists for Echjay in the home market. The record evidence supports a finding that in both markets and in all channels of distribution, Echjay performs essentially the same level of selling activities such as order processing, shipping and invoicing of sales, and processing of payments. Thus, with respect to selling functions for sales, marketing support, freight, and delivery, we find them to be similar. Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed on CEP sales in the United States and of sales in the home market, the Department determines that the CEP and the starting price of home market sales represent the same stage in the marketing process and are thus at the same LOT. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily finds that no level of trade adjustment or CEP offset is appropriate for Echjay. Currency Conversions The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review the Department preliminarily finds the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Echjay Forgings, Pvt. Ltd 0.06 Rollwell Forge, Ltd 210.00 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results. *See* CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 309(d), rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 5 days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument:
(1)A statement of the issue;
(2)a brief summary of the argument; and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests parties submitting written comments to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Notice of Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties,* 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) ( *Assessment-Policy Notice* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Echjay and Rollwell for which Echjay and Rollwell, respectively, did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary ( *e.g.* , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 162.14 percent all-others rate established in the original less than fair value
(LTFV)investigation, if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See* the Assessment-Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of the administrative review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);
(2)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
(3)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India,* 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994) ( *Amended Final Determination* ). Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4072 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-848 Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Notice of Intent to Rescind New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) in response to requests from Nanjing Merry Trading Co., Ltd. (“Nanjing Merry”), Leping Lotai Foods Co., Ltd. (“Leping Lotai”), Weishan Hongrun Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. (“Weishan Hongrun”), and Shanghai Strong International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Strong”). The period of review (“POR”) is September 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. Because the sale(s) made by Weishan Hongrun were not bona fide, and neither Leping Lotai, Nanjing Merry, nor Shanghai Strong have demonstrated that they qualify for a separate rate, we have preliminarily determined that each of these new shipper reviews should be rescinded. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary notice of intent to rescind. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or P. Lee Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1386 or
(202)482-1655, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department received timely requests for new shipper reviews from Shanghai Strong on March 24, 2006, from Nanjing Merry and Leping Lotai on March 27, 2006, and from Weishan Hongrun on March 31, 2006. *See Notice of Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 62 FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). The Department determined that the requests made by Nanjing Merry, Leping Lotai, and Weishan Hongrun met the requirements stated in section 351.214 of the Department's regulations. On May 5, 2006, the Department published its initiation of these new shipper reviews for the period September 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 26453 (May 5, 2006) (“ *May 5, 2006, Initiation Notice* ”). On May 1, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the time limit to initiate the new shipper review of Shanghai Strong by 30 days in order to provide the respondent with an opportunity to explain certain information in the entry documentation. On May 31, 2006, the Department determined that Shanghai Strong's request also met the requirements stated in section 351.214 of the Department's regulations, and published its initiation of this new shipper review. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 71 FR 30866 (May 31, 2006) (“ *May 31, 2006, Initiation Notice* ”). The Department received section A questionnaire responses from Leping Lotai on June 3, 2006; Weishan Hongrun on June 5, 2006; Nanjing Merry on June 6, 2006; and from Shanghai Strong on June 15, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Leping Lotai on June 16, 2006, and received a response on June 28, 2006. The Department also received section C and D questionnaire responses from Weishan Hongrun on June 22, 2006; from Leping Lotai and Nanjing Merry on June 27, 2006; and from Shanghai Strong on June 30, 2006. On July 7, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Shanghai Strong, and received a response from the company on July 20, 2006. On July 26, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A, C, and D questionnaire to Nanjing Merry, and received the company's response on August 22, 2006. On August 1, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section C and D questionnaire to Shanghai Strong and Leping Lotai, to which both companies submitted a response on August 10, 2006. Additionally, on August 4, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A, C and D questionnaire to Weishan Hongrun, to which both companies submitted responses on September 1, 2006. On September 25, 2006, Nanjing Merry submitted a letter in which it stated it would no longer participate in the new shipper review and would not permit the verification of the information it had already placed on the record of its new shipper review. On October 2, 2006, Shanghai Strong and Leping Lotai also submitted letters indicating that neither company would permit the verification of the information each placed on the record of its new shipper review. On October 11, 2006, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results of the Leping Lotai, Nanjing Merry, and Weishan Hongrun new shipper reviews by 90 days from the original October 25, 2006, deadline. In addition, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of the Shanghai Strong new shipper review by 65 days from the original November 19, 2006, deadline. Therefore, the preliminary results for all four of the above-referenced new shipper reviews were extended until January 23, 2007. *See Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 59738 (October 11, 2006). Moreover, On October 11, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Weishan Hongrun, to which the Department received a response on November 1, 2006. On November 3, 2006, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Weishan Hongrun. On November 22, 2006, the Department rejected Weishan Hongrun's November 21, 2006, response based on certain filing inadequacies, but provided the company with an opportunity to correct the submission by November 27, 2006. On November 27, 2006, Weishan Hongrun submitted its response to question number 17 of the Department's November 3, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, and on November 28, 2006, Weishan Hongrun submitted its response to the remaining questions. On November 28, 2006, the Department issued its fourth supplemental questionnaire to Weishan Hongrun requesting, in part, that the company submit information which had been previously requested by the Department. On December 8, 2006, Weishan Hongrun submitted its response to the Department's November 28, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On December 15, 2006, the Department further extended the deadline for the preliminary results of the Leping Lotai, Nanjing Merry, Weishan Hongrun and Shanghai Strong new shipper reviews by an additional 30 days from the January 23, 2007, deadline until February 22, 2007. *See Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 75502 (December 15, 2006). Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The product covered by this order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by the U.S. Customs Service in 2000, and HTSUS items 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Preliminary Intent to Rescind Concurrent with this notice, we are issuing our memoranda detailing our analysis of the *bona fides* of Weishan Hongrun's U.S. sale and our preliminary decision to rescind based on the totality of the circumstances of the sale. *See* Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot Fullerton, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding *2005/2006 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Weishan Hongrun Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.* (February 22, 2007) (“ *Weishan Hongrun Memo* ”). Although much of the information relied upon by the Department to analyze the issues is business proprietary, the Department based its determination that the new shipper sale made by Weishan Hongrun was not *bona fide* on the following: 1) the quantity and price of Hongrun's single sale; 2) the unreported business relationships/potential affiliations between Hongrun and other crawfish tail meat producers; 3) Hongrun's failure to establish the source of the initial investment capital used to form Hongrun; and finally, 4) the lack or regular commercial interest in the subject merchandise, and the circumstances surrounding the resale of the single POR sale. Because the Department has found Weishan Hongrun's sale to be non- *bona fide* , it is not subject to review. *See Weishan Hongrun Memo* . Weishan Hongrun only made a single, non-bona fide sale during the POR. Therefore, the Department intends to rescind its new shipper review because there are no reviewable sales during the POR. *See e.g., Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1249 (CIT 2005). Additionally, as referenced above, Leping Lotai, Nanjing Merry, and Shanghai Strong all submitted letters to the Department indicating they would not permit verification of the information placed on the record of the reviews. By not permitting the Department to verify the accuracy of the information each submitted to the Department, Leping Lotai, Nanjing Merry, and Shanghai Strong each failed to establish that they qualify for a separate rate. *See* Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton and Prentiss Lee Smith, Case Analysts, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, regarding *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from The People's Republic of China: Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of Leping Lotai Foods Co.* (February 22, 2007); Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton and Prentiss Lee Smith, Case Analysts, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, regarding *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from The People's Republic of China: Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of Nanjing Merry Trading Co., Ltd.* (February 22, 2007); Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton and Prentiss Lee Smith, Case Analysts, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, regarding *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from The People's Republic of China: Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of Shanghai Strong International Trading Co., Ltd.* (February 22, 2007). To establish whether a company operating in a non market economy (“NME”) is sufficiently independent from the Government to be eligible for a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. By failing to allow the Department to verify the accuracy of their submissions, Leping Lotai, Nanjing Merry, and Shanghai Strong, have not demonstrated they are free of government control and are therefore not eligible to receive a separate rate. In the Notices of Initiation, the Department stated that an exporter unable to demonstrate the company's eligibility for a separate rate does not meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii) and its new shipper review will be rescinded. *See May 5, 2006, Initiation Notice* at 26454; *see also May 31, 2006, Initiation Notice* at 30866. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily rescinding the new shipper reviews of Leping Lotai, Nanjing Merry, and Shanghai Strong. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Rescission of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 53669 (September 2, 2004); *see also Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 61581 (November 12, 1999). Schedule for Final Results of Review Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and,
(3)to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. If a hearing is held, an interested party must limit its presentation only to arguments raised in its briefs. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days from the date of the preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended. Notification This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO material 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 sanctions. These new shipper reviews and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 22, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4068 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-357-812, A-570-863] Honey From Argentina and the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and the People's Republic of China
(PRC)pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and no response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these antidumping duty orders. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels identified below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Deborah Scott, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7 (Argentina), Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9
(PRC)or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-2657,
(202)482-3207 or
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Background On November 1, 2006, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. *See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 64242 (November 1, 2006). The Department received notices of intent to participate from two domestic interested parties, American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association (collectively, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of a domestic like product and under section 771(9)(E) as a trade association whose members produce the domestic like product in the United States. We received complete substantive responses from domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not receive any responses from any respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these orders. Scope of the Orders For purposes of these orders, the products covered are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise covered by these orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these cases are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 1, 2007 (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Sunset Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on honey from Argentina and the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins: Manufacturers/exporters/producers Weighted-average margin (percent) *Argentina:* Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas
(ACA)37.44 Radix S.R.L. (Radix) 32.56 ConAgra Argentina 60.67 All Others 35.76 *PRC:* Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corporation 57.13 Kunshan Foreign Trading Co 49.60 Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import and Export Corp 25.88 High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp 45.46 Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd 45.46 Anhui Native Produce Import and Export Corporation 45.46 Henan Native Produce Import and Export Corporation 45.46 PRC-Wide rate 183.80 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 1, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4052 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-810) Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from India. The period of review is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. This review covers imports of stainless steel bar from eight producers/exporters. We preliminarily find that sales of the subject merchandise have been made below normal value. In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual review, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin for those companies for which a review was requested, but that were not selected for individual review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holland or Brandon Farlander, 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)482-1279 or
