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 · 2007-06-11 · Rural Housing Service, USDA · Notices

Notices. Notice of Funds Availability

12,391 words·~56 min read·/register/2007/06/11/07-2878

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

BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Section 538 Multi-Family Housing Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program (GRRHP) Demonstration Program for Fiscal Year 2007 AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Funds Availability. SUMMARY: Through this Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA), the Agency announces the implementation of a demonstration program under the section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program (GRRHP) pursuant to 7 CFR 3565.4 for Fiscal Year
(FY)2007 and 7 CFR 3565.17 Demonstration programs. The Demonstration Program's purpose is to test the viability and efficacy of the concept of a continuous loan note guarantee through the construction and permanent loan financing phases of a project. Those applications that meet the Demonstration Program's qualifying criteria and are selected to participate will be offered one loan note guarantee upon closing of the construction loan that will be in effect throughout both of the project's construction and permanent phases without interruption. To be considered for participation in the Demonstration Program, in addition to responding to this NOFA, a Lender must have first submitted its application under either the GRRHP's 2007 Notice at 72 FR 8339 (Feb. 26, 2007) or the GRRHP's 2006 Notice at 71 FR 4559 (Jan. 27, 2006). Furthermore, the application to be considered must have been obligated from October 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007. The funding for the Demonstration Program will be approximately $10 million. Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's risk. The following paragraphs outline the timeframes, eligibility requirements, lender responsibilities, and the overall response and application processes. Eligible Lenders wishing to have their FY 2007 obligations considered for the Demonstration Program must send a signed request on its letterhead with the proposed project details as outlined in the “Demonstration Program Response Submission Address” section of this NOFA. *Demonstration Program Guidelines:* The following guidelines are being provided to facilitate a structured implementation of the program: 1. Demonstration guarantee. The Demonstration guarantee is a guarantee that will be offered to those applications that apply for and meet the 2007 Demonstration NOFA's demonstration program's qualifying criteria. The Demonstration guarantee will consist of one loan note guarantee upon closing of the construction loan that will be in effect throughout both of the project's construction and permanent financing phases without interruption. 2. Upon approval of an application from an approved lender, the Agency will commit to providing a demonstration guarantee for the construction and permanent financing phases of the project, subject to the availability of funds. 3. Guarantee percentage and payment. Both construction loan advances and permanent loans are eligible for a guaranty subject to the following limitations: Construction loan advances and permanent loans. The Agency may guarantee a construction contract which has credit enhancements to protect the Government's interest. The Agency can guarantee the “construction and permanent” financing phases of a project. The Agency cannot, however, guarantee only the “construction” financing phase of a project. Guarantees under the demonstration guarantee will cover construction loan advances and the subsequent permanent loan. A demonstration guarantee requires an additional operating reserve equal to 2% of the appraised value of the project or total development costs, whichever is greater, to be set aside prior to closing the construction loan. This cash contribution is an additional amount, over and above the required initial operating and maintenance contribution. The maximum guarantee of construction advances will not at any time exceed the lesser of 90 percent of the amount of principal and interest up to default advanced for eligible uses of loan proceeds or 90 percent of the original principal amount and interest up to default of a loan. Penalties incurred as a result of default are not covered by the guarantee. The Agency may provide a lesser guarantee based upon its evaluation of the credit quality of the loan. 4. A lender making a construction loan must demonstrate an ability to originate and service construction loans. 5. Guarantee during construction. The Agency will issue a demonstration guarantee only to an approved lender. 6. Demonstration guarantee program compliance requirement. For a demonstration guarantee, the following items will have to be submitted in order to remain compliant with program requirements. The items must be submitted within the timeframe stipulated by the Agency and must also be approved by the Agency:
(1)A certificate of substantial completion;
(2)A certificate of occupancy or similar evidence of local approval;
(3)A final cost certification in a form acceptable to the Agency;
(4)A complete copy of the permanent loan closing docket; and
(5)Necessary information to complete an updated necessary assistance review by the Agency. The Agency may declare the loan in default if the Lender fails to comply with the demonstration guarantee program guidelines. The Agency may also declare the loan in default if the Agency's final inspection is not satisfactory. To facilitate the implementation of the program, certain program forms may be addended to include relevant Demonstration Program requirements. The selected applicants will be subject to the Demonstration Program guidelines in this NOFA, and GRRHP's controlling statute, regulations, and handbook as amended. The GRRHP operates under the Housing Act of 1949 and regulations at 7 CFR part 3565. The GRRHP Origination and Servicing Handbook (HB-1-3565) is available to provide lenders and the general public with guidance on program administration. HB-1-3565, which contains a copy of 7 CFR part 3565 in Appendix 1, can be found at the Rural Development Instructions Web site address *http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/regs/hblist.html#hbw6.* *Demonstration Program Eligibility:* Applications that meet the following criteria will be eligible for consideration to be selected into the Demonstration Program: 1. The project must have been awarded tax credits. 2. The project must have a loan to cost
