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 · 2007-07-11 · Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce · Notices

Notices. Request for nominations

32,387 words·~147 min read·/register/2007/07/11/07-3377

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-588-804] Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from Japan: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 27, 2005, the United States Court of International Trade
(CIT)sustained the United States Department of Commerce's (the Department's) redetermination on remand of the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan for the period May 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001. One party appealed a portion of the CIT's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On March 7, 2007, the CAFC affirmed the CIT's decision. Because all litigation has concluded, the Department is now issuing these amended final results of review reflecting the CIT's decision. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Cartsos or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1757 or
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: Background On August 30, 2002, the Department published the final results of administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on ball bearings and parts thereof from Japan for the period May 1, 2000, through April 30, 2001. See *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 67 FR 55780 (August 30, 2002). On October 15, 2002, the Department amended the final results. See *Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 67 FR 63608 (October 15, 2002). NTN Corp., NTN Bearing Corp. of America, American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., NTN Driveshaft, and NTN-BCA Corp. (collectively NTN), filed a lawsuit challenging the final results. NSK Ltd., NSK Corp., NSK Bearings Europe, MPB Corp., Asahi Seiko Co., and Isuzu Motors, Ltd., were parties to this litigation but their dumping margins did not change as a result of the litigation. On August 20, 2004, the CIT affirmed the Department's final results in part and remanded the review to the Department in part to correct certain ministerial errors concerning the treatment of NTN's freight and warehouse expenses. See *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (CIT 2004) ( *NSK Ltd.* ). Specifically, the CIT directed the Department to exclude NTN's export-price sales from the calculation of NTN's U.S. freight and warehouse expenses. In accordance with the CIT's remand order in *NSK Ltd.* , the Department filed its remand results on October 19, 2004. In those remand results, the Department excluded export-price sales from the calculation of U.S. freight and warehouse expenses and recalculated NTN's margin accordingly. On January 27, 2005, the CIT sustained the Department's final results of remand redetermination. See *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 358 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (CIT 2005). NTN appealed the portion of the CIT's decision in which it sustained the Department's use of “facts otherwise available” and “adverse inferences” when determining NTN's antidumping duty margin. NTN did not appeal the CIT's remand order. On March 7, 2007, the CAFC affirmed the CIT's decision. See *NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 481 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On May 3, 2007, the CAFC denied a rehearing request. No further appeals were made. Therefore, the CIT's decision is now final and conclusive. Amendment to Final Results We are now amending the final results of this review to reflect the final and conclusive decision of the CIT. Our revised calculations for NTN changed the weighted-average margin for ball bearings from 9.34 percent to 9.30 percent for the period of review. The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of ball bearings from Japan from NTN during the review period in accordance with these amended final results of review. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13478 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-866) Folding Gift Boxes from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, Room 1870, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-6412. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding gift boxes from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 99 (January 3, 2007). On January 31, 2007, the Petitioner 1 and Red Point Paper Products Factory (Dongguan Shilong), Red Point Paper Products Co. Ltd., and Silver Team Trading Ltd. (“Red Point”) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Red Point. The Department published a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of Folding Gift Boxes from the PRC for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 8969 (February 28, 2007). 1 Harvard Folding Box Company, Inc. Rescission of Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. On May 29, 2007, Red Point and the Petitioner withdrew their requests for an administrative review within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of this review. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and consistent with its practice, the Department hereby rescinds the administrative review of folding gift boxes from the People's Republic of China for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection 15 days after the publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review. This notice is in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 3, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13479 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-868] Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 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 folding metal tables and chairs (“FMTCs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made below normal value (“NV”) by Feili Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (collectively “Feili”), or by New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (“New-Tec”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 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: On June 27, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on FMTCs from the PRC. *See Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 43277 (June 27, 2002). On June 2, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 32032 (June 2, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the following requests were made:
(1)on June 13, 2006, Feili, a producer/exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales; 1
(2)on June 27, 2006, Meco Corporation (“Meco”), a domestic interested party, requested that the Department review Feili's and New-Tec's sales and entries during the POR;
(3)on June 28, 2006, Cosco Home & Office Products (“Cosco”), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, requested that the Department review Feili's and New-Tec's sales and entries during the POR; 2
(4)on June 30, 2006, New-Tec, a producer/exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales; 3 and
(5)on June 30, 2006, Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Ltd. and Maxchief Investments Ltd. (collectively “Shichang”), a producer/exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales. 1 Feili's request for administrative review did not include a request for revocation. 2 Although Cosco requested revocation on behalf of Feili and New-Tec, section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations only permits an exporter or a producer to request revocation. Thus, Cosco cannot request revocation because it is not an exporter or a producer. 3 New-Tec's request for administrative review did not include a request for revocation. On July 27, 2006, the Department initiated this administrative review with respect to Feili, New-Tec, and Shichang. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). On July 28, 2006, Shichang withdrew its request for an administrative review. The Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Feili and New-Tec on September 12, 2006. On September 27, 2006, the Department published a partial rescission of the instant administrative review with respect to Shichang. *See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 56473 (September 27, 2006). On October 6, 2006, Meco, a petitioner in the original investigation, requested that the Department verify the factual information submitted by Feili and New-Tec. On October 13, 2006, New-Tec and Feili submitted Section A questionnaire responses (“AQRs”), and on November 3, 2006, New-Tec and Feili submitted Section C and D questionnaire responses (“CQRs” and “DQRs,” respectively). On December 13, 2006, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaires to New-Tec and Feili. On December 19, 2006, the Department requested the Office of Policy to provide a list of surrogate countries for this review. See Memorandum to Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, through Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from Matthew Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analyst, “Certain Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Request for Surrogate Country Selection” (December 19, 2006). On December 21, 2006, the Office of Policy issued its list of surrogate countries. *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, “Administrative Review of Certain Folding Metal Tables and Chairs (“Tables and Chairs”) from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries” (December 21, 2006) (“Surrogate Country Memorandum”). On January 10 and 12, 2007, respectively, Feili and New-Tec submitted their first supplemental questionnaire responses. On February 12, 2007, the Department requested interested parties to submit surrogate value information and to provide surrogate country selection comments. Meco provided comments on publicly available information to value the factors of production (“FOP”) on February 26, 2007. None of the interested parties provided comments on the selection of a surrogate country. On March 2, 2007, Meco submitted comments on both New-Tec's and Feili's first supplemental questionnaire responses. On March 7, 2007, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review until May 31, 2007. *See 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* , 72 FR 10141 (March 7, 2007). On March 20 and 26, 2007, respectively, the Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire to Feili and New-Tec. On March 30 and April 16, 2007, respectively, Feili and New-Tec submitted their second supplemental questionnaire responses. On May 4, 2007, the Department published a notice in the **Federal Register** extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review until July 2, 2007. *See 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* , 72 FR 25244 (May 4, 2007). Verification of Responses As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by Feili and New-Tec. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. The Department conducted the sales and FOP verification at Feili's facilities in Quanzhou, Fujian Province from May 21 to 25, 2007, and New-Tec's facilities in Xiamen, Fujian Province from May 28 to June 1, 2007. Our verification results are outlined in the verification reports for Feili and New-Tec. *See* “Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Feili in the Antidumping Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China” (July 2, 2007) (“Feili Verification Report”), and “Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of New-Tec in the Antidumping Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China” (July 2, 2007) (“New Tec Verification Report”). Period of Review The POR is June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below: 1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following: a. Lawn furniture; b. Trays commonly referred to as “TV trays”; c. Side tables; d. Child-sized tables; e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36” high and matching stools; and, f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28” to 36” wide by 48” to 96” long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. 2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following: a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both; b. Lawn furniture; c. Stools; d. Chairs with arms; and e. Child-sized chairs. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0015, 9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). 4 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive. 4 Originally the scope included 9403.20.0010 but, effective July 1, 2003, 9403.20.0010 (metal household furniture) was eliminated from the HTS code. 9403.20.0011 (ironing boards) and 9403.20.0015 (other) were added in its place. 9403.20.0015 contains merchandise in 9403.20.0010 except for ironing boards. Based on a request by RPA International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC, the Department ruled on January 13, 2003, that poly-fold metal folding chairs are within the scope of the order. On May 5, 2003, in response to a request by Staples, the Office Superstore Inc. (“Staples”), the Department issued a scope ruling that the chair component of Staples' “Complete Office-To-Go,” a folding chair with a tubular steel frame and a seat and back of plastic, with measurements of: height: 32.5 inches; width: 18.5 inches; and depth: 21.5 inches, is covered by the scope of the order. On September 7, 2004, the Department found that table styles 4600 and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic Products Ltd. are within the scope of the order. On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “butterfly” chairs are excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty order. Butterfly chairs are described as consisting of a collapsible metal rod frame and a cover, such that when the chair frame is spread open, the pockets of the cover are slipped over the upper ends of the frame and the cover provides both the seating surface and back of the chair. The frame consists of eight s-shaped pieces (with the ends offset at almost a 90-degree angle) made from metal rods that are connected by hinges. In order to collapse the frame, the chair cover must be removed. The frame is collapsed by moving the four legs inward until they meet in the center, similar to the folding mechanism of a pocket umbrella. On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that folding metal chairs, with wooden seats that have been padded with foam and covered with fabric or polyvinyl chloride and attached to the tubular steel seat frame with screws, are within the scope of the antidumping duty order. On May 1, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling determining that “moon chairs” are not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order. Moon chairs are described as containing circular, fabric-padded, concave cushions that envelop the user at approximately a 105-degree reclining angle. The fabric cushion is ringed and supported by two curved 16-mm steel tubes. The cushion is attached to this ring by nylon fabric. The cushion is supported by a 16-mm steel tube four-sided rectangular cross-brace mechanism that constitutes the moon chair's legs. This mechanism supports and attaches to the encircling tubing and enables the moon chair to be folded. To fold the chair, the user pulls on a fabric handle in the center of the seat cushion of the chair. Non-Market Economy Country Status Neither Feili nor New-Tec contested the Department's treatment of the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”), and the Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews and continues to do so in this case. *See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 27074, 27075 (May 14, 2007). No interested party in this case has argued that we should do otherwise. Designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See Section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are:
(1)at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and