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 21, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar (“SSB”) from India. *See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar form Brazil, India and Japan* , 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 1995). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** providing an opportunity for interested parties to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSB from India for the period of review (“POR”), February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 4, 2006, we received a timely request for review from Isibars Limited (“Isibars”). On February 28, 2005, Carpenter Technology Corporation, Crucible Specialty Metals, a division of Crucible Materials Corporation, Electralloy Company, North American Stainless, Universal Stainless, and Valbruna Slater Stainless (collectively, the “petitioners”) requested an administrative review of 9 companies: the Viraj Group, including but necessarily limited to Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (“VAL”), Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (“VFL”), Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd. (“VIL”), Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd.; 1 Akai Asian (“Akai”); Atlas Stainless (“Atlas”); Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. (“Bhansali”); Grand Foundry, Ltd. (“Grand Foundry”); Meltroll Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (“Meltroll”); Sindia Steels Limited (“Sindia”); Snowdrop Trading Pvt. Ltd. (“Snowdrop”); and Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (“Venus”). On February 28, 2006, we received timely review requests from Facor Steels, Ltd. (“Facor”), and Mukand Ltd. (“Mukand”). 1 For this **Federal Register** notice, we use the terms “Viraj,” “the Viraj Group” and “the Viraj entities” interchangeably. On April 5, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), we initiated an administrative review on Akai Asian, Atlas, Bhansali, Facor, Grand Foundry, Isibars, Meltroll, Mukand, Sindia, Snowdrop, Venus, and conditionally initiated an administrative review with respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd., (collectively, the “Viraj entities”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006) (“Initiation Notice”). For further discussion of the Department's treatment of the Viraj entities in this administrative review, please see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice. In April 2006, we requested information concerning the quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 12 producers/exporters listed in the *Initiation Notice* . The Department received responses from all of the exporters/producers in April and May of 2006. Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll notified the Department that they had no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On June 7, 2006, the Department determined that it was not practicable to make individual antidumping duty findings for each of the 12 companies involved in this administrative review. Therefore, we selected Venus and Bhansali (collectively, “the respondents”) for individual reviews. *See* Memorandum from Scott Holland to Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, “ *Stainless Steel Bar from India: Respondent Selection,” dated June 7, 2006, (“Respondent Selection Memorandum* ”) which is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) in room B-099 of the main Department building. For further discussion see the “Respondent Selection” section below. On June 8, 2006, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the respondents. At that time, we instructed each of the respondents to respond to the cost section of the questionnaire because we had disregarded certain below-cost sales in the most recently completed review in which the companies participated. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review* , 64 FR 13771 (March 22, 1999) (Bhansali); *see also Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 47543 (August 11, 2003) (Venus). The respondents submitted their initial responses to the antidumping questionnaire from July 2006 through August 2006. After analyzing these responses, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents to clarify or correct information contained in the initial questionnaire responses. We received timely responses to these questionnaires. The petitioners submitted comments on the questionnaire responses in August, September and October 2006. On October 20, 2006, the Department found that, due to the complexity of the issues in this case, including affiliation and cost of production, and outstanding supplemental responses, it was not practicable to complete this review within the time period prescribed. Accordingly, we extended the time limit for completing the preliminary results of this review to no later than February 28, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 61958 (October 20, 2006). In January 2007, we requested comments from interested parties regarding the proper hierarchical order of one the model matching characteristics as described in the “Fair Value Comparisons” section, below. On February 12, 2007, we received comments from petitioners. We received no other comments. Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. SSB includes cold-finished SSBs that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process. Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut-to-length flat-rolled products ( *i.e.* , cut-to-length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), wire ( *i.e.* , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes, and sections. The SSB subject to these reviews is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. On May 23, 2005, the Department issued a final scope ruling that SSB manufactured in the United Arab Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod from India is not subject to the scope of this order. *See* Memorandum from Team to Barbara E. Tillman, “ *Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from India: Final Scope Ruling* ,” dated May 23, 2005, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. *See also Notice of Scope Rulings* , 70 FR 55110 (September 20, 2005). Selection of Respondents Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department the discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of subject merchandise, this provision permits the Department to review either:
(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or
(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. Responses to the Department's information request were received in April through May 2006. After consideration of the data submitted, we selected the two largest exporters/producers of the subject merchandise, as explained in our *Respondent Selection Memorandum* . Therefore, for those companies for which a review was requested, but which were not selected for individual review, the Department has determined a review-specific weighted-average margin. The review-specific average rate for these companies can be found in the “Preliminary Results of the Review” section below. This is distinguished from the “All Others” rate, which is the weighted-average margin calculated in the investigation and which continues to apply to all exporters and producers which have not participated in a review. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 73437, 73440 (December 12, 2005) (“ *Softwood Lumber Final Results* ”). Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify sales information submitted by Bhansali in these proceedings to be used in making our final results. Due to resource and time constraints facing the Department, we will not verify Venus in this proceeding. Period of Review The POR is February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. Partial Rescission of Review In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that, although the Department revoked the order in part with respect to entries of the merchandise subject to the order produced and exported by Viraj (Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd.), the Department was conditionally initiating a review with respect to Viraj Alloys, Ltd., Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd., Viraj Forgings, Ltd., Viraj Smelting, Viraj Profiles, and VSL Wires, Ltd., pending further information from the requestor as to sales of subject merchandise not covered by the revocation. 2 2 The Department revoked the order in part, with respect to entries of merchandise subject to the order produced and exported by “Viraj,” a collapsed entity. Viraj included Viraj Alloys, Ltd.; Viraj Impoexpo, Ltd.; and Viraj Forgings, Ltd. The revocation was effective February 1, 2003. *See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination to Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 55409, 55410-11 (September 14, 2004). On April 6, 2006, the Department requested that, in light of the previous revocation determination, the petitioners clarify the specific producers or exporters for which they were seeking review and, for each company, whether they were requesting a review as to merchandise produced by that company, or only merchandise exported by that company. Moreover, the Department indicated that absent adequate clarification, it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to the Viraj Group. See Letter from Julie H. Santoboni, Program Manager, to the petitioners, dated April 6, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. On April 7, 2006, the petitioners responded to the Department's request for further information stating that they were seeking a review of any of the listed companies ( *i.e.* , the Viraj Group) in their capacity as either a producer or exporter (or both, with the exception of VAL, VIL, and VFL) of merchandise subject to the order during the POR. Furthermore, the petitioners urged the Department to seek information as to whether the named companies shipped merchandise subject to the order to the United States during the POR. The petitioners also referred to the changes in operation among the various Viraj entities that the Department recognized in pre-revocation reviews. Therefore, in light of the revocation and the petitioners' request, we determined that it was appropriate to ascertain whether there were suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order during the POR from the Viraj entities. We examined shipment data obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and placed these data on the record on May 9, 2006. *See* Memorandum from Team to the File, “ *U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data* ,” dated May 9, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. Based on this information, we determined that there are no suspended entries of merchandise subject to the order involving any of the Viraj entities for the POR. *See* Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, Office Director to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, “ *2005-2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Bar from India - Rescission of Review of the Viraj Group Companies* ,” dated May 18, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. Accordingly, on May 24, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** its intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities. *See Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice of Intent to Partially Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 29916 (May 24, 2006). We invited interested parties to comment on this notice. No comments were received. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the administrative review with respect to the Viraj entities and will issue appropriate appraisement instructions to CBP within 15 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Intent to Rescind Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an administrative review with respect to a particular exporter or producer if it concludes that during the period of review there were “no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise.” Accordingly, the Department requires that there be entries during the POR upon which to assess antidumping duties, to conduct an administrative review. As noted in the “Background” section above, Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll each indicated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department examined CBP data to confirm whether these companies shipped subject merchandise during the POR. After reviewing the data, we confirmed that the CBP data showed no entries of subject merchandise to the United States from these companies during the POR. *See* Memorandum from Team to the File, “ *Stainless Steel Bar from India: No Shipments During the Period of Review* ,” dated May 26, 2006, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to Akai, Atlas, and Meltroll. Affiliation On February 28, 2007, the Department determined that Venus and exporter Precision Metals are affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, and also that the two companies should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of this administrative review. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the companies should receive a single antidumping duty rate. See Memorandum from Scott Holland to Susan H. Kuhbach, Senior Office Director, “ *Relationship of Venus Wire Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Precision Metals* ,” dated February 28, 2007, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of SSB from India to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (“EP”) to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold by the respondents in the comparison market covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondents' volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volumes of their U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. *See* the “Normal Value” section, below, for further details. We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to constructed value (“CV”). In making product comparisons, consistent with our determination in the original investigation, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order: type, grade, remelting process, finishing operation, shape, and size. *See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 59 FR 39733-35 (August 4, 1994); unchanged in the final. In the Department's standard questionnaire for these proceedings, all respondents are instructed to assign a unique code for each AISI grade of SSB sold in both the home and U.S. markets for matching purposes. There are 9 standard AISI grades listed in the questionnaire. Furthermore, respondents are instructed to assign a unique code for all additional AISI grades of SSB sold. In their initial responses to the Department's questionnaire, the respondents in this review reported that during the POR, they made sales of several AISI grades of SSB beyond the standard 9 AISI grades and correctly assigned a unique code for each additional grade. On September 28, 2006, we received comments from the petitioners arguing that, because the respondents did not properly order the additional grades in a hierarchical manner, the Department's model match program would select dissimilar grades of SSB instead of the most similar grades. Accordingly, the petitioners argued that the Department should itself assign the proper weight for these additional grades to ensure a proper hierarchical order for matching purposes. Moreover, the petitioners proposed their own hierarchical ordering of the grades. These comments led the Department to reconsider the weights assigned to the reported AISI grades. After consulting with Department experts, we instructed the respondents to re-order the grade hierarchy in their responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires and we assigned new weight codes for each reported grade. The Department also requested comments regarding the proper hierarchical ordering. *See* Letter from Brandon Farlander, Program Manager to Interested Parties, dated January 29, 2007, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. On February 12, 2007, we received comments from the petitioners regarding the proper order of one AISI grade. We did not receive comments from any other interested party. Therefore, for the preliminary results we are re-ordering the grade hierarchy and we are assigning new weight codes for each reported grade. Date of Sale Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale is normally the date of invoice unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the material terms of sale, price and quantity, are established on some other date. In its initial questionnaire responses, Venus reported its sales using invoice date as the date of sale. However, on November 30, 2006, the company requested that it be allowed to use purchase order date as the date of sale for both its U.S. and home market sales. Venus reported that no changes in the terms of sale occurred between the purchase order and the invoice date. In the U.S. market, Venus stated that all of its sales are made to order under contracts which can include a price adjustment factor reflecting market price changes for certain alloys used in the production of stainless steel bar. However, because the terms of the price adjustment are set in advance, there are no changes to the material terms of sale negotiated by the parties involved in the transaction after the purchase order date. Therefore, we instructed Venus to use the purchase order date as the date of sale. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico* , 64 FR 14872, 14880 (March 29, 1999), for an explanation of our practice in these circumstances. Furthermore, we instructed Venus to report the gross unit price on the invoice (inclusive of any surcharges) in the sales listings. Bhansali reported that the material terms of sale can change up until the date of the invoice. Therefore, we are using invoice date as the date of sale for Bhansali for both markets. Export Price For sales to the United States, we calculated EP, in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. We calculated EP for both Bhansali and Venus because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
(A)*Bhansali* We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid (“DDP”), cost, insurance, and freight (“CIF”), or cost and freight (“CFR”) price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Indian port, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, terminal handling charges and documentation fees. *See* Memorandum from Team to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd.,* ” dated February 28, 2007, (“ *Bhansali Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ”) which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building.