(LTC)ratio equal to or lower than 50%. 3. The Lender must have submitted [for this project] a loan guarantee application under either the GRRHP's 2007 Notice at 72 FR 8339 (Feb. 26, 2007) or the GRRHP's 2006 Notice at 71 FR 4559 (Jan. 27, 2006). Additionally, the application to be considered must have been obligated from October 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007. 4. The Lender must have submitted a timely response to this NOFA in accordance with the “Demonstration Program Response Submission Address” section of this NOFA. *Demonstration Program Selection Process:* Selections from qualified obligations that have requested consideration will be made based on their interest credit scores, with the highest scoring obligations, being selected first, until all available Demonstration Program funds are allocated. In the event of a tie, priority will be given to the project that: is in the smaller rural community, and in case of a subsequent tie has the lowest LTC ratio. Selections into the Demonstration Program will be made on August 14, 2007, from the qualified pool of applications that were obligated from October 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007. In the event there are not enough qualified requests for selection into the Demonstration Program to utilize all the available Demonstration Program set-aside funds of approximately $10 million, then the selection process for any remaining funds will be conducted again on September 11, 2007, and will include all applications obligated from October 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007. All applicants will be notified of the selection results no later than 15 business days from the date of selection. *Demonstration Program Response Submission Address:* Eligible lenders wishing to have their obligated applications considered for selection into the Demonstration Program must submit a signed request (not to exceed one page) on its letterhead that includes the following information: 1. Developer's Name. 2. Borrower's Name. 3. Project's Name. 4. Project's Address (City and State). 5. Project Type (Family, Senior, or Mixed). 6. Project's Total Units. 7. Project's Total Development Cost (TDC). 8. Amount of 538 Loan Guarantee. 9. Amount of Tax Credits Awarded. 10. Amount and Source of Other Financing. 11. Loan to Cost
(LTC)%. 12. Area Population. 13. Date obligated or date of Conditional Commitment. Send the Demonstration Program Response Submission Letter with all of the information listed above, along with a copy of the State Office's “Proceed with Application/NOFA Response Selection” letter and a copy of the tax credit award notification to: C.B. Alonso, Senior Loan Specialist, Multi-Family Housing Processing Division, Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, South Agriculture Building, Room 1271, Stop 0781, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0781. Requests may also be faxed to 202-205-5066 or sent by e-mail (signed PDF copies of the above submissions) to *cb.alonso@wdc.usda.gov.* Eligible lenders mailing a request must provide sufficient time to permit delivery to the SUBMISSION ADDRESS on or before August 13, 2007. Acceptance by a U.S. Post Office or private mailer does not constitute delivery. Postage due responses and applications will not be accepted. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status (not all prohibited basis apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice or TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call toll free
(866)632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay
(800)720-6382
(TDD)or
(866)377-8642 (relay voice users). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Dated: June 4, 2007. David J. Villano, Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. E7-11169 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-846] Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 15, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the preliminary results of the 2005-2006 administrative and new shipper reviews and partial rescission of the 2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006, period. *See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review* , 72 FR 7405 (February 15, 2007). The final results of the review are currently due on June 15, 2007. On March 5, 2007, Longkou Haimeng Machinery Co., Ltd., Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd., Yantai Winhere Auto-Part Manufacturing Co., Ltd, Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Company Ltd., Laizhou Hongda Auto Replacement Parts Co., Ltd., and Laizhou City Luqi Machinery Co., Ltd., requested a 28-day extension of time to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production. On March 6, 2007, the Department issued a letter to all interested parties granting the requested 28-day extension of time to submit publicly available information to value the factors of production. In that letter, the Department stated that it was postponing the briefing schedule until further notice pending the release of the verification report of Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd., Shandong Huanri Group General Co., and Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. (collectively “Huanri”). From March 20, 2007, through March 22, 2007, the Department verified the Section A and quantity and value questionnaire response of Huanri in Panjia Village, Laizhou, PRC. On May 4, 2007, the Department issued the verification report for Huanri. *See* Memorandum to the File through Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, and Robert Bolling, Program Manager, From Eugene Degnan, Senior International Trade Analyst, and Paul Stolz, International Trade Compliance Analyst, entitled, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Verification of Section A and Quantity and Value Response of Shandong Huanri Group Co., Ltd., Laizhou Huanri Automobile Parts Co., Ltd., and Shandong Huanri Group General Co.” On May 10, 2007, the Department set the deadlines for submission of case and rebuttal briefs as May 21, 2007, and May 29, 2007, respectively. On May 10, 2007, the Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers (“the Petitioner”), requested a 5-day extension of time to submit rebuttal briefs. On May 15, 2007, the Department granted the Petitioner's request and extended the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs to June 5, 2007, for all parties. Extension of Time Limit of Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) requires the Department to issue the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete this review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to a maximum of 180 days after the publication date of the preliminary results. The Department determines that completion of the final results of these reviews within the statutory time period is not practicable. The Department requires additional time to analyze comments regarding the 19 respondents, including 15 separate-rate respondents and three mandatory respondents in the administrative review and one respondent in the new shipper review. Therefore, given the number and complexity of issues and companies in this case, and in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by 46 days to 166 days after the publication of the preliminary results. Therefore, the final results will be due no later than July 31, 2007. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 5, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-11251 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-865] Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Christopher Riker, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3207 and