(2)significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the “Normal Value” section below and in the Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita and Matthew Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, “Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum” (July 2, 2007) (“Surrogate Value Memorandum”). The Department has previously determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* Surrogate Country Memorandum. Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the Surrogate Country Memorandum based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we have found that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. *See* Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita and Matthew Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through Charles Riggle Program Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, “Antidumping Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs: Selection of a Surrogate Country” (July 2, 2007) (“Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum”). The Department used India as the primary surrogate country and, accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC producers' FOPs, when available and appropriate. *See* Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum and Surrogate Value Memorandum. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Separate Rates In proceedings involving 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 subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate. *See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 70949, 70952 (December 7, 2006) (unchanged in the final results). We have considered whether each reviewed company based in the PRC is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the exporters are independent from government control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine* , 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review* , 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of select criteria, discussed below. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law (“ *de jure* ”) and in fact (“ *de facto* ”). Feili and New-Tec each provided company-specific separate-rate information and stated that each met the standards for the assignment of separate rates. Feili reported that it is wholly owned by market-economy entities. *See* Feili's AQR, at 2 and Exhibit A-3. Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, a separate-rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether Feili's export activities are independent from government control. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China* , 64 FR 71104 (December 20, 1999); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China* , 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). For New-Tec, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine whether its export activities are independent from government control. A. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; or
(3)any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See, e.g., Sparklers* , 56 FR 20588. New-Tec reported that it is a joint venture. Until April 2006, it was owned by New-Tec International Inc., a South Korean company, and Xiamen Integration Co., Ltd., a PRC company. In April 2006, New-Tec International Inc. transferred its shares to Mr. Lee Ki Cheon, a South Korean national. New-Tec has placed documents on the record to demonstrate the absence of *de jure* control including its list of shareholders, business license, and the Company Law of the PRC, as revised on October 27, 2005 (“Company Law”). Other than limiting New-Tec to activities referenced in the business license, we found no restrictive stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in previous cases the Department has analyzed the Company Law and found that it establishes an absence of de jure control, lacking record evidence to the contrary. *See, e.g., Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results, Partial Rescission and Termination of a Partial Deferral of the 2002-2003 Administrative Review* , 69 FR 65148, 65150 (November 10, 2004). We have no information in this segment of the proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an absence of *de jure* control for New-Tec. B. Absence of De Facto Control As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995) (“ *Furfuryl Alcohol* ”). Therefore, an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control that would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:
(1)whether the exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See, e.g., Furfuryl Alcohol* , 60 FR 22545. With regard to *de facto* control, New-Tec reported that:
(1)it independently set prices for sales to the United States through negotiations with customers and these prices are not subject to review by any governmental organization;
(2)it did not coordinate with other exporters or producers to set the price or to determine to which market the companies will sell subject merchandise;
(3)the PRC Chamber of Commerce did not coordinate the export activities of New-Tec;
(4)its general manager has the authority to contractually bind it to sell subject merchandise;
(5)its board of directors appoints its general manager;
(6)there is no restriction on its use of export revenues;
(7)its shareholders ultimately determine the disposition of respective profits, and New-Tec has not had a loss in the last two years; and
(8)none of New-Tec's board members or managers is a government official. Additionally, New-Tec's questionnaire responses did not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of New-Tec's questionnaire responses reveals no other information indicating government control of its export activities. Therefore, based on the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of *de facto* government control with respect tor New-Tec's export functions and that New-Tec has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. Date of Sale 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that: In identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See also, Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the Department's rebuttable presumption that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale). After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation placed on the record by Feili and New-Tec, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for each respondent. We made this determination based on statements on the record that indicate that Feili's and New-Tec's invoices establish the material terms of sale to the extent required by our regulations. *See* Feili CQR at C-10 and New-Tec CQR at C-12. Nothing on the record rebuts the presumption that invoice date should be the date of sale. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of FMTCs to the United States by Feili and New-Tec 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, pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act. Export Price Because Feili and New-Tec sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States, and use of a constructed-export-price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we have used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP based on the free-on-board or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers for Feili and New-Tec. From this price, we deducted amounts for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling and, where applicable, air freight, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See Memorandum to the File from Laurel LaCivita, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, “Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Feili Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (collectively, 'Feili')” (July 2, 2007) (“Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum”); and Memorandum to the File from Matthew Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, “Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (“New-Tec”)” (July 2, 2007) (“New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum”). Consistent with the Department's practice, we used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses. *See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 19695, 19704 (April 17, 2006) (utilizing these same data, unchanged for the final determination). The Department averaged December 2003-November 2004 data contained in the February 28, 2005, public version of Essar Steel's response submitted in the antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. *See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in the final results). These data were averaged with the February 2004-January 2005 data contained in the May 24, 2005, public version of Agro Dutch Industries Limited's (“Agro Dutch”) response submitted in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. *See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005). The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions are ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and Attachment XV. To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange, available at *http://www.infreight.com* . The truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR; therefore, we made no adjustments for inflation. Where applicable, we valued air freight using the rates published on the UPS website: *http://www.ups.com* . The air freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR; therefore, we made no adjustments for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 9 and Attachment XVI. Zero-Priced Transactions During the course of this review, both Feili and New-Tec reported a significant number of zero-priced transactions to their U.S. customers. *See* Feili's CQR at C-2; and New-Tec's CQR at Exhibit 5. An analysis of the Section C databases provided by each company reveals that both companies made a significant number of zero-priced transactions with customers that had previously purchased the same merchandise in commercial quantities. *See* Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I; and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at Attachment 9. In the final results of the 2003-2004 and the 2004-2005 administrative reviews of FMTCs, we included New-Tec's zero-priced transactions in the margin calculation stating that the record demonstrated that:
(1)New-Tec provided many pieces of the same product, indicating that these “samples” did not primarily serve for evaluation or testing of the merchandise;
(2)New-Tec provided significant numbers of the same product to its U.S. customer while that customer was purchasing that same product;
(3)New-Tec provided “samples” to the same customers to whom it was selling the same products in commercial quantities; and
(4)New-Tec acknowledged that it gave these products at zero price to its U.S. customers (already purchasing the same items) to sell to their own customers. *Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 2905 (January 18, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4; *Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4. As a result, we concluded that these transactions were not what we consider to be samples because New-Tec was not providing product to entice its U.S. customers to buy the product. *Ibid* . The Federal Circuit has not required the Department to exclude zero-priced or de minimis sales from its analysis but, rather, has defined a sale as requiring “both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration.” *See NSK Ltd. v. United States* , 115 F.3d 965, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The CIT in *NSK Ltd. v. United States* stated that it saw “little reason in supplying and re-supplying and yet re-supplying the same product to the same customer in order to solicit sales if the supplies are made in reasonably short periods of time,” and that “it would be even less logical to supply a sample to a client that has made a recent bulk purchase of the very item being sampled by the client.” *NSK Ltd v. United States* , 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1311-1312 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, the Courts have consistently ruled that the burden rests with a respondent to demonstrate that it received no consideration in return for its provision of purported samples. *See, e.g., Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States* , 988 F.2d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the burden of evidentiary production belongs “to the party in possession of the necessary information”). *See also Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States* , 806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (“The burden of creating an adequate record lies with respondents and not with {the Department}.”) (citation omitted). Moreover, even where the Department does not ask a respondent for specific information to demonstrate that a transaction is a sample, the respondent has the burden of presenting the information in the first place to demonstrate that its transactions qualify for exclusion. *See NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United States* , 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An analysis of Feili's and New-Tec's Section C computer sales listings reveals that both companies provided zero-priced merchandise to the same customers to whom they were selling or had sold the same products in commercial quantities. *See* Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at Attachment I, and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at Attachment 9. Consequently, based on the facts cited above, the guidance of past court decisions, and our previous decisions, for the preliminary results of this review, we have not excluded these transactions from the margin calculation for either Feili or New-Tec. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department will base NV on FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include:
(1)hours of labor required;
(2)quantities of raw materials employed;
(3)amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and
(4)representative capital costs. We used the FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and packing. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when a producer sources a meaningful amount of an input from a market-economy country and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department will normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); *see also Lasko Metal Products v. United States* , 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs). Further, the Department disregards prices it has reason to suspect may be dumped or subsidized. *See, e.g., China National Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003) (aff'd, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Feili and New-Tec each reported that a significant portion of its purchases of raw material and/or packing inputs was sourced from market-economy countries and paid for in market-economy currencies. *See* Feili's DQR at D-3 and New-Tec's DQR at 44. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we used the actual price paid by respondents for inputs purchased from market-economy suppliers during the POR and paid for in a market-economy currency. With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and the market-economy input values, we disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 10685 (March 6, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8 (declining to use market-economy input prices from South Korea or India); *Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Order on Bars and Wedges* , 68 FR 53347 (September 10, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 2 (declining to use market-economy input prices from India); *Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 (declining to use input prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand). This practice is also consistent with the statute's legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24. Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that is available to it at the time it is making its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. *See* Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Further, we did not use any market-economy purchases of raw materials sourced in countries against which the PRC has an outstanding antidumping duty order. *See* World Trade Organization's Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the Agreement, G/ADP/N/CHN, for the period 1 July - 31 December 2005, available at www.wto.org. and included in Attachment XIX of the Surrogate Value Memorandum. *See* New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 6 and Attachment 10. In addition, consistent with the Department's practice, we did not use prices paid by respondents for inputs purchased from market-economy suppliers prior to the POR. 5 *See* Feili Verification Report at 23 and Exhibit 14; Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 8 and Attachments II and III; New-Tec Verification Report at 25 and Exhibit 7; and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 6 and Attachments 2 and 11. 5 *See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 34448 (June 14, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. *See also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China* , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 33, where the Department stated that it would not use “market-economy inputs if they are insignificant or purchased outside of the period of investigation.” Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate ( *i.e.* , where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Federal Circuit in *Sigma Corp. v. United States* , 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, see the Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment I. Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the weighted-average unit import values derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India in the World Trade Atlas, available at *http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm* (“WTA”). The WTA data are reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with the POR. *See also* Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment V. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the *International Financial Statistics* of the International Monetary Fund. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 2 and Attachments II and III. We further adjusted these prices to account for freight costs incurred between the suppler and respondent. We used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at *http://www.infreight.com* , to value truck freight. The truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we made no adjustments for inflation. For a complete description of the factor values we used, see the Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and Attachment XIV. Feili and/or New-Tec reported that they made market-economy purchases representing a meaningful portion of the total purchases of cold-rolled steel, hot-rolled steel, powder coating, polypropylene plastic resin, polyethylene resin, fiberboard, polyvinyl chloride sheet, vinyl sheet, polyester fabric, washers, rivets, gasket, screws, cardboard, carton, corrugate paper and fiberboard. See Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 8 and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 5. Therefore, we valued these inputs using their respective per-kilogram market-economy purchase prices. Where applicable, we also adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3-4, Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. To value hydrochloric acid used in the production of FMTCs, we used per-kilogram domestic values obtained from *Chemical Weekly* . We adjusted this value for taxes and to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and each respondent, respectively. We used per-kilogram import values obtained from the WTA for all other material inputs used in the production of FMTCs. To value diesel oil, we used per-kilogram values obtained from Bharat Petroleum, published December 1, 2005. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment VIII. We made adjustments to account for inflation and freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondents. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and Attachments VIII - IX. To value liquid petroleum gas, we used per-kilogram values obtained from Bharat Petroleum, published on October 3, 2005. We made adjustments to account for inflation and freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondents. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and Attachment X. To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly Statistics (First Quarter 2003), available at *http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html* , adjusted for inflation. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 5 and Attachment VII. To value water, we used the Revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation water rates for June 1, 2003, available at *http://www.midcindia.com/water-supply* , adjusted for inflation. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and Attachment XI. For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on the Import Administration's home page. *See* Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries (revised November 2005) (available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages* ). The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the *Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003* , ILO, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from 1998 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by each respondent. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and Attachment XII. For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit values, we used information from Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for the year ending March 31, 2005. From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (“ML&E”) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( *i.e.* , cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and Attachment XIII for a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios. For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from the WTA and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and respondent. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3-4 and Attachment V. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent) Feili 0.10* New-Tec 0.23* * *de minimis* Disclosure We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days after the date on which the case briefs are due. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department requests that parties submitting written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. 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 these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, 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. In this review, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on each importer's/customer's entries during the POR, as appropriate. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication 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, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for the above-listed respondents, which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required);
(2)for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3)for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 70.71 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers 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. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13382 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-802] Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from an interested party and pursuant to Section II. B.6 of the Agreement between the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the United States Department of Commerce, and Secretaria de Economia on Trade in Mexican Cement (the Agreement) dated March 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce is conducting a changed- circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico. The changed-circumstances review covers exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, from one firm, Holcim Apasco, S.A. de C.V. We have preliminarily determined that sales were made below normal value during the changed-circumstances period of review. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument
(1)a statement of the issues, and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, 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)482-3477 and
(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a changed-circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker (cement) from Mexico. See *Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Initiation of an Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review* , 72 FR 328 (January 4, 2007). According to the Agreement, upon request, the Department shall conduct an expedited changed-circumstances review to establish a new estimated duty deposit rate for any Mexican Cement exporter (and its affiliated parties) that meet the following criteria:
(a)Had an estimated duty deposit rate under the order on cement;
(b)did not receive the new estimated duty deposit rate of three U.S. dollars ($3.00) per metric ton referenced in Section II.A.4.b of the Agreement; and