(B)*Venus* We based EP on the packed, DDP, or CIF price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Indian port, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, freight incurred in the United States, and U.S. customs duties. *See* Memorandum from Team to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.,* ” dated February 28, 2007, (“ *Venus Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ”) which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. Duty Drawback Bhansali and Venus claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on their participation in the Indian government's Duty Entitlement Passbook Program. Such adjustments are permitted under section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. The Department will grant a respondent's claim for a duty drawback adjustment where the respondent has demonstrated that there is
(1)a sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, and
(2)a sufficient amount of raw materials imported and used in the production of the final exported product. *See Rajinder Pipe Ltd. v. United States* ( *Rajinder Pipes* ), 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999) (“ *Rajinder Pipes* ”). In *Rajinder Pipes* , the Court of International Trade upheld the Department's decision to deny a respondent's claim for duty drawback adjustments because there was not substantial evidence on the record to establish that part one of the Department's test had been met. *See also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States* , 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (CIT August 15, 2001); and *Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, and Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 10666, 10671 (March 8, 2004). In this administrative review, Bhansali and Venus have failed to demonstrate that there is a link between the import duty paid and the rebate received, and that imported raw materials are used in the production of the final exported product. Therefore, because they have failed to meet the Department's requirements, we are denying the respondents' requests for a duty drawback adjustment. *See Bhansali Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Venus Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* for further details. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The Act contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Bhansali and Venus reported that their home market sales of SSB during the POR were more than five percent of their sales of SSB to the United States. Therefore, Bhansali's and Venus' home markets were viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, Bhansali and Venus reported their home market sales. To derive NV for the respondents, we made the adjustments detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” and “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” sections, below. B. Sales to Affiliated Customers Bhansali made one sale in the home market to an affiliated customer. To test whether this sale was made at arm's length, we compared the starting price of the sale to the affiliated customer to those of unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling expenses, discounts, and packing. If the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sale made to the affiliated party was at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded the sale from our margin analysis because the sale was not made at arm's length. C. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the time of initiation, the Department found that Bhansali and Venus made sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. Therefore, the Department determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that SSB sales were made in the comparison market at prices below the cost of production (“COP”) in this administrative review for Bhansali and Venus. *See* section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated a COP inquiry for these two respondents. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses, financial expenses, and comparison market packing costs, where appropriate. We relied on the COP data submitted by Bhansali and Venus except where noted below: 2. Individual Company Adjustments
(A)Bhansali 1) We recalculated Bhansali's G&A and financial expense ratios, based on the relevant accounts identified in Bhansali's fiscal year 2005-06 trial balance. 2) Under section 773(f)(2) of the Act, we calculated the implied interest expenses incurred on Bhansali's zero-interest loans which were outstanding to shareholders and directors during fiscal year 2005-2006. We added the implied interest expenses to Bhansali's financial expenses in our calculation of its financial expense ratio. *See* Memorandum from Joe Welton to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, “ *Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd* ,” dated February 28, 2007, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building.
(B)Venus 1) For Venus and Precision Metals, we increased the direct material costs by the unreconciled difference between the raw material purchase prices incorporated in the reported costs of production and the related raw material purchase prices which reconcile to the companies' respective accounting systems. 2) We recalculated Venus' and Precision Metals' G&A and financial expense ratios, based on the relevant accounts identified in their respective fiscal year 2005-06 trial balances. *See* Memorandum from Joe Welton to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, “ *Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd* ,” dated February 28, 2007, which is on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department building. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we compared prices to the POR average COP, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. For Bhansali and Venus, we found that more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales of SSB within an extended period of time were made at prices less than the COP. Further, the prices at which the merchandise under review was sold did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of SSB for which there were no useable comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. *See* “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section, below. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices We calculated NV based on ex-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and we deducted movement expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale (“COS”) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the “commission offset”). Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of
(1)the amount of the commission paid in the U.S. market, or
(2)the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Company-specific adjustments are described below.
(A)Bhansali We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in India. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of movement expenses: inland freight expenses from the plant to the customer. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( *i.e.* , credit expenses, bank charges and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses, commissions, bank charges and bank interest expenses, fumigation charges and fees for duty drawback application). *See Bhansali Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . Bhansali reported billing adjustments in its home market sales listing. However, the information on the record shows that these adjustments are actually bad debt write-offs. Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have treated Bhansali's reported billing adjustments as indirect selling expenses. *See Bhansali Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .
(B)Venus Venus We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in India. We adjusted the starting price by the amount of billing adjustments and movement expenses, including inland freight expenses from the plant to the customer. 3 We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( *i.e.* , credit expenses and commissions) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses, commissions, bank charges and bank interest expenses, fumigation charges and certificate of origin fees). *See Venus Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . 3 Venus reported discounts in its home market sales listing. However, the information on the record indicates that these discounts are actually billing adjustments ( *i.e.* , adjustments to price). Therefore, for the preliminary results, we have treated Venus' reported discounts as billing adjustments and adjusted gross unit price accordingly. *See Venus Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . D. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id* .; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 4 including selling functions, 5 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 4 The marketing process in the United States and comparison market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 5 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either comparison market or third country prices), 6 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 6 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, where possible. Bhansali reported that it sells to end-users and trading companies in the home market, and to trading companies and distributors in the United States. Venus reported that it sells to end-users and distributors in the home market, and to end-users and trading companies in the United States. Bhansali and Venus reported the same level of trade and the same channel of distribution for sales in the United States and the home market, and neither company has requested a LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Bhansali and Venus, and found that home market sales to all customer categories were identical with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, advertising activities, technical service, and warranty service. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that each company had only one level of trade for its home market sales. Bhansali's and Venus' EP selling activities differ from the home market selling activities only with respect to freight and delivery, and advertising. These differences are not substantial. Therefore, we find that the EP level of trade is similar to the home market LOT and a level-of-trade adjustment is not necessary. *See* section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 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 reported by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of the Review For the firms listed below, we find that the following percentage margins exist for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006: Exporter/Manufacturer Margin Bhansali Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. 2.10 Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. 0.03 ( *de minimis* ) Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable To The Following Companies: Isibars Limited, Grand Foundry, Ltd., Sindia Steels Limited, Snowdrop Trading Pvt., Ltd.Facor Steels, Ltd., Mukand Ltd. 2.10 Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; and 2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by respondents for which they have reported the importer of record and the entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondents did not report the entered value for U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). For those companies 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). For the companies requesting a review, but not selected for examination and calculation of individual rates, we will calculate a weighted-average assessment rate based on all importer-specific assessment rates excluding any which are *de minimis* or margins determined entirely on adverse facts available. *See Softwood Lumber Final Results* , at 70 FR 73442. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of SSB from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis* , *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent); 2) for the non-selected companies we will calculate a weighted-average cash deposit rate based on all the company-specific cash deposit rates, excluding *de minimis* margins or margins determined entirely on adverse facts available; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India* , 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 23, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4057 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) received timely requests to conduct new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating new shipper reviews for Golden Well International (HK), Ltd. (“Golden Well”) and its supplier Zhangzhou XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd. (Zhangzhou XYM), and for Mei Jia Ju Furniture Industrial (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Mei Jia”). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Eugene Degnan, 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)482-4474 or
(202)482-0414, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department received timely requests from Golden Well and Mei Jia on January 24 and 22, 2007 respectively, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). Although Mei Jia submitted a timely request, on February 7, 2007, the Department rejected Mei Jia's request due to improper filing. However, because Mei Jia originally filed its request on January 22, 2007, but the request was not rejected by the Department until February 7, 2007, the Department allowed Mei Jia to refile its request by February 21, 2007. *See* the letter from the Department to Mei Jia dated February 7, 2007. On February 16, 2007, Mei Jia re-submitted its request for a new shipper review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii), 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), in their requests for new shipper reviews, Golden Well (as an exporter), Zhangzhou XYM, and Mei Jia (as a producing exporter) certified that they did not export wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”); that since the initiation of the investigation they have never been affiliated with any company that exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI; and that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Golden Well and Mei Jia submitted documentation establishing the following:
(1)The date on which they first shipped wooden bedroom furniture for export to the United States;
(2)the volume of their first shipment; and