(202)482-3441, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On November 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period of review (“POR”) November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 64240 (November 1, 2006). On November 30, 2006, United States Steel (“Petitioner”), a domestic producer of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Anshan Iron & Steel Group Corp., Angang Group International Trade Corporation, Angang New Iron and Steel Co., Angang New Steel Co., Ltd., and Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd. (collectively “Angang”) and Baosteel Group Corporation, Shanghai Baosteel International Economic & Trading Co., Ltd., and Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively “Baosteel”). On December 27, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* (“ *Notice of Initiation* ”), 71 FR 77720 (December 27, 2006). On January 4, 2007, the Department issued a quantity and value questionnaire to Angang and Baosteel. On January 18, 2007, Angang submitted a letter stating that Angang had no sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Also on January 18, 2007, Baosteel submitted a letter stating that it had no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On February 7, 2007, Petitioner submitted information on the record of this review, in the form of Port Import Export Reporting Service (“PIERS”) data, which is a subscription service based upon shipping manifests, alleging that there were entries made of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang and Baosteel. On February 13, 2007, the Department requested that Angang and Baosteel provide comments on the PIERS data placed on the record by Petitioner. Also, on February 13, 2007, the Department requested that Petitioner provide the Harmonized Tariff Codes for the data it provided from PIERS and explain how the information it placed on the record could be tied to actual entry documentation from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Baosteel submitted comments on February 16, 2007, and on March 6, 2007, again stating that it had no shipments, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR to the United States, and provided supporting sales documentation for the entries listed in the PIERS data to demonstrate that those entries were not subject merchandise. On February 20, 2007, Angang responded to the Department's February 13, 2007, questionnaire, and stated again that it had no shipments, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and alleged that the PIERS data placed on the record by Petitioner was not reflective of the actual material that was shipped by Angang. Also, on February 20, 2007, Petitioner submitted a response to the Department's February 13, 2007, questionnaire, and placed a revised version of the PIERS data on the record which contained the tariff code numbers. The Department conducted a CBP data query for possible entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang and Baosteel. The data query response indicated that there were no shipments by either Angang or Baosteel during the POR. On January 16, 2007, we sent inquiries to CBP requesting notification as to whether it had information indicating that there were shipments of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR by Angang or Baosteel. We received responses from several CBP ports indicating that certain shipments by Baosteel to the United States during the POR may contain subject merchandise. We requested all of the documentation relating to these shipments and placed the documentation on the record. *See* Memorandum to the File from Catherine Bertrand dated April 11, 2007. On April 11, 2007, we sent Baosteel a questionnaire regarding the entry documentation, and requested that Baosteel explain whether the entries were subject merchandise. On May 2, 2007, Baosteel responded and maintained that the entries in the entry documentation were for cold-rolled carbon steel which is outside the scope of the antidumping duty order. *See* Baosteel's May 2, 2007, submission: Response to April 11, 2007 Questionnaire. Petitioner did not provide comments on Baosteel's May 2, 2007, submission. Scope of the Review For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( *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 thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this review. Specifically included within the scope of this review are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy
(HSLA)steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this review, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 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 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this review: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, *e.g.* , American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506). • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute
(AISI)grades of series 2300 and higher. • Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. • Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent. • ASTM specifications A710 and A736. • USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). • All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507). • Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS. The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this review, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is November 1, 2005, through October 31, 2006. Preliminary Rescission of Review The Department has analyzed all of the information on the record regarding alleged U.S. entries of subject merchandise during the POR by Angang and Baosteel. As noted above, Petitioner placed information on the record from PIERS that indicated there may have been U.S. entries of subject merchandise during the POR from Angang and Baosteel. The legal description of what enters the Unites States is determined by CBP entry documentation. Where a conflict exists between PIERS and CBP information, the Department weighs the CBP data more heavily because it contains the actual entry documentation for the shipment, including the Customs 7501 form, invoice, and bill of lading. The CBP data regarding Baosteel indicates that the merchandise is not subject to the order covering this review. Additionally, the supporting documents placed on the record by Baosteel concerning these entries indicate that the merchandise at issue was cold-rolled steel, which is not subject to the scope of the order. CBP did not indicate that there were any shipments from Angang of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that the merchandise from the entry documentation is not subject to the scope of the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled carbon steel flat product from the PRC. Because there is no information on the record which indicates that either Angang or Baosteel made sales, shipments, or entries to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR, and because Angang and Baosteel are the only companies subject to this administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the PRC for the period of November 1, 2005, to October 31, 2006. If the rescission is confirmed in our final results, the cash deposit rate for Angang and Baosteel will continue to be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding. Interested parties may submit comments for consideration in the Department's final results not later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Responses to those comments may be submitted not later than 10 days following submission of the comments. All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served on interested parties on the Department's service list in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results, and will publish these results in the **Federal Register** . This notice is published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: May 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-11206 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-829] Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by Carpenter Technology Corporation, a domestic interested party, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel wire rod