(c)exported Mexican cement to the United States in the year preceding the effective date or exports Mexican cement to the United States while the Agreement remains in force. On December 14, 2006, pursuant to section II.B.6 of the Agreement, Holcim Apasco, S.A. de C.V. (Apasco), requested that the Department conduct a changed-circumstances review of certain export sales of the subject merchandise to the United States made by Apasco during the period October through December 2006. Scope of the Order The products subject to the order include gray portland cement and clinker. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than of being ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently classifiable under *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS) item number 2523.29, and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTSUS item number 2523.10. Gray portland cement has also been entered under HTSUS item number 2523.90 as “other hydraulic cements.” Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act), we will verify certain information submitted by Apasco using standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and financial records and the selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Upon completion of verification, we will place on the record a copy of our verification report in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Department building. Verification is currently scheduled to begin July 23, 2007. Export Price Apasco reported export-price
(EP)sales. We calculated EP based on the packed, delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Normal Value A. Comparisons In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value, we compared the respondent's volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the respondent's aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based normal value on home-market sales. During the period October through December 2006, the respondent sold Type II LA cement in the United States. The statute expresses a preference for matching U.S. sales to identical merchandise in the home market. See section 771(16) of the Act. The respondent sold cement produced as Type II, Type II/III/V, and Type III cement in the home market. We have attempted to match the subject merchandise to identical merchandise sold in the home market. In situations where identical product types cannot be matched, we have attempted to match the subject merchandise to sales of similar merchandise in the home market. See sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 771(16) of the Act. We were able to find home-market sales of identical and similar merchandise to which we could match sales of Type II LA cement sold in the U.S. market. We have reviewed the information on the record and have determined that Type II cement produced and sold in the home market is the identical match to Type II LA cement sold in the United States during this review period. If we could not find an identical match to the cement types sold in the United States in the same month in which the U.S. sale was made or during the contemporaneous period, we based normal value on sales of similar merchandise. Further, in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we find that both bulk and bagged cement are produced in the same country and by the same producer as the types sold in the United States, both bulk and bagged cement are like the types sold in the United States in component materials and in the purposes for which used, and both bulk and bagged cement are approximately equal in commercial value to the types sold in the United States. The questionnaire responses submitted by the respondent indicate that, with the exception of packaging, sales of cement in bulk and sales of cement in bags are physically identical and both are used in the production of concrete. Also, because there is no difference in the cost of production between cement sold in bulk or in bagged form, both are approximately equal in commercial value. See Apasco's responses to the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires dated January 4, 2007, April 4, 2007, and May 30, 2007. Therefore, we find that matching the U.S. merchandise which is sold in both bulk and bag to the foreign like product sold in either bulk or bag is appropriate. B. Arm's-Length Sales To test whether home-market sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where 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 sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See *Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Consistent with 19 CFR 351.403, we only included in our margin analysis those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's length. C. Cost of Production The petitioner, the Southern Tier Cement Committee (STCC), alleged on March 26, 2007, that the respondent sold cement in the home market at prices below the cost of production (COP). After examining the allegation, we determined that the petitioner had provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Apasco sold cement in Mexico at prices below the COP. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation to determine whether Apasco made home-market sales of cement during the review period at below-cost prices. See the memorandum from Minoo Hatten to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Request to Initiate Cost Investigation in the Changed-Circumstances Review,” dated April 18, 2007. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing cement plus amounts for home-market selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses. We used the home-market sales data and COP information provided by Apasco in its questionnaire responses. After calculating the weighted-average COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we tested whether Apasco's home-market sales were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared the COP appropriate to the home-market prices less any applicable direct selling expenses, movement charges, discounts and rebates, and indirect selling expenses. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a product were at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. If 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a product during the period were at prices less than the COP, such below-cost sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act. Based on comparisons of home-market prices to the appropriate weighted-average COP for the changed-circumstances review, we determined that below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and, therefore, we did not disregard any below-cost sales. D. Adjustments to Normal Value Where appropriate, we adjusted home-market prices for discounts, rebates, packing, and freight surcharge to the invoice price. In addition, we adjusted the starting price for inland freight, inland insurance, and warehousing expenses. We also made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from normal value and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. Section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act directs us to make an adjustment to normal value to account for differences in the physical characteristics of merchandise where similar products are compared. The regulations at 19 CFR 351.411(b) direct us to consider differences in variable costs associated with the physical differences in the merchandise. Where we matched U.S. sales of subject merchandise to similar models in the home market, we adjusted for differences in merchandise. E. Level of Trade We determined that all comparison-market sales by Apasco were made at the same level of trade as the EP customer. To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Apasco did not report any significant differences in selling functions between different channels of distribution or customer type in either the comparison or U.S. markets. Therefore, we determined that all comparison-market and EP sales were made at the same level of trade. Currency Conversion Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our changed-circumstances review, we preliminarily determine the dumping margin for Apasco for the period October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, to be 29.77 percent. Case briefs or other written comments in at least six copies must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than one week after the issuance of the Department's verification report in this changed-circumstances review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs are due no later than five days after the submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing three days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, no later than 21 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this changed-circumstances review in the **Federal Register** . Requests should contain the following information:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants;