(3)the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Initiation of New Shipper Review In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we find that Golden Well and Mei Jia's requests meet the initiation threshold requirements and we are initiating new shipper reviews for shipments of wooden bedroom furniture exported by Golden Well that were produced by Zhangzhou XYM and shipments of wooden bedroom furniture produced and exported by Mei Jia. *See* Memorandum to the File through Wendy J. Frankel, Director, New Shipper Initiation Checklist, dated, February 28, 2007. The Department will conduct these new shipper reviews according to the deadlines set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the period of review (“POR”) for a new shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month, will be the twelve-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper reviews of Golden Well and Mei Jia will be January 1 through December 31, 2006. It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economies, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of *de jure* and *de facto* absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue questionnaires to Golden Well and Mei Jia, including a separate-rate section. The reviews will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Golden Well and Mei Jia are not subject to either *de jure* or *de facto* government control with respect to their exports of wooden bedroom furniture. However, if either Golden Well or Mei Jia does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, it will be deemed not separate from other companies that exported during the POI, and its new shipper review will be rescinded. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews. Therefore, the posting of a bond or other security under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of wooden bedroom furniture 1) produced by Zhangzhou XYM and exported by Golden Well, or 2) produced and exported by Mei Jia must continue to post cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise ( *i.e.* , wooden bedroom furniture) at the PRC-wide entity rate of 198.08 percent. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are issued in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: February 28, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4049 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Notice of Initiation of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (“Department”) received timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The anniversary month of this order is January. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating this administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, 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)482-0414 or
(202)482-3434, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Background The Department received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b) (2002), during the anniversary month of January, for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC covering 196 entities. The Department is now initiating an administrative review of the order covering those entities. Initiation of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. We intend to issue the final results of this review not later than January 31, 2008. Period Antidumping Duty Proceeding The People's Republic of China: 1 Wooden Bedroom Furniture A-570-890 1/01/06-12/31/06 Alexandre International Corp., Southern Art Development Ltd., Alexandre Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Southern Art Furniture Factory* Art Heritage International Ltd., Super Art Furniture Co. Ltd., Artwork Metal & Plastic Co., Ltd., Jibson Industries Ltd., Always Loyal International* Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai Beijing MingYaFeng Furniture Co., Ltd. Best King International Limited, Best King International Ltd., Bouvrie International Limited Billy Wood Industrial (Dong Guan), Great Union Industrial (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Time Faith Ltd.* BNBM Co., Ltd. Changshu HTC Import & Export Co. Ltd.* Chen Meng Furniture
(PTE)Co., Ltd., Cheng Meng Decoration & Furniture (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.* Chuan Fa Furniture Factory* Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd.* Clearwise Co., Ltd.* COE, Ltd.* Conghua J.L. George Timber & Co., Ltd. Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd.* Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd.* Dalian Pretty Home Furniture Co., Ltd. Decca Furniture Ltd., aka Decca* Deqing Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. Der Cheng Furniture Co., Ltd. Dong Guan Golden Fortune Houseware Co., Ltd. Dong Guan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Cambridge Furniture Co., Ltd., Glory Oceanic Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Chunsan Wood Products Co., Ltd., Trendex Industries Limited* Dongguan Creation Furniture Co., Ltd., Creation Industries Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan Grand Style Furniture Co., Ltd., Hong Kong DaZhi Furniture Company Ltd.* Dongguan Great Reputation Furniture Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Hero Way Woodwork Co., Ltd., Hero Way Enterprises, Ltd., Dongguan Da Zhong Woodwork Co., Ltd., Well Earth International Ltd.* Dongguan Hung Sheng Artware Products Co., Ltd., Coronal Enterprise Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Kin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd., Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd.* Dongguan Liaobushangdun Huada Furniture Factory, Great Rich
(HK)Enterprises Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Lung Dong Furniture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co., Ltd. Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi Craft Furniture Factory (Joyce Art Factory)* Dongguan Sea Eagle Furniture Co., Ltd., Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd.* Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd. Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Fairmont Designs* Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited Dongying Huanghekou Furniture Industry Co., Ltd.* Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development Co., Ltd., aka, Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng Woodwork (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.* Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.* Engmost Investments Limited Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Eurosa Furniture Co.,
(PTE)Ltd.* Ever Spring Furniture Co., Ltd., S.Y.C. Family Enterprise Co., Ltd.* Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd.* Fortune Furniture Ltd. and its affiliate, Dongguan Fortune Furniture Ltd. Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.* Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., aka Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc.* Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co. Ltd. Gaomi Yatai Wooden Ware Co., Ltd., Team Prospect International Ltd., Money Gain International Co.* Garri Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., Molabile International, Inc. Weei Geo Enterprise Co., Ltd.* Golden Well International (HK), Ltd. Green River Wood (Dongguan) Ltd.* Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing, Ltd., Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. Guangming Group Wumahe Furniture Co., Ltd.* Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co., Ltd.* Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings, Ltd., Pyla HK Ltd.* Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co., Ltd., Jibbon Enterprise Co., Ltd.* Hainan Rulai Furniture Co., Ltd. Hamilton & Spill Ltd.* Hang Hai Woodcrafts Art Factory* Hong Kong Boliya Industry Development Co., Ltd. Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Hualing Furniture (China) Co., Ltd., Tony House Manufacture (China) Co., Ltd., Buysell Investments Ltd., Tony House Industries Co., Ltd.* Huizhou Jadom Furniture Co., Ltd., Jadom Furniture Co., Ltd. Hung Fai Wood Products Factory Ltd. Hwangho New Century Furniture (Dongguan) Corp. Ltd., Trade Rich Furniture (Dongguan) Corp., Ltd., Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited Inni Furniture Jardine Enterprise, Ltd.* Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd. * Jiangmen Kinwai International Furniture Co., Ltd.* Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Weifu Group Company Fullhouse Furniture Manufacturing Corp* Jiangsu Xiangsheng Bedtime Furniture Co., Ltd.* Jiangsu Yuexing Furniture Group Co., Ltd.* Jiedong Lehouse Furniture Co., Ltd.* King Kei Trading Co. Ltd., King Kei Furniture Factory, Jiu Ching Trading Co., Ltd. King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd. King's Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd., Kingsyear, Ltd.* Kong Fong Furniture, Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong Kuan Lin Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., Kuan Lin Furniture Factory, Kuan Lin Furniture Co., Ltd.* Kunshan Junsen Furniture Co., Ltd. Kunshan Lee Wood Product Co., Ltd.* Kunshan Summit Furniture Co. Ltd.* Kunwa Enterprises Company Langfang TianCheng Furniture Co., Ltd.* Leefu Wood (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., King Rich International, Ltd.* Link Silver Ltd. (V.I.B.), Forward Win Enterprises Co. Ltd., Dongguan Haoshun Furniture Ltd.* Locke Furniture Factory, Kai Chan Furniture Co. Ltd., Kai Chan (Hong Kong) Enterprise Ltd., Taiwan Kai Chan Co. Ltd.* Longrange Furniture Co. Ltd.* Maria Yee, Inc. Mei Jia Ju Furniture Industrial Shenzhen Co., Ltd. Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd.* Nanjing Nanmu Furniture Co., Ltd. Nan Tong YangZi Furniture Co., Ltd. Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co. Ltd.* Nanhai Jiantai Woodwork Co. Ltd., Fortune Glory Industrial, Ltd. (HK Ltd.)* Nantong Dongfang Orient Furniture Co., Ltd.* Nantong Yushi Furniture Co., Ltd.* Nathan China Group Nathan International Ltd., Nathan Rattan Factory* Ningbo Furniture Industries Limited, Techniwood Industries Ltd., Ningbo Hengrun Furniture Co., Ltd.* Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trading Co., Ltd.* Passwell Corporation, Pleasant Wave Ltd.* Perfect Line Furniture Co., Ltd.* Po Ying Industrial Co. Primewood International Co., Ltd., Prime Best International Co., Ltd., Prime Best Factory, Liang Huang (Jiaxing) Enterprise Co., Ltd.* Profit Force Limited PuTian JingGong Furniture Co., Ltd.* Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd. Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd., Qingdao Beiyuan Industry Trading Co. Ltd. Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd.* Qingdao Shengchang Wooden Co., Ltd. Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd., Restonic Far East (Samoa) Ltd.* RiZhao SanMu Woodworking Co., Ltd.* Season Furniture Manufacturing Co., Season Industrial Development Co.* Sen Yeong International Co. Ltd., Sheh Hau International Trading Ltd.* Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd. Shanghai Jian Pu Export & Import Co., Ltd.* Shanghai Maoji Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.* Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd. Shanghai XingDing Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. Sheng Jing Wood Products (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Telstar Enterprises Ltd.* Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd.* Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd.* Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Forest Furniture Co., Ltd.* Shenzhen Jiafa High Grade Furniture Co., Ltd., Golden Lion International Trading Ltd. Shenzhen New Fudu Furniture Co., Ltd.* Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd., Winbuild Industrial Ltd., Red Apple Furniture Co., Ltd. and Red Apple Trading Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Wonderful Furniture Co., Ltd.* Shenzhen Xiande Furniture Factory* Shenzhen Xingli Furniture Co., Ltd.* Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., Carven Industries Ltd. (BVI), Carven I Industries Limited (HK), Dongguan Zhenxin Furniture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Yongpeng Furniture Co., Ltd.* Shun Feng Furniture Co., Ltd.* Sino Concord (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd., Sino Concord International Corporation Songgang Jasonwood Furniture Factory, Jasonwood Industrial Co., Ltd. S.A.* Speedy International Ltd. Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd. * Starwood Furniture Manufacturing Co., Ltd.* Starwood Industries Ltd.* Strongson Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Strongson Furniture Co., Ltd., Strongson
(HK)Co.* Sunforce Furniture (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd., Sun Fung Wooden Factory, Sun Fung Co., Shin Feng Furniture Co. Ltd., Stupendous International Co. Ltd.* Superwood Co. Ltd., Lianjiang Zongyu Art Products Co., Ltd.* T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd. Tarzan Furniture Industries, Ltd., Samso Industries Ltd.* Teamway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co. Ltd., Brittomart Inc.* Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. Tianjin Fortune Furniture Co. Ltd.* Tianjin Master Home Furniture* Tianjin Phu Shing Woodwork Enterprise Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Sande Fairwood Furniture Co., Ltd.* Time Crown (U.K.) International Ltd., China United International Co. Top Art Furniture, Ngai Kun Trading Top Goal Development Co., Top Goal Furniture Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen) Tradewinds Furniture Ltd. Tradewinds International Enterprise Ltd. Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd. Trendex Industries Limited
(BVI)Triple J Furntiure Enterprises Co., Mandarin Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Tube-Smith Enterprises (ZhangZhou) Co., Ltd., Tube-Smith Enterprise (Haimen) Co., Ltd., Billionworth Enterprise, Ltd.* Union Friend International Trade Co., Ltd.* U-Rich Furniture (ZhangZhou) Co., Ltd., U-Rich Furniture, Ltd.* Wan Bao Cheng Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd. Wanhengtong Nueevder (Furniture) Manufacture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Wanhengtong Industry Co., Ltd.* Winmost Enterprises Limited Winny Universal, Ltd., Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd., Winny Overseas, Ltd. Woodworth Wooden Industries (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd.* Xiamen Yongquan Sci-Tech Development Co., Ltd.* Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of Yangchun* Yangchun Hengli Co., Ltd.* Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc*. Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd.* Yida Co. Ltd., Yitai Worldwide Ltd., Yili Co., Ltd., Yetbuild Co., Ltd.* Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd., aka Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.* Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited ZhangZhou Sanlong Wood Product Co., Ltd.* Zhangjiagang Daye Hotel Furniture Co., Ltd.* Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co. Ltd.* Zhangzhou Guohui Industrial & Trade Co. Ltd.* Zhanjiang Sunwin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd.* Zhejiang NiannianHong Industrial Co., Ltd. Zhong Cheng Furniture Co., Ltd. Zhong Shan Fullwin Furniture Co., Ltd.* Zhongshan Fookyik Furniture Co., Ltd.* Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., Ltd. Zhongshan Golden King Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd.* Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. Zhoushan For-Strong Wood Co., Ltd.* 1 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC that have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the named exporter is a part. * These companies received a separate rate in the prior segment (the less-than-fair-value-investigation) of this proceeding. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit 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. 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 *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as amplified by *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 to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* government control over export activities. The Department recently modified the process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.* The process now requires the submission of a separate-rate status application. Due to the large number of firms requesting an administrative review in this proceeding, the Department is requiring all firms listed above that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in this administrative review to complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate status application or certification, as described below. For this administrative review, in order to demonstrate separate-rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested that were assigned a separate rate in the less than fair value investigation of this proceeding to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Certifications are due to the Department no later than March 21, 2007. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase the subject merchandise and export it to the United States. For entities that have not previously been assigned a separate rate, to demonstrate eligibility for such, the Department requires a separate-rate status application. The separate-rate status application will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . In responding to the separate-rate status application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate-rate status applications are due to the Department no later than May 7, 2007. The deadline and requirement for submitting a separate-rate status application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase the subject merchandise and export it to the United States. Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department to examine either