(SSWR)from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise that have been collapsed for purposes of the Department's analysis, consistent with prior determinations in this proceeding. The period of review is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. The Department has preliminarily determined that the companies subject to this review made U.S. sales of SSWR at prices less than normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review. We will issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-0410. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 15, 1998, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See *Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea* , 63 FR 49331 (September 15, 1998) ( *Amended Final Determination* ), and *Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea: Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision* , 66 FR 41550 (August 8, 2001) ( *Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision* ). In September 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on SSWR from Korea. See *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 52061 (September 1, 2006). On September 29, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.213(b)(1), Carpenter Technology Corporation requested that the Department conduct a review of Changwon Specialty Steel Co., Ltd. (Changwon), and Dongbang Special Steel Co., Ltd. (Dongbang), and any of their affiliates (collectively, the respondent 1 ) for the period from September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. 1 We collapsed Changwon and Dongbang in the less-than-fair-value investigation and in every subsequent review of this order because we found “a close supplier relationship between the entities.” See, *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea* , 63 FR 40404, 40405 (July 29, 1998). In October 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review of the respondent. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 63752 (October 31, 2006). On November 2, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to the respondent. The respondent did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. On December 15, 2006, we sent a letter to the respondent requesting that it respond to our questionnaire. The respondent submitted no response to this letter. The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of review is September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are those SSWR that are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate. SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-rolling annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or small-diameter bar. The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217 inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches in diameter. Two stainless steel grades are excluded from the scope of the order. SF20T and K-M35FL are excluded. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as follows: SF20T Carbon 0.05 max Manganese 2.00 max Phosphorous 0.05 max Sulfur 0.15 max Silicon 1.00 max Chromium 19.00/21.00 Molybdenum 1.50/2.50 Lead-added (0.10/0.30) Tellurium-added (0.03 min) K-M35FL Carbon 0.015 max Silicon 0.70/1.00 Manganese 0.40 max Phosphorous 0.04 max Sulfur 0.03 max Nickel 0.30 max Chromium 12.50/14.00 Lead 0.10/0.30 Aluminum 0.20/0.35 The products subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and 7221.00.0075 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Use of Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting among the facts otherwise available. See Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). By not responding to our questionnaire, the respondent withheld information we requested. Therefore, we have no choice but to rely upon the facts otherwise available in reaching our determination pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act. See *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 18369 (April 11, 2005) (“because this company refused to participate in this administrative review, we find that...the use of total facts available is appropriate”) (results unchanged in the final); see *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From Japan* , 68 FR 71072 (December 22, 2003) (“{s}ince UC and DNP withheld information requested by the Department, the Department has no choice but to rely on the facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for these parties”) (results unchanged in the final). Because the respondent did not respond to the Department's questionnaires in those cases, the Department could not calculate an accurate margin. In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act states that, if 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 Department, in reaching the applicable determination under section 776(b) of the Act the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By failing to submit a response to the Department's questionnaire, the respondent did not cooperate to the best of its ability in this review. Accordingly, we find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure that the respondent will not obtain a more favorable result than had it fully complied with our request in this review. As adverse facts available, we have used the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding, which is a rate from the less-than-fair-value investigation, 28.44 percent. See *Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea* , 63 FR 49331 (September 15, 1998) ( *Amended Final Determination* ). This rate was the highest rate in the petition and was used as adverse facts available for Sammi Steel Co., Ltd. See *Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Korea* , 63 FR 10825 (March 5, 1998) ( *Preliminary LTFV* ); see also *Amended Final Determination* . When a respondent is not cooperative, like the respondent here, the Department has the discretion to presume that the highest prior margin is probative evidence of current margins. See *Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States* , 298 F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing *Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States* , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ( *Rhone Poulenc* )). As stated in *Rhone Poulenc* , “if it were not so, the {respondent}, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” See *Rhone Poulenc* , 899 F.2.d at 1190. Further, as stated in *Shanghai Taoen* , “{t}he purposes of using the highest prior antidumping duty rate are to offer assurance that the exporter will not benefit from refusing to provide information, and to produce an antidumping duty rate that bears some relationship to past practices in the industry in question.” *Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States* , 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) ( *Shanghai Taoen* ) (citing *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220,1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Section 776(c) of the Act states that, “{w}hen the administering authority or the Commission relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, the administering authority or the Commission, as the case may be, shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at their disposal.” Secondary information is defined as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. Where the Department relies upon secondary information to determine adverse facts available, as here, section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *Id* . To corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. *Id* . at 869. The independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See 19 CFR § 351.308(d) and SAA at 870. Information from a prior segment of this proceeding, such as that used here, constitutes secondary information. See, *e.g.