(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) the Department will issue the final results of this changed-circumstances review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, by October 25, 2007. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this review, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. Because Apasco reported the entered value for its EP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for importer of record. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on the importer's entries during the changed-circumstances review period. We will issue instructions to CBP 41 days after publication of the final results of this changed-circumstances review. Cash-Deposit Requirements As provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, the cash-deposit rate for all shipments from Apasco of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of changed-circumstances review will be the rate established in the final results of changed-circumstances review. The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. 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 changed-circumstances review. 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(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13483 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary results of the new shipper reviews of the antidumping order on honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Intent to Rescind and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 111 (January 3, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). These reviews cover three producers/exporters, Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd. (IMA), Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd. (QMD), and Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd. (Dongtai Peak) (collectively, respondents). The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for these reviews are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards or Judy Lao, 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)482-8029 or
(202)482-7924, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of these reviews in the **Federal Register** . *See Preliminary Results* . We invited parties to comment on the *Preliminary Results* . On January 9, 2007, in response to a request from respondents, we extended the time limit for submitting further information to value the factors of production until February 6, 2007, and comments on these submission until February 16, 2007. The Department simultaneously extended the time limit for parties to submit case and rebuttal briefs to the Department's *Preliminary Results* until February 23, 2007, and March 2, 2007, respectively. On February 5, 2007, the Department denied an additional request by respondents for a further ten-day extension of the time limit for submitting information to value the factors of production due to time constraints and the Department's statutory timing requirements in this case. Also on February 5, 2007, the Department notified parties of its adoption of a new 2004 wage rate and invited comments on the issue in the context of parties' case briefs. On February 6, 2007, we received a surrogate value submission commenting on the Department's *Preliminary Results* from respondents. We received case briefs from the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) and respondents on February 23, 2007, respectively. 1 On March 2, 2007, we received rebuttal briefs from petitioners and respondent Dongtai Peak, respectively. None of the parties requested a public hearing. On April 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the final results to July 2, 2007. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and the Eighth New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 18461 (April 12, 2007). 1 On February 22, 2007, we received a courtesy copy case brief from respondents which we subsequently rejected as containing new information. On February 23, 2007, respondents re-filed their brief, per the Department's instructions, without the new information. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this order 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 subject to this order 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 order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the “Memorandum to the Assistant Secretary: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Eighth New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China,” dated July 2, 2007 (Issues & Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Separate Rates IMA and Dongtai Peak have requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In our preliminary results, we found that IMA and Dongtai Peak had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 114. We have not received any information since the *Preliminary Results* which would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates determinations with respect to IMA and Dongtai Peak. Therefore, for these final results, we will continue to calculate company-specific separate rates for these respondents. Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review In our preliminary results, the Department stated its intention to rescind the new shipper review for QMD, as the Department found QMD's subject new shipper sale to be atypical of its normal business practice and, also, that the average-unit value of the company's sales was aberrational, *i.e.* , *non-bona fide* . *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 113; *see also* , “Memorandum to Richard Weible: Eighth Antidumping New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial, Co., Ltd.,” dated December 21, 2006. Interested parties filed comments on the intended rescission of the new shipper review of QMD in their case and rebuttal briefs. As discussed in the Issues & Decision Memorandum at Comment 4, because the Department finds QMD's single POR sale to be *non-bona fide* , QMD does not qualify for new shipper status and its sales are not subject to review. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this review with regard to QMD, because QMD had no reviewable sales during the POR. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3); *see also* , *Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.* v. *United States* , 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1249 (CIT 2005) (CIT affirmed that Commerce may exclude sales from the export price calculation where it finds the sales are not bona fide). In the case of new shipper reviews, exclusion of the single new shipper sale as being *non-bona fide* must necessarily end the review. *Id.* Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculations for IMA and Dongtai Peak. For the final results, we have updated the surrogate values for paint, cartons, brokerage and handling, and financial ratios. We also used the revised NME wage rate, as posted on the Department's website on February 2, 2007. For a discussion of these changes, *see* the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. For a discussion of the changes to the margin calculations for IMA and Dongtai Peak, please *see* “Memorandum to the File: Eighth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China for Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd. (IMA),” dated July 2, 2007 (IMA Analysis Memo); *see also* , “Memorandum to the File: Eighth Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China for Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd. (Dongtai Peak),” dated July 2, 2007 (Dongtai Peak Analysis Memo). A public version of these memoranda are on file in the CRU. Final Results of Review We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exists: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd. 130.11 Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd. 28.75 Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(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 these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for honey from the PRC on a per-unit basis. Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price or constructed export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. We will direct CBP to levy importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( *i.e.* , per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Cash Deposits The following cash-deposit requirement will be effective upon publication of these final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For subject merchandise produced and exported by IMA and Dongtai Peak, we will establish a per-kilogram cash deposit rate that is equivalent to the company-specific cash deposit established in this review (noted above). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as the final 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. 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: July 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I. General Issues Comment 1: Raw Honey Surrogate Value Methodology II. Company-Specific Issues *A. Inner Mongolia Altin Bee-Keeping Co., Ltd.* Comment 2: Rejection of Beekeeping Factors of Production *B. Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd.* Comment 3: Whether the NSR for QMD Should Be Rescinded *C. Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd.* Comment 4: Whether the NSR for Dongtai Peak Should Be Rescinded Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Cartons [FR Doc. E7-13385 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-863] Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping order on honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC). *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 102 (January 3, 2007) ( *Preliminary Results* ). This review covers five producers/exporters, Jiangsu Kanghong Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu), Wuhan Shino-Food Trade Co., Ltd. (Shino-Food), Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (Chengdu), Kunshan Xin'an Trade Co., Ltd. (Kunshan Xin'an), and Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui) (collectively, respondents). The period of review
(POR)is December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on our *Preliminary Results* . Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Lao or Patrick Edwards, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-7924 or
(202)482-8029, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of this review in the **Federal Register** . *See Preliminary Results* . On January 9, 2007, in response to a request from Anhui Honghui, we extended the time limit for submitting further information to value the factors of production until February 6, 2007, and comments on these submission until February 16, 2007. The Department simultaneously extended the time limit for parties to submit case and rebuttal briefs to the Department's *Preliminary Results* until February 23, 2007, and March 2, 2007, respectively. On February 5, 2007, the Department notified parties of its adoption of a new 2004 PRC wage rate and invited comments on the issue in the context of parties' case briefs. We received Anhui Honghui's second submission regarding surrogate value information on February 6, 2007. On February 6, 2007, the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners) filed a request for the Department to expedite the final results for Chengdu, one of the respondents in this administrative review, claiming that Chengdu is not actively participating in this review and is misusing its low cash deposit rate to enter significant quantities of PRC honey into the United States. On February 28, 2007, the Department issued a Decision Memorandum expediting the final results of review for Chengdu and extending the deadline for case briefs for all parties in this review until March 14, 2007, and for rebuttal briefs until March 21, 2007. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Expedited Final Results of Administrative Review for Chengdu Waiyuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (February 28, 2007). No comments with respect to the expedited final results for Chengdu were filed. Accordingly, on April 2, 2007, the Department published its expedited final results of review with respect to Chengdu. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Expedited Partial Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 15655 (April 2, 2007) ( *Expedited Review for Chengdu* ). We received a case brief from Anhui Honghui on March 14, 2007, and a rebuttal brief from petitioners on March 22, 2007. On April 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the final results to July 2, 2007. *See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and the Eighth New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 18461 (April 12, 2007). Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order The products covered by this order 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 subject to this order 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 order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the “Memorandum to the Assistant Secretary: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Fourth Administrative Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China,” dated July 2, 2007 (Issues & Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at *http://www.trade.gov/ia/* . The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculation for Anhui Honghui. For the final results, we have updated the surrogate values for paint, and brokerage and handling. We also used the revised non-market economy
(NME)wage rate, as posted on the Department's website on February 2, 2007. Additionally, we have updated and corrected a clerical error with respect to our application of the surrogate financial ratios. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. For a discussion of the changes to the margin calculation for Anhui Honghui, *see* Memorandum to the File: Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China for Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui), dated July 2, 2007 (Anhui Honghui Analysis Memo). A public version of these memoranda are on file in the CRU. The PRC-wide rate has also changed for the final results, from 212.39 percent to 221.02 percent. This rate represents the calculated rate for Anhui Honghui in these final results and is the highest rate determined in the instant or any previous segment of this proceeding. We will apply the new PRC-wide rate of 221.02 percent to the PRC-wide entity (including Jiangsu, Shino-Food, and Kunshan Xin'an) for the final results. *See* “The PRC-Wide Rate and Application of Facts Otherwise Available” section below. Corroboration of the new PRC-wide rate is not required because this rate is based on, and calculated from, information submitted by Anhui Honghui in the course of this administrative review, *i.e.* , it is not secondary information. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(c) and
(d)and section 776(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Separate Rates Anhui Honghui requested a separate, company-specific antidumping duty rate. In our preliminary results, we found that Anhui Honghui had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. *See Preliminary Results* . We have not received any information since the *Preliminary Results* which would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates determination with respect to Anhui Honghui. Therefore, for these final results, we will continue to calculate a company-specific separate rate for this respondent. Use of Adverse Facts Available For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts available to Jiangsu, Shino-Food, and Kunshan Xin'an. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party:
(A)Withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act;
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that when the Department finds that a respondent has not complied with a request for information, the Department shall inform the respondent of the deficiency and allow them an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the Department finds that the subsequent response of the respondent is deficient or is not filed within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to subsection
(e)disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Moreover, section 782(e) states that the Department shall not decline to consider information by a respondent if:
(1)the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing information and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect to the information; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department determined that Jiangsu, Shino-Food, and Kunshan Xin'an did not cooperate to the best of their ability because these companies failed to respond to the Department's requests for information and that necessary information either was not provided, or the information provided could not be verified and is not sufficiently complete to enable the Department to rely on such information in reaching a determination in the instant review. *See