(1)a sample of exporters, producers or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection; or
(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be reasonably examined. Due to the large number of firms requested for an administrative review and the Department's experience regarding the resulting administrative burden to review each company for which a request has been made, the Department is considering exercising its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review using one of the two methods described above. Quantity and Value Questionnaire In advance of issuance of the antidumping questionnaire, we will also be requiring all parties for whom a review is requested to respond to a Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) questionnaire, which will request information on the respective quantity and U.S. dollar sales value of all exports to the United States of wooden bedroom furniture during the period of January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Additionally, in the event sampling is employed, in order to determine a sampling method that is representative of the sales under review, the Department will require that each company complete the economic characteristics section of the Q&V questionnaire. The Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . The responses to the Q&V questionnaire are due to the Department no later than March 21, 2007. Due to the time constraints imposed by our statutory and regulatory deadlines, and the need to preserve the statistical validity of the sampling methodology, the Department may not be able to grant any extensions for the submission of the Q&V questionnaire. In responding to the Q&V questionnaire, refer to the instructions contained in the Q&V questionnaire. Notice This notice constitutes public notification to all firms requested for review and seeking separate-rate status in this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC that they must submit a separate-rate status application or certification (as appropriate) as described above, and a complete response to the Q&V questionnaire within the time limits established in this notice of initiation of administrative review in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any separate-rates certification or separate rate-status application made by parties who fail to timely respond to the Q&V questionnaire or fail to timely submit the requisite separate-rate certification or application. All information submitted by respondents in this administrative review is subject to verification. To allow the possibility for sampling and to complete this segment within the statutory time frame, the Department will be limited in its ability to extend deadlines on the above submissions. As noted above, the separate-rate certification, the separate-rate status application, and the Q&V questionnaire will be available on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* on the date of publication of this **Federal Register** . However, the Department will also issue, as a courtesy to the parties, a letter of notification of these requirements to the parties requested for review. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Department's Web site at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: February 28, 2007. Wendy J. Frankel, Director AD/CVD Operations, Office 8 for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4051 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-837] Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty
(CVD)order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005, the period of review (POR). For information on the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company, see the “Preliminary Results of Review” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. *See* the “Public Comment” section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jolanta Lawska or Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3862 or
(202)482-4793, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 10, 2000, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the CVD order on CTL plate from Korea. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India and the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, and the Republic of Korea* , 65 FR 6587 (February 10, 2000) ( *CTL Plate Order* ). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, we received a timely request for review from Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), a Korean producer and exporter of subject merchandise. On April 5, 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on CTL plate from Korea, covering January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006). On July 6, 2006, the Department issued a questionnaire to the Government of Korea
(GOK)and DSM. We received questionnaire responses from DSM and the GOK on September 12, 2006. On October 16, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the deadline for the preliminary results. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Korea; Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 60689 (October 16, 2006). On October 31, 2006, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOK and DSM. We received questionnaire responses from the GOK and DSM on November 27 and November 28, 2006, respectively. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The only company subject to this review is DSM. Scope of Order The products covered by the CVD order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel:
(1)Universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief) of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and
(2)flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils). Steel products to be included in the scope of the order are of rectangular, square, circular or other shape and of rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Steel products that meet the noted physical characteristics that are painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances are included within this scope. Also, specifically included in the scope of the order are high strength, low alloy
(HSLA)steels. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Steel products to be included in this scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which:
(1)Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;
(2)the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight; and
(3)none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of this order unless otherwise specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the order:
(1)Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;
(2)SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above;
(3)products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents;
(4)abrasion-resistant steels ( *i.e.* , USS AR 400, USS AR 500);
(5)products made to ASTM A202, A225, A514 grade S, A517 grade S, or their proprietary equivalents;
(6)ball bearing steels;
(7)tool steels; and
(8)silicon manganese steel or silicon electric steel. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under the HTSUS under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive. Subsidies Valuation Information Average Useful Life Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life
(AUL)of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's
(IRS)1997 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that the IRS tables do not reasonably reflect the company-specific AUL or the country-wide AUL for the industry under examination and that the difference between the company-specific and/or country-wide AUL and the AUL from the IRS table is significant. According to the IRS Tables, the AUL of the steel industry is 15 years. No interested party challenged the 15-year AUL derived from the IRS tables. Thus, in this review, we have allocated, where applicable, all of the non-recurring subsidies provided to the producers/exporters of subject merchandise over a 15-year AUL. Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans Issued Through 2005 During the POR, DSM had outstanding long-term won-denominated and foreign-currency denominated loans from government-owned banks and Korean commercial banks. Based on our findings on this issue in prior investigations and administrative reviews, we are using the following benchmarks to calculate the subsidies attributable to respondent's countervailable long-term loans obtained in the years 1991 through 2005:
(1)For countervailable, foreign-currency denominated loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(ii), and consistent with our past practice to date, our preference is to use the company-specific, weighted-average foreign currency-denominated interest rates on the company's loans from foreign bank branches in Korea, foreign securities, and direct foreign loans received after 1991. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 30636, 30640 (June 8, 1999) ( *Sheet and Strip Investigation* ); *see also Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 15530, 15531 (March 31, 1999) ( *Plate in Coils Investigation* ). Where no such benchmark instruments are available, and consistent with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii) as well as our methodology in a prior administrative review, we rely on the lending rates as reported by the IMF's *International Financial Statistics Yearbook. See Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea* , 69 FR 2113 (January 14, 2004) ( *2001 Sheet and Strip* ), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *2001 Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum* ), at Section II. B “Subsidies Valuation Information.”
(2)For countervailable, won-denominated, long-term loans, our practice is to use the company-specific corporate bond rate on the company's public and private bonds. We note that this benchmark is consistent with our decision in *Plate in Coils Investigation* , 64 FR at 15531, in which we determined that the GOK did not direct or control the Korean domestic bond market after 1991, and that the interest rate on domestic bonds may serve as an appropriate benchmark interest rate. Where unavailable, we used the national average of the yields on three-year corporate bonds, as reported by the Bank of Korea (BOK). For example, we note that the use of the three-year corporate bond rate from the BOK follows the approach taken in the *Plate in Coils Investigation* , in which we determined that, absent company-specific interest rate information, the corporate bond rate is the best indicator of a market rate for won-denominated long-term loans in Korea. *See Plate in Coils Investigation* , 64 FR at 15531. *See also* 19 CFR 505(a)(3)(ii). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2), our benchmarks take into consideration the structure of the government-provided loans. For fixed-rate loans, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), we used benchmark rates issued in the same year that the government loans were issued. For variable-rate loans outstanding during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(i), our preference is to use the interest rates of variable-rate lending instruments issued during the year in which the government loans were issued. Where such benchmark instruments are unavailable, we use weighted average interest rates of all variable rate loans issued during the POR as our benchmark, as such rates better reflect a variable interest rate that would be in effect during the POR. This approach is in accordance with the Department's practice in similar cases. *See* , *e.g.* , *Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From the Republic of Korea* , 68 FR 13267 (March 19, 2003) ( *2000 Sheet and Strip* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ( *Sheet and Strip Decision Memorandum* ), at Comment 8; *see also* 19 CFR 351.505(a)(5)(ii). Programs Preliminarily Determined To Confer Subsidies 1. The GOK's Direction of Credit In the most recently completed administrative review of this CVD order, the Department reaffirmed earlier determinations that the GOK controlled and directed lending through year 2001. In addition, the Department noted that neither DSM nor the GOK provided any new information that would warrant a change in the Department's determination. Finding that the GOK did not act to the best of its ability, the Department employed an adverse inference and determined that the GOK continued it direction-of-credit policies from 2002 through 2004. *See, e.g.