* , *Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003). As described further below, in accordance with these standards, the Department finds that the petition rate is relevant and reliable. The reliability of the adverse facts-available rate was determined by our corroboration of that rate in the original less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation. See *Preliminary LTFV* , 63 FR at 10826-7. No party contested the application of that rate in the investigation. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Korea* , 63 FR 40404 (July 29, 1998). Furthermore, the Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the adverse facts-available rate. Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F. 3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances is present here. In addition, although the Department has the discretion to presume that the highest prior margin has probative value, to “satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value,” the Department has placed the margin-transaction database ( *i.e.* , the U.S. sales database with the margins it calculated for each transaction) for the respondent from the immediately prior (2004-05) administrative review of the order on the record of this review. See Memorandum to File titled “Placing Proprietary Data from 2004-05 Administrative Review Record on the Record of This Administrative Review” dated June 1, 2007. This information demonstrates the recent pricing practices of the respondent. Although the 2004-05 margin-transaction database is not contemporaneous with the period of review, it is only one year removed from the period for this review. The 2004-05 margin-transaction database corroborates the margin of 28.44 percent in that a significant number of transactions had margins equal to or above 28.44 percent. For a detailed explanation on how we corroborated of the margin of 28.44 percent, see Memorandum to File titled “Corroboration of Adverse Facts Available” dated June 1, 2007. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in any segment of this administrative proceeding ( *i.e.* , 28.44 percent) is in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act's requirement that we corroborate secondary information to the extent practicable ( *i.e.* , that it have probative value) and we have used that rate for the respondent in this administrative review. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine a weighted-average dumping margin of 28.44 percent for Changwon/Dongbang for the period September 1, 2005, through August 31, 2006. Public Comment Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of this review, we will disclose to interested parties any analysis memoranda in connection with the preliminary results. See 19 CFR § 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . See 19 CFR § 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Also, interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument
(1)a statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities cited. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing an electronic copy of the public version of such comments. Unless the deadline for issuing the final results of review is extended, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results in the **Federal Register** . Assessment Rates Within 15 days of publication of the final results of review, the Department will issue instructions to CBP directing it to assess the final assessment rate uniformly on all entries during the period of review of subject merchandise that was produced or exported by Changwon/Dongbang. If nothing changes between this notice and the final results of review, the final assessment rate will be the adverse facts-available rate of 28.44 percent. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash-deposit rate for Changwon/Dongbang will be the rate established in the final results of this review;
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and
(4)the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 5.19 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation, as adjusted in a subsequent remand redetermination. See *Amended Final Determination* and *Amended Final Determination Pursuant to Court Decision* . These cash-deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. 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 occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 4, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-11246 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. International Trade Administration [A-489-807] Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-0656. Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) published an antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey on April 17, 1997. *See Antidumpting Duty Order: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey* , 62 FR 18748. On May 31, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the order on rebar from Turkey for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006). The review covers five producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States: Colakoglu Metalurji A.S./Colakoglu Dis Ticaret, Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S./Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Turizm Ticaret A.S./Diler Dis Ticaret A.S., Ekinciler Demir ve Celik Sanayi A.S./Ekinciler Dis Ticaret A.S., Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S., and Kaptan Metal Dis Ticaret ve Nakliyat A.S./Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. In addition, on May 26, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey for Kroman Celik Sanayii A.S., a producer of subject merchandise, and its affiliated export trading company, Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S. (collectively “Kroman”). *See Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey* , 71 FR 30383 (May 26, 2006). Kroman agreed in writing to waive the time limits in order for the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), to conduct this review concurrently with the administrative review of this order for the period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006, which is being conducted pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On May 4, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. *See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part* , 72 FR 25253 (May 4, 2007). The final results are currently due no later than September 4, 2007, the next business day after 120 days from publication of the preliminary results. Extension of the Time Limit for Final Results of Administrative Review Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Department to issue the final results in an administrative review within 120 days of the publication date of the preliminary results. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the final results to a maximum of 180 days. The Department has determined that completion of the final results of these reviews within the original time period is not practicable, given the extraordinarily complicated nature of the proceeding. The Department requires additional time complete the administrative review because of analysis of certain issues, including allegations raised by the domestic interested parties regarding affiliation among respondent companies, as well as the need to conduct verifications of certain companies. Furthermore, the new shipper review involves extraordinarily complicated issues including the above-mentioned allegations raised by the domestic interested parties regarding affiliation among respondent companies, as well as the need to conduct verification of the respondent. Therefore, the Department is fully extending the time limit for completion of the final results of the administrative and new shipper reviews to 180 days, until October 31, 2007. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 4, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-11248 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of Miami, *et al.* ; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m.. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue., NW., Washington, DC. *Docket Number:* 07-023. Applicant: University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1400. Manufacturer: JEOL, USA, Inc., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 72 FR 27076, May 14, 2007. Order Date: September 27, 2006. *Docket Number:* 07-024. Applicant: Shriners Hospitals for Children, Portland, OR. Instrument: Transmission Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI, Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 72 FR 27076, May 14, 2007. Order Date: December 20, 2006. *Docket Number:* 07-027. Applicant: University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO. Instrument: Transmission Electron Microscope, Model JEM -1400. Manufacturer: JEOL, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 72 FR 27076, May 14, 2007. Order Date: January 10, 2007. *Docket Number:* 07-028. Applicant: Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Instrument: Transmission Electron Microscope, Model FP 5005/05. Manufacturer: FEI, Brno, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 72 FR 27076, May 14, 2007. Order Date: December 20, 2006. *Comments:* None received. *Decision:* Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument. Dated: June 5, 2007. Faye Robinson, Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff. [FR Doc. E7-11234 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. International Trade Administration C-357-813 Honey from Argentina: Final Results of Full Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 28, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the countervailing duty
(CVD)order on Honey from Argentina, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of our analysis, the Department preliminarily found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. However, we received no comments from interested parties. As a result, the final results remain the same as the preliminary results of this review. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum 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)482-0197 or
(202)482-1391, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 28, 2007, the Department published its *Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Countervailing Duty Order on Honey from Argentina* , 72 FR 8970 (February 28, 2007) (Preliminary Results). In our *Preliminary Results* , we found that revocation of the order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy on the subject merchandise. Interested parties were invited to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . The Department received no comments from either the domestic interested parties or respondent interested parties. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honeys by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honeys by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, combs, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Final Results of Review As stated in the *Preliminary Results* , the Department determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. In addition, we preliminarily determined that the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked is 5.85 percent. As we did not receive any comments from any interested parties regarding the *Preliminary Results* , we have no reason to reconsider our preliminary decision. International Trade Commission
(ITC)Notification In accordance with section 752(b)(3) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final results of this full sunset review. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: June 4, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-11249 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of application to amend the Export Trade Certificate of Review ssued to the American Sugar Alliance. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) of the International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration,
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination of whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked as privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five
(5)copies, plus two
(2)copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021B, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, American Sugar Alliance, application number 06-A0003.” The American Sugar Alliance's (“ASA”) original Certificate was issued on March 16, 2007 (72 FR 14081, March 26, 2007). A summary of the current application for an amendment follows. *Summary of the Application:* *Applicant:* American Sugar Alliance (“ASA”), 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201. *Contact:* Robert C. Cassidy, Jr., Counsel to ASA, *Telephone:*
(202)663-6740. *Application No.:* 06-A0003. *Date Deemed Submitted:* May 29, 2007. *Proposed Amendment:* ASA seeks to amend its Certificate to: 1. Add the following company as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Americane Sugar Refining LLC, Taylor, MI. 2. Revise the Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation. The proposed changes, shown as underscored text, are as follows: CPA Administration The ASA will allocate all CPAs at one time. *ASA may reallocate CPAs if a new Producer becomes a Member.* In the event that any CPAs are returned to ASA for any reason, ASA will reallocate those CPAs among interested Producers. The allocation, and any reallocations, will be completed before December 16, 2007. Information Collection and Exchange ASA may ask Producers individually for their production capacity figures for 2006 for the purposes of allocating the CPAs. Producers may supply that information to ASA, and ASA may allocate *and reallocate* CPAs to Producers based on this information. Dated: June 5, 2007. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E7-11145 Filed 6-8-07; 3:21 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Order Exempting the Trading and Clearing of Certain Credit Default Products Pursuant to the Exemptive Authority in Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission ACTION: Final order. SUMMARY: On May 14, 2007, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) published for pubic comment in the **Federal Register** 1 a proposal to exempt for the CEA 2 the trading and clearing of certain products called credit default options (“CDOs”) and credit default basket options (“CDBOs”) that are proposed to be traded on the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”), a natioal securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), 3 and cleared through the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”), a registered securities clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the 1934 Act, 4 and Derivatives Clearing Organization registered under Section 5b of the CEA. 5 The proposed order was preceded by a request from OCC to approve rules that would permit it to clear these CDOs and CDBOs in its capacity as a registered securities clearing agency. OCC's request presented novel and complex issues of jurisdiction and the Commission determined that an order exempting the trading and clearing of such instruments from pertinent requirements of the CEA may be appropriate. The Commission has reviewed the comments made in response to its proposal and the entire record in this matter and has determined to issue an order exempting the trading and clearing of these contracts from the CEA. 1 72 FR 27091 (May 14, 2007). 