* , *Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 11397, 11399 (March 7, 2006) ( *2004 CTL Plate Preliminary Results* ) (unchanged in final results by *Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006)). During the POR, DSM had outstanding loans that were received prior to the 2002 period. As in the prior administrative review, in this review, we asked the GOK for information pertaining to the GOK’s direction-of-credit policies for the period from 2002 through 2005. The GOK did not provide any new or additional information that would warrant a departure from these prior findings, stating instead that: “* * * the Government of Korea continues to believe that the evidence demonstrates that there has been no direction of credit to the Korean steel industry. Nevertheless, the Department has consistently found that long-term loans received by Korean steel producers were the result of the Korean Government's direction, despite the Government's repeated submission of evidence to the contrary * * * . Consequently, in this review, the Government will not contest the Department's findings on direction of long-term loans.” *See* September 12, 2006, GOK, submission at page 9. Because the GOK withheld the requested information on its lending policies, the Department does not have the necessary information on the record to determine whether the GOK has continued its direction-of-credit policies through 2005; therefore, the Department must base its determination on facts otherwise available. *See* section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(AFA)information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, the use of AFA is appropriate for the preliminary results for the determination of direction of credit for loans received from 2002 through 2005. In this case, the GOK refused to supply requested information that was in its possession, even though the GOK had provided similar information in prior proceedings. *See, e.g.* , *Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 64 FR 73176, 73178 (December 29, 1999) ( *CTL Plate Investigation* ). Therefore, consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C)of the Act, we find that the GOK did not act to the best of its ability and, therefore, are employing an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. As AFA, we preliminarily find that the GOK's direction-of-credit policies continued through 2005. As noted above, the GOK's direction-of-credit policies provide a financial contribution, confer a benefit, and are specific, pursuant to sections 771(5)(D)(i), 771(5)(E)(ii), and 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, respectively. Therefore, we preliminarily find that lending from domestic banks and government-owned banks through 2005 are countervailable. Thus, any loans received through 2005 from domestic banks and government-owned banks that were outstanding during the POR are countervailable, to the extent that the interest amount paid on the loan is less than what would have been paid on a comparable commercial loan. The Department's decision to rely on adverse inferences when lacking a response from the GOK regarding the direction-of-credit issue is in accordance with its practice. *See, e.g., 2004 CTL Plate Preliminary Results* (unchanged in final results by *Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006)). DSM received long-term fixed- and variable-rate loans from GOK-owned or -controlled institutions that were outstanding during the POR and had both won- and foreign currency-denominated loans outstanding during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(c)(2) and (4), we calculated the benefit for each fixed- and variable-rate loan received from GOK-owned or -controlled banks to be the difference between the actual amount of interest paid on the directed loan during the POR and the amount of interest that would have been paid during the POR at the benchmark interest rate. We conducted our benefit calculations using the benchmark interest rates described in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above. For foreign currency-denominated loans, we converted the benefits into Korean won using exchange rates obtained from the BOK. We then summed the benefits from DMS's long-term fixed-rate and variable-rate won-denominated loans. To calculate the net subsidy rate, we divided DSM's total benefits by its respective total f.o.b. sales values during the POR, as this program is not tied to exports or a particular product. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy rate under the direction-of-credit program to be 0.01 percent *ad valorem* for DSM. 2. Asset Revaluation Under Tax Programs Under the Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (TERCL) Article 56(2) Under Article 56(2) of the TERCL, the GOK permitted companies that made an initial public offering between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990, to revalue their assets at a rate higher than the 25 percent required of most other companies under the Asset Revaluation Act. The Department has previously found this program to be countervailable. For example, in the *CTL Plate Investigation* , the Department determined that this program was *de facto* specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act because the actual recipients of the subsidy were limited in number and the basic metal industry was a dominant user of this program. We also determined that a financial contribution was provided in the form of tax revenue foregone pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. *See CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73182-83. The Department further determined that a benefit was conferred, within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act, on those companies that were able to revalue their assets under TERCL Article 56(2) because the revaluation resulted in participants paying fewer taxes than they would otherwise pay absent the program. *Id.* No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailable status of this program. The benefit from this program is the difference that the revaluation of depreciable assets has on a company's tax liability each year. Evidence on the record indicates that DSM revalued its assets under Article 56(2) of the TERCL in 1988. However, DSM reports that in 1998 it revalued its assets yet again. DSM states the revaluation in 1998 was not pursuant to TERCL Article 56(2) and, according to the GOK, was consistent with Korean Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). DSM claims that the asset revaluations that were adopted in 1988 under Article 56(2) of TERCL were superseded when it revalued its assets in 1998. Hence, the 1988 asset revaluation would only affect the calculation of depreciation costs for tax years prior to 1998. However, there were certain assets that were not revalued in 1998. For those assets which were not revalued in 1998, we identified the total amount of the change in depreciation expense attributable to the 1988 asset revaluation for 2004 (the tax return submitted during the POR). We then multiplied this amount by the tax rate for 2004 to determine the benefit under this program. This is the same approach the Department used in the previous review. *See 2004 CTL Plate Preliminary Results* (unchanged in final results by *Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006)). As this program is not tied to exports, we used the benefit amount as the numerator and DSM's total sales as the denominator. Using this methodology, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be less than 0.005 percent *ad valorem* , which, according to the Department's practice, is considered not measurable and is not included in the calculation of the CVD rate. *See, e.g.* , *Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada* , 70 FR 33088, 33091 (June 7, 2005). 3. GOK Infrastructure Investment at Inchon North Harbor Under the Act on Participation of Private Investment in Infrastructure (the Harbor Act), signed in 2000, the GOK contracts with private companies to construct infrastructure facilities at Inchon North Harbor. The program is designed to encourage private investment in public infrastructure facilities at Inchon North Harbor. Because the ownership of these facilities reverts to the GOK, the government compensates private parties for a portion of the construction costs of these facilities. In addition, the company is given right to operate the facility for a certain period of time. Under the Harbor Act, DSM participated in an agreement with the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (“MOMAF”), under which DSM is constructing one of 17 piers at Inchon North Harbor. According to information submitted by the GOK, the government will retain title of the pier. However, upon completion of the project, DSM will receive free use of harbor facilities at Inchon Port and the right to collect fees it chooses to from other users of the facility for a period of 50 years. At the end of the 50-year period, operating rights revert to the GOK. Further, under the Harbor Act, the GOK compensates DSM for 30 percent of the construction costs of the facility. DSM reported receiving payments from the GOK as reimbursements for construction costs it incurred from the fourth quarter of 2003 through the third quarter of 2004. As this is the first time DSM has reported receiving benefits to the Department, the Department has not previously examined this program. 1 1 The GOK indicated in its September 12, 2006, response that benefits received by DSM in 2003 were inadvertently not reported during the last POR, due to an oversight. DSM and the GOK claim that the reimbursements DSM received under the program are not countervailable, “Because this program represents a government purchase of construction services, it does not constitute a “financial contribution” under the terms of the countervailing duty statute.” *See* GOK's September 12, 2006, questionnaire response at 4; *see also* DSM's September 12, 2006, questionnaire response at 38. The record evidence indicates that the actual recipients of the grant, whether considered on an enterprise or industry basis are limited in number. The GOK has reported that only [six] companies representing [four] industries received the grant. *See* DSM's September 12, 2006, questionnaire response at Appendix G-6-C. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the program is *de facto* specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act. For purposes of these preliminary results, we disagree with the claims of the GOK and DSM that the GOK's payments to DSM constitute compensation for services provided in connection with the construction of the GOK's pier. We find that the 50-year duration of DSM's lease of the pier facility is so long that it effectively renders DSM the owner of the facility. See the “Average Useful Life” section, above. We note that under the IRS 1997 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, the AUL of land improvements, such as wharves and docks, is only 20 years. Therefore, the fact that the GOK retains “ownership” of the pier for 50 years is essentially meaningless. As such, we preliminary find that the GOK's payments to DSM constitute grants that aid the construction of a facility which, due to the lengthy duration of the lease, is effectively owned and operated by DSM. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that the reimbursements DSM received under the program constitute a direct financial contribution, in the form of grants, and confer a benefit within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(i) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. On page 3 of its November 27, 2006, questionnaire response, the GOK indicates that the payments to DSM relate to stage one pier construction. *See also* GOK's September 12, 2006, questionnaire response at Appendix G-6-C. According to the GOK, the stage one piers are intended to handle shipments of steel scrap. *See* GOK's November 27, 2006, questionnaire response at page 3. The record evidence indicates that one of DSM's main raw materials used in the production of subject merchandise during the POR was steel scrap. *See* DSM's September 12, 2006, questionnaire response at 9. *See also* DSM's November 28, 2006, questionnaire response at Appendix SD 9. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(5), we preliminarily find that the grants received by DSM under this program are tied to the production and sales of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have attributed the grants DSM has received under this program to its production and sales of the subject merchandise. To calculate the benefit under this program, we first summed the amount of payments DSM received each year under the program. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c), we are treating the grants DSM received under the program as non-recurring. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), the Department allocates non-recurring benefits provided under a particular subsidy program to the year in which the benefits are received if the total amount approved under the subsidy program is less that 0.5 percent of the relevant sales of the firm in question, during the year in which the subsidy was approved. The GOK provided the total approved amount with the date of approval. For the preliminary results, the Department performed the 0.5 percent test by dividing DSM's portion of the GOK contribution at the time of receipt by DSM's total steel sales at the time of receipt. Because the amounts were less than 0.5 percent of DSM's total steel sales in the year of receipt, we expensed the grants to the year of receipt. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that DSM's net subsidy rate under this program to be 0.09 percent *ad valorem.* 4. Research and Development Under Korea Research Association of New Iron and Steelmaking Technology (KANIST) (Formerly KNISTRA) Under the program, companies make contributions to KANIST, which also receives contributions from the GOK. KANIST then contracts with universities and other research institutions. Upon completion of the projects, KANIST shares the results of the research with the companies that participated in the projects. The Department examined this program in the underlying investigation. In that segment of the proceeding, the Department determined that the GOK, through the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) provided research and development grants to support numerous projects designed to foster the development of efficient technology for industrial development. *See CTL Plate Investigation* , 64 FR at 73185. We found this program to be specific as the grants were provided directly to respondents and their affiliates that are steel-related, and that the grants provided a financial contribution. *Id. see also* sections 771(5A)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Moreover, pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act, the Department determined that the benefit was the amount of the GOK's contribution allocated to the percentage of the company's contribution and was conferred at the time of receipt. No new information, evidence of changed circumstances, or comments from interested parties were presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of the countervailable status of this program. DSM reported that it participated in research and development projects coordinated by KANIST. In these projects, DSM and other Korean companies made contributions to KANIST, which also received contributions from the GOK. Specifically, DSM reported that it participated in four projects. The first project deals with the “Elimination of Accumulated Impurities and Metal Structural Non-detrimental Technology Development.” DSM and the GOK made contributions to this project from 2002 through 2006. The remaining three projects are dedicated to the development of structural steel. *See* Exhibit D-6-A, Volume II, of DSM's September 12, 2006, questionnaire response; *see also* Exhibit G--B-4 of the GOK's September 12, 2006, questionnaire response. Based on the information in DSM's response, we preliminarily determine that the projects aimed at structural steel development are tied to non-subject merchandise. We also preliminarily determine that the remaining research and development project is relevant to the early stages of the production process and, therefore, attributable to DSM's total steel sales. In keeping with the Department's practice, we calculated the benefits related to the project on the “Elimination of Accumulated Impurities and Metal Structural Non-detrimental Technology Development” by allocating the GOK's payments based on DSM's contributions to the project. *See 2004 CTL Plate Preliminary Results* , 71 FR at 11400 (unchanged in final results by *Notice of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea* , 71 FR 38861 (July 10, 2006)). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), the Department allocates non-recurring benefits provided under a particular subsidy program to the year in which the benefits are received if the total amount approved under the subsidy program is less that 0.5 percent of the relevant sales of the firm in question, during the year in which the subsidy was approved. However, neither the GOK nor DSM provided the total approved amounts nor the dates of approval. Therefore, we performed our analysis under 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2) by dividing DSM's portion of the GOK contribution at the time of receipt by DSM's total steel sales at the time of receipt. Using this approach, the calculated percentages in each year were less than 0.5 percent. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that all of the GOK's contributions were expensed in the year of receipt. To calculate the net subsidy rate under the program, we divided the contributions made by the GOK during the POR that were allocated to DSM by DSM's total steel sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily calculate a net subsidy rate for DSM to be less than 0.005 percent *ad valorem* , which, according to the Department's practice, is considered not measurable and is not included in the calculation of the C.V.D. rate. Programs Preliminarily Found To Be Not Used 1. *Special Cases of Tax for Balanced Development Among Areas (TERCL Articles 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45)* (Reserve for Investment Program) 2. *Electricity Discounts (VRA, VCA, ELR and DLI Programs)* 3. * Price Discount for DSM Land Purchase at Asan Bay* 4. *Local Tax Exemption on Land Outside of Metropolitan Area* 5. *Exemption of VAT on Anthracite Coal* Programs Preliminarily Found To Be Not Countervailable 1. Special Tax Credit for Boosting Employment Under Articles 30-34 of the RSTA, the GOK created “The Special Tax Credit for Boosting Employment” in July 2004. The program expired in December 31, 2005. It was designed to boost employment, and tax credits were allowed for any Korean company that met the requirements of employing more full-time workers in 2004 and 2005 than it employed the previous year. It provided for a credit of one million won for each full-time worker employed in 2004 or 2005 in excess of the numbers of full-time workers employed the previous year. DSM reported receiving credits towards taxes payable under this program for its 2004 tax return, the tax return submitted during the POR. Information supplied by DSM and the GOK indicate that this tax program is available to nearly all companies in Korea except for a small category of specialized businesses the GOK deems “harmful to juveniles, affecting public morales, certain private teaching institutes, and certain real estate businesses.” *See* page 25, Exhibit I of DSM's September 12, 2006, questionnaire. Based on information supplied by DSM and the GOK, we preliminarily determine that this program is not specific within the meaning of Section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that no countervailable benefits were conferred under this program during the POR. Preliminary Results of Review In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated a subsidy rate for DSM for 2005. We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate for DSM is 0.10 percent *ad valorem* for 2005, which is *de minimis* . *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 15 days after the date of publication of the final results, to liquidate shipments of CTL plate from DSM, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, without regard to countervailing duties. Also, the Department will instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits rate of estimated countervailing duties on shipments of CTL plate from DSM, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review. We will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding. *See CTL Plate Order* , 65 FR 6589. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(b)(1), interested parties may submit written arguments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Parties who submit written arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the written argument:
(1)A statement of the issue, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs. This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-4070 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 022707A] Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Issuance of scientific research permits. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued Permit 1105 Modification 1 to Hagar Environmental Science
(HES)in Richmond, CA; and Permit 1121 to Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) in San Jose, CA. This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ), threatened Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ), and threatened South-Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ). ADDRESSES: The applications, permits, and related documents are available for review by appointment at: Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 315, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 (ph: 707-575-6097, fax: 707-578-3435, e-mail at: *Jeffrey.Jahn@noaa.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Jahn at 707-575-6097, or e-mail: *Jeffrey.Jahn@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority The issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications:
(1)are applied for in good faith;
(2)would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and
(3)are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations (50 CFR parts 222-226) governing listed fish and wildlife permits. Species Covered in This Notice This notice is relevant to federally endangered Central California Coast coho salmon ( *Oncorhynchus kisutch* ), threatened Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ), and threatened South-Central California Coast steelhead ( *O. mykiss* ).Permits Issued A notice of the receipt of an application to renew and modify Permit 1105 was published in the **Federal Register** on December 4, 2006 (71 FR 70367). Permit 1105 Modification 1 was issued to HES on February 15, 2007. Permit 1105 Modification 1 authorizes capture (by seine or backpack electrofishing), handling, and release of juvenile Central California Coast coho salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, and South-Central California Coast steelhead. Permit 1105 Modification 1 is for research to be conducted in the following watersheds and coastal lagoons: Pilarcitos Creek in San Mateo County, California; San Lorenzo River, Liddell Creek, Laguna Creek, and Majors Creek in Santa Cruz County, California; Salinas River in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties, California; and Arroyo Grande Creek in San Luis Obispo County, California. Permit 1105 Modification 1 authorizes unintentional lethal take of juvenile ESA-listed salmonids associated with research activities not to exceed 3 percent of ESA-listed salmonids captured. Permit 1105 Modification 1 does not authorize take of adult ESA-listed salmonids or intentional lethal take of ESA-listed salmonids. The purpose of the research is to provide ESA-listed salmonid population, distribution, and habitat assessment data to inform watershed management as well as establish baseline population abundances preceding the implementation of habitat conservation measures. Permit 1105 Modification 1 expires on December 31, 2011.A notice of the receipt of an application for a scientific research permit
(1121)was published in the **Federal Register** on September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55169). Permit 1121 was issued to SCVWD on February 15, 2007. Permit 1121 authorizes capture (by backpack electrofishing or boat electrofishing), handling, and release of juvenile Central California Coast steelhead; and capture (by weir-trap), handling, and release of adult Central California Coast steelhead. Permit 1121 is for research to be conducted in the Coyote Creek, Guadalupe River, and Stevens Creek watersheds in Santa Clara County, California. Permit 1121 authorizes unintentional lethal take of juvenile ESA-listed salmonids associated with research activities not to exceed 3 percent of ESA-listed salmonids captured. Permit 1121 does not authorize intentional lethal take of ESA-listed salmonids or unintentional lethal take of adult ESA-listed salmonids. The purpose of the research is to provide fish population and habitat assessment data to direct SCVWD water-use and habitat restoration activities. Permit 1121 expires on December 31, 2011. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3950 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 022807E] Marine Mammals; File No. 782-1719 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for amendment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that The National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), Alaska Fisheries Science Center, (Dr. John L. Bengston, Principal Investigator), 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, Washington 98115-6349, has requested an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 782-1719-04. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before April 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: The amendment request and related documents are available for review upon written request, or by appointment (See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this request should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular amendment request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing email comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 782-1719-05. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Hapeman or Carrie Hubard, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject amendment to Permit No. 782-1719-00, issued on June 30, 2004 (69 FR 44514) and most recently amended on November 14, 2006 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216). Permit No. 782-1719-04 authorizes NMML to take all species of cetaceans under NMFS jurisdiction during stock assessment activities throughout U.S. territorial waters and the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, and Arctic Ocean. The permit authorizes Level B harassment during close approach for aerial surveys, vessel-based surveys, observations, and photo-identification and Level A harassment during biopsy sampling and attachment of scientific instruments. NMML requests an increase in the number of biopsy samples from and attachment of scientific instruments to gray whales ( *Eschrichtius robustus* ) to study the animals during their northward migration and expand their spring sampling activities in the Bering Sea and the waters of Washington and Kodiak Island, Alaska. NMML requests to increase the number of non-ESA-listed killer whales ( *Orcinus orca* ) that may be biopsy sampled and have scientific instruments attached to examine killer whale diet and movement patterns, as directed by the Marine Mammal Commission. NMML also requests harassment during close approach for aerial and vessel surveys, photo-identification, tagging, and biopsy sampling of non-endangered dwarf sperm whale ( *Kogia breviceps* ), pygmy sperm whale ( *Kogia simus* ), rough-toothed dolphin ( *Steno bredanensis* ), Hawaii spinner dolphin ( *Stenella longirostris* ), striped dolphin ( *Stenella coeruleoalba* ), and melon-headed whale ( *Peponocephala electra* ) in the North Pacific Ocean to develop reliable abundance estimates and examine stock structure. The amended permit, if issued, would be valid until the permit expires on June 30, 2009. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Documents may be reviewed in the following locations: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426; Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249; Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018; and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)973-2935; fax (808)973-2941. Dated: February 28, 2007. Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3899 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 022807D] Marine Mammals; File Nos. 605-1607 and 605-1904 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of amendment request; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Whale Center of New England (Mason Weinrich, Principal Investigator), P.O. Box 159, Gloucester, MA 01930 has withdrawn a request to amend Permit No. 605-1607-02 and has applied in due form for a new permit (File No. 605-1904) to conduct research on humpback ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ), fin ( *Balaenoptera physalus* ), and sei ( *Balaenoptera borealis* ) whales. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before April 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is *NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: File No. 605-1904. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Hapeman or Jaclyn Daly, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226). The Whale Center of New England requests a 5-year scientific research permit to continue population monitoring of humpback, fin, and sei whales in North Atlantic waters of the northeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S. Research would help determine baleen whale population status and trends, assess prey availability and whale-prey interactions, and help develop a technique to age whales from biopsy samples. The applicant is requesting to harass 400 humpback, 250 fin, and 100 sei whales by close approach for vessel surveys and photo-identification annually. The applicant also requests to biopsy sample 75 humpback and 75 fin whales annually, up to 20 of which for each species may be young calves. The applicant also requests to suction-cup tag 40 humpback, 20 fin, and 25 sei whales greater than six months of age annually. With this new permit application, the request for an amendment to Permit No. 605-1607-02, published on April 7, 2004 (69 FR 18357), has been withdrawn. Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors. Dated: February 28, 2007. Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3900 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 030107E] Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council); Public Meetings AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene public meetings. DATES: The meeting will be held March 26 - 30, 2007. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates and times. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites, 570 Scenic Gulf Drive, Destin, FL 32550. *Council address* : Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone:
(813)348-1630. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council Thursday, March 29, 2007 *8:30 a.m.* - The Council meeting will begin with a review the agenda and minutes. *8:45 a.m. - 9 a.m.* - Public testimony on exempted fishing permits (EFPs), if any. *9 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.* - The Council will hold an Open Public Comment Period regarding any fishery issue or concern. People wishing to speak before the Council should complete a public comment card prior to the comment period. The Council will then review and discuss reports from the previous three day's committee meetings as follows: *1 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.* - Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management; *3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.* - Reef Fish Management; *4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - CLOSED SESSION for Advisory Panel
(AP)and Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC)Section Committees and Reef Fish Committee; *6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.* - NMFS Public Scoping Session on guidance for use of the annual catch limits. Friday, March 30, 2007 *8:30 a.m.* - The Council meeting will reconvene to continue reviewing and discussing reports from the previous three day's committee meetings as follows: *8:30 a.m. - 9 a.m.* - Mackerel Management; *9 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.* - Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum; *9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.* - Budget/Personnel; *9:45 a.m. - 10 a.m.* - Data Collection; *10 a.m. - 11 a.m.* - Administrative Policy; and *11 a.m. - 12 p.m* . - Other Business items. Committees Monday, March 26, 2007 *1 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.* - CLOSED SESSION - The AP Selection Committee will meet to appoint AP members. *3:30 p.m. - 5 p.m.* - CLOSED SESSION - The SSC Selection Committee will meet to appoint SSC, Stock Assessment Panel
(SAP)and Socioeconomic Panel
(SEP)members. *5 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - The Budget/Personnel Committee will meet to discuss the State Liaison Budget Increases. Tuesday March 27, 2007 *8:30 a.m. - 12 p.m.* - The Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management Committee will meet to review Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) Analyses Runs. The Committee will also review the current Public Hearing Draft of Reef Fish Amendment 27/Shrimp Amendment 14 and the SSC's recommendations; the NMFS' FEIS and Interim Rule for Red Snapper; the SEFSC Report on Release Mortality in Relation to Depth and Dolphin Predation, the Framework Action to Revise the List of Allowable bycatch reduction devices (BRDs); NMFS Interim Rule for Red Snapper; and an Options Paper for Reef Fish Amendment 31/Shrimp Amendment 15. *1:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - The Joint Reef Fish/Shrimp Management Committee continues. Wednesday, March 28, 2007 *8:30 a.m. - 12 noon* - The Reef Fish Management Committee will meet to discuss the updates on Reef Fish Amendment 29; the Ad Hoc Grouper Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ)AP recommendations for an IFQ program; the Guidelines for a Referendum for Grouper/Tilefish IFQ; the Scoping Document for Amendment 30; PARTIALLY CLOSED SESSION - the formation of an Ad Hoc Recreational Red Snapper AP for developing new ideas to manage recreational and for-hire red snapper fisheries. *1:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.* - The Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel/Red Drum Committees will meet to discuss the Status Report on a Public Hearing Draft for the Generic Aquaculture Amendment and SSC Recommendations on completing a Red Drum SEDAR Stock Assessment. *2:30 p.m. - 4 p.m.* - The Administrative Policy Committee will meet to discuss the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) Requirements for Annual Catch Limits. *4 p.m. - 5 p.m.* - The Data Collection Committee will meet to discuss a paper for an Amendment to Require Trip Tickets for Recreational-For-Hire Sector. *5 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.* - The Mackerel Management Committee will meet to reconsider the Joint Mackerel Management Committee report from its September 18 & 19, 2006 meeting. *6 p.m. - 8 p.m.* - NMFS will provide an update on the Red Snapper IFQ program and there will be a Question and Answer Session. The committee reports will be presented to the Council for consideration on Thursday March 29, and on Friday, March 30, 2007. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice. Special Accommodations These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tina Trezza at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. Dated: March 2, 2007. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-3954 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 0612242656-7046-01] Public Telecommunications Facilities Program: Closing Date AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of availability of funds. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, P. L. 110-5, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, announces the solicitation of applications for planning and construction grants for public telecommunications facilities under the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP). The PTFP assists, through matching grants, in the planning and construction of public telecommunications facilities in order to:
(1)Extend delivery of services to as many citizens as possible by the most cost-effective means, including use of broadcast and non-broadcast technologies;
(2)increase public telecommunications services and facilities available to, operated by, and controlled by minorities and women;
(3)strengthen the capability of existing public television and radio stations to provide public telecommunications services to the public. DATES: Applications must be received prior to 5 p.m. Eastern Time (Closing Time), April 6, 2007, (Closing Date). Applications submitted by facsimile are not acceptable. If an application is received after the Closing Date due to
(1)carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the Closing Date and Closing Time,
(2)significant weather delays or natural disasters, or
(3)delays due to national security issues, NTIA will, upon receipt of proper documentation, consider the application as having been received by the deadline. NTIA will not accept applications posted on the Closing Date or later and received after this deadline. ADDRESSES: To obtain a printed application package, submit completed applications, or send any other correspondence, write to PTFP at the following address (please note the new room number): NTIA/PTFP, Room H-4812, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Application materials may be obtained electronically via the Internet at *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp* or *www.Grants.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Cooperman, Director, Public Broadcasting Division, *telephone:*
(202)482-5802; *fax:*
(202)482-2156. Information about the PTFP can also be obtained electronically via the Internet at *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ptfp* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access The full funding opportunity announcement for the PTFP FY 2007 grant cycle is available through *www.Grants.gov* or by contacting the PTFP office at the address noted above. Funding Availability The Congress has appropriated $20 million for FY 2007 PTFP awards. For FY 2006, NTIA awarded $19.2 million in PTFP funds to 94 projects, including 49 radio awards, 40 television awards and 5 nonbroadcast awards. The radio awards ranged from $8,000 to $902,393. The television awards ranged from $48,712 to $1,000,000. The nonbroadcast awards ranged from $67,455 to $253,782. Statutory and Regulatory Authority The Public Telecommunications Facilities Program is authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 390-393, 397-399(b). The PTFP operates pursuant to rules (1996 Rules) which were published on November 8, 1996 (61 FR 57966). Copies of the 1996 Rules (15 CFR part 2301) are posted on the NTIA Internet site at *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/Rules/currentrules.htm* and NTIA will make printed copies available to applicants upon request. Supplemental Policies *The following supplemental policies will also be in effect:*
(A)Applicants may file emergency applications at any time.
(B)Applicants may file requests for Federal Communications Commission
(FCC)authorizations with the FCC after the PTFP Closing Date. Grant applicants for Ku-band satellite uplinks may submit FCC applications after a PTFP award is made. NTIA may accept FCC authorizations that are in the name of an organization other than the PTFP applicant.
(C)PTFP applicants are not required to submit copies of their PTFP applications to the FCC, nor are they required to submit copies of the FCC transmittal cover letters as part of their PTFP applications. PTFP applicants for distance learning projects must notify the state telecommunications agencies in the states in which they are located but are not required to notify every state telecommunications agency in a potential service area.
(D)For digital television conversion projects, NTIA has created two new Subpriorities in the Broadcast Other category.
(E)For digital radio conversion projects, NTIA has created a new Subpriority in the Broadcast Other category. *Catalog of Domestic Federal Assistance:* 11.550, Public Telecommunications Facilities Program. Eligibility To apply for and receive a PTFP Construction Grant or Planning Grant, an applicant must be:
(a)A public or noncommercial educational broadcast station;
(b)a noncommercial telecommunications entity;
(c)a system of public telecommunications entities;
(d)a non-profit foundation, corporation, institution, or association organized primarily for educational or cultural purposes; or
(e)a state, local, or Indian tribal government (or agency thereof), or a political or special purpose subdivision of a state. Evaluation and Selection Process See 15 CFR 2301.16 for a description of the Technical Evaluation and 15 CFR 2301.18 for the Selection Process. Evaluation Criteria See 15 CFR 2301.17 for a full description of the Evaluation Criteria. The six evaluation criteria are
(1)Applicant Qualifications,
(2)Financial Qualifications,
(3)Project Objectives,
(4)Urgency,
(5)Technical Qualifications (construction applicants only) or Planning Qualifications (planning applicants only), and
(6)Special Consideration. Funding Priorities and Selection Factors See 15 CFR 2301.4 and the supplemental policies above for a description of the PTFP Priorities and 15 CFR 2301.18 for the Selection Factors. Cost Sharing Requirements PTFP requires cost sharing. By statute, PTFP cannot fund a construction project for more than 75 percent of the eligible project costs. NTIA has established a policy of funding most new public broadcasting station activation projects at a 75 percent federal share, and most other television, radio and nonbroadcast projects at a 50 percent federal share. NTIA can fund planning applications up to 100% of the eligible project costs, but has established a policy of funding planning applications at a 75 percent. Any applicant can request federal funding greater than PTFP's policy, up to the statutory maximum, and provide justification for the request. Intergovernmental Review PTFP applications are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” if the state in which the applicant organization is located participates in the process. Usually submission to the State Single Point of Contact
(SPOC)needs to be only the SF 424 and PTFP-2 pages of the application, but applicants should contact their own SPOC offices to find out about and comply with its requirements. The PTFP Internet site has a link to the Office of Management and Budget's home page which has the names and addresses of the SPOC offices. Applicants may directly access the OMB Internet site at ( *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html* ). Printed copies of the SPOC list are available from PTFP. Universal Identifier All applicants (nonprofit, state, local government, universities, and tribal organizations) will be required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS)number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66177) and April 8, 2003 (68 FR 17000) **Federal Register** notices for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line 1-866-705-5711 or via the Internet ( *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com* ). The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification of Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004, (69 FR 78389) is applicable to this solicitation. Limitation of Liability In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not obligate the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Paperwork Reduction Act Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. The PTFP application form has been cleared under OMB Control No. 0660-0003. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this rule concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Bernadette McGuire-Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications. [FR Doc. E7-4017 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 07-10] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM,
(703)604-6575. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-10 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: February 28, 2007. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN07MR07.000 EN07MR07.001 EN07MR07.002 EN07MR07.003 [FR Doc. 07-1060 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 30
Traces to 30 documents
CFR
19 references not yet in our index
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 223 F. Supp. 2d 1336
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
  • 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350
  • 243 F.3d 1301
  • 19 CFR 309(d)
  • 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246
  • 162 F. Supp. 2d 656
  • 19 CFR 505(a)(3)(ii)
  • 16 USC 1531-1543
  • 50 CFR 216
  • 50 CFR 222
  • 47 USC 390-393
  • 15 CFR 2301
  • 15 CFR 2301.16
  • 15 CFR 2301.18
  • 15 CFR 2301.17
  • 15 CFR 2301.4
  • Pub. L. 104-164
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Issuance of scientific research permits
C.F.R.§ 351.222
C.F.R.§ 351.214
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.404
C.F.R.§ 351.410
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.402
F. App'x337 F.3d 1373
F. Supp.223 F. Supp. 2d 1336
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
Cites 49 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.