2 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 3 15 U.S.C. 78f. 4 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. 5 7 U.S.C. 7a-1. Authority for this exemption is found in Section 4(c) of the CEA. 6 6 7 U.S.C. 6(c). DATES: *Effective Date:* June 5, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Lawton, Deputy Director and Chief Counsel, 202-418-5480; *jlawton@cftc.gov,* Robert B. Wasserman, Associate Director, 202-418-7719, *lgregory*@cftc.gov,* Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st, NW., Washington, DC 20581. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction The OCC is both a Derivatives Clearing Organization (“DCO”) registered pursuant to Section 5b of the CEA, 7 and a securities clearing agency registered pursuant to Section 17A of the 1934 Act. 8 The CBOE is a national securities exchange registered as such under Section 6 of the 1934 Act. 9 7 7 U.S.C. 7a-1. 8 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f. CBOE has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed rule changes to provide for the listing and trading on CBOE of cash-settled products characterized by CBOE as options based on credit events in one or more debt securities of specified “Reference Entities.” 10 These products are referred to as Credit Default Options (“CDOs”), and would pay the holder a specified amount upon the occurrence, as determined by CBOE, of a “Credit Event,” defined to mean an “Event of Default” on any debt security issued or guaranteed by a specified “Reference Entity.” 10 See Release No. 34-55251, 72 FR 7091 (Feb. 14, 2007). CBOE has also filed with the SEC proposed rule changes to provide for the listing and trading on CBOE of products called Credit Default Basket Options (“CDBOs”). 11 These are similar in concept to CDOs, except that a CDBO covers more than one Reference Entity. For each individual Reference Entity, a notional value (a fraction of the aggregate Notional Face Value of the basket) and a recovery rate is specified. CDBOs may be of the multiple-payout variety, or of the single-payout variety, where a payout occurs only the first time a Credit Event is confirmed with respect to a Reference Entity prior to expiration. 11 See *SR-CBOE-2007-026* . OCC has filed with the CFTC, pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the CEA and Commission Regulations 39.4(a) and 40.5 thereunder, 12 requests for approval of rules and rule amendments that would enable OCC to clear and settle these CDOs and CDBOs in its capacity as a registered securities clearing agency (and not in its capacity as a DCO). 13 Section 5c(c)(3) provides that the CFTC must approve any such rules and rule amendments submitted for approval unless it finds that the rules or rule amendments would violate the CEA. 12 7 U.S.C. 7a-2(c), 17 CFR §§ 39.4(a), 40.5. 13 See SR-OCC-2007-01 A-1; SR-OCC-2007-06. OCC has filed identical proposed rule changes with the SEC. The request for approval concerning the CDO product was filed effective March 8, 2007. On April 23, 2007, the review period was extended pursuant to Regulation 40.5(c) until June 6, 2007, on the ground that the CDOs “raise novel or complex issues, including the nature of the contract, that require additional time for review.” The request for approval concerning the CDBO product was filed effective April 23, 2007. II. Section 4(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act Section 4(c)(1) of the CEA empowers the CFTC to “promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition” by exempting any transaction or class of transactions from any of the provisions of the CEA (subject to exceptions not relevant here) where the Commission determines that the exemption would be consistent with the public interest. The Commission may grant such an exemption by rule, regulation or order, after notice and opportunity for hearing, and may do so on application of any person or on its own initiative. In enacting Section 4(c), Congress noted that the goal of provision “is to give the Commission a means of providing certainty and stability to existing and emerging markets so that financial innovation and market development can proceed in an effective and competitive manner.” 14 As noted in the proposing release, 15 In granting an exemption, the CFTC need not find that the CDOs and CDBOs are (or are not) subject to the CEA. 14 HOUSE CONF. REPORT ON NO. 102-978, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3179, 3213 (“4(c) Conf. Report”). 15 72 FR 27091 (May 14, 2007). Section 4(c)(2) provides that the Commission may grant exemptions only when it determines that the requirements for which an exemption is being provided should not be applied to the agreements, contracts or transactions at issue, and the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the CEA; that the agreements, contracts or transactions will be entered into solely between appropriate persons; and that the exemption will not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract market to discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory responsibilities under the CEA. In the May 14, 2007 **Federal Register** release, the Commission requested public comment on the matters discussed above and all issues raised by its proposed exemptive order. III. Comment Letters The Commission received four comment letters. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) stated that it “applauds” the Commission's proposal to promote innovation but that it believed some issues should be addressed before a final order is issued. CME argued that:
(1)It would be unfair for OCC and CBOE to receive exemptive relief yet continue to oppose CME's efforts to list competitive products;
(2)the Commission should not accept OCC's and CBOE's characterization of the products as options;
(3)there are strong arguments that the products are based on commodities, not securities; and
(4)it is not proper to define “appropriate persons” in terms of the status of the person's intermediary. OCC focused on the “appropriate persons” issue. OCC argued that in light of the customer suitability rules and the overall federal securities regulatory framework, the products would be limited to “appropriate persons.” The Chicago Board of Trade “CBOTS”) suggested that characterizing the CDOs and CDBOs as “novel instruments” should be repudiated or clarified because it could have implications under the patent laws. IV. Findings and Conclusions After considering the complete record in this matter, including the comments received, the Commission has determined that the requirements of Section 4(c) have been met. 16 First, the exemption is consistent with the public interest and with the purposes of the CEA. The purposes of the CEA include “promot[ing] responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade, *other markets* and market participants.” 17 With respect to the competitive issue raised by CME in its comment letter, the Commission believes that an exemptive order in response to OCC's request for rule approval is the best way to promote responsibile innovation and fair competition among futures markets and securities markets. In cases such as this one where innovative products come close to the jurisdictional line between commodities and securities, rather than attempting to draw that line with precision with regard to the CBOE products and thereby potentially imposing litigation costs on both the private sector and the public sector, it may be more efficient and is a proper use of Section 4(c) exemptive authority to permit, without compromising the public interest, the products to trade on both sides of the line and let competitive forces determine which venue is successful. 16 In this regard, consistent with the legislative history to Section 4(c) of the CEA, the Commission is not making a finding that CDOs and CDBO are (or are not) subject to the CEA. 17 CEA Section 3(b), 7 U.S.C. 5(b) (emphasis added. See also CEA Section 4(c)(1), 7 U.S.C. 6(c)(1) (purpose of exemptions is “to promote responsible economic or financial innovation and fair competition.”) Second, the CDOs and CDBOs would be entered into solely between appropriate persons. This issue was discussed by both CME and OCC in their respective comment letters. Section 4(c)(3) includes within the term “appropriate persons” a number of specified categories of persons, but also in subparagraph (K), “such other persons that the Commission determines to be appropriate in light of * * * *the applicability of appropriate regulatory protections.* ” (Emphasis added.) These products will be traded on a regulated exchange. CBOE, OCC, and their members who will intermediate these transactions, are subject to extensive and detailed oversight by the SEC and, in the case of the intermediaries, the securities self-regulatory organizations. It should be noted that CME has listed or will list comparable products and has not limited access to its markets to specified categories of persons. In light of where the products will be traded, the regulatory protections available under the securities laws, and the goal of promoting fair competition, these products will be traded by appropriate persons. Third, the exemption would not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any designated contract market to carry out their regulatory responsibilities under the CEA. There is no reason to believe that granting an exemption here would interfere with the Commission's or a designated contract market's ability to oversee the trading of similar products on a designated contract market or otherwise to carry out their duties. None of the comment letters received addressed this issue. 18 18 Under Section 4(c) of the CEA, the Commission need not resolve whether, as CME argues in its comment letter, these products are based on commodities and not securities, or, as CBOE argues in its comment letter, these products are securities subject to the securities laws. Nor need the Commission determine, as CME urges, whether the products are properly characterized as options. Finally, the Commission notes that its references to the novelty of the issues raised by these products refer to issues under the CEA and were not intended to be applicable in any matter relating to patent or intellectual property law. Therefore, upon due consideration, pursuant to its authority under Section 4(c) of the CEA, the Commission hereby issues this Order and exempts the trading and clearing of CDOs and CDBOs to be listed and traded on CBOE and cleared through OCC as a securities clearing agency from the CEA. This Order is contingent upon the approval by the SEC, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the 1934 Act, of CBOE and OCC rules to permit the listing and trading of CDOs and CDBOs on CBOE. This Order is subject to termination or revision, on a prospective basis, if the Commission determines upon further information that this exemption is not consistent with the public interest. If the commission believes such exemption becomes detrimental to the public interest, the Commission may revoke this Order on its own motion. V. Related Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) 19 imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. The order would not require a new collection of information from any entities that would be subject to the order. 19 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). B. Cost-Benefit Analysis Section 15(a) of the CEA, as amended by Section 119 of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”), 20 requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing an order under the CEA. By its terms, Section 15(a) as amended does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of an order or to determine whether the benefits of the order outweigh its costs. Rather, Section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action. 20 7 U.S.C. 19(a). Section 15(a) of the CEA further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. Accordingly, the Commission could in its discretion give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular order was necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the CEA. The order issued today is expected to facilitate market competition. The commission has considered the costs and benefits of the order in light of the specific provisions of Section 15(a) of the CEA, as follows: 1. *Protection of market participants and the public.* Protections for market participants and the public exist in that CBOE, OCC and their members who will intermediate CDOs and CDBOs are subject to extensive oversight by the SEC and, in the case of intermediaries, securities self-regulatory organizations. 2. *Efficiency, competition, and financial integrity.* The exemptive order may enhance market efficiency and competition since it could encourage potential trading of CDOs and CDBOs on markets other than designated contract markets. Financial integrity will not be impaired since the CDOs and CDBOs will be cleared by OCC, a DCO and SEC-registered clearing agency, and intermediated by SEC-registered broker-dealers. 3. *Price discovery.* Price discovery may be enhanced through market competition. 4. *Sound risk management practices.* OCC has described appropriate risk-management practices that it will follow in connection with the clearing of CDOs and CDBOs. 5. *Other public interest considerations.* The exemptive order may encourage development of credit derivative products through market competition without unnecessary regulatory burden. The Commission requested comment on its application of these factors in the proposing release. No comments were received. After considering these factors, the Commission has determined to issue this Order. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2007 by the Commission. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-2878 Filed 6-8-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
11 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 3565.4
  • 7 CFR 3565.17
  • 7 CFR 3565
  • 298 F.3d 1330
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339
  • 113 F.3d 1220
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • Pub. L. 106-36
  • 15 CFR 301
  • 15 USC 4001-21
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Funds Availability
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.303
C.F.R.§ 351.308
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.214
Stat.Public Law 89–651
C.F.R.§ 325.6
F. App'x298 F.3d 1330
F. App'x899 F.2d 1185
F. Supp.360 F. Supp. 2d 1339
Cites 32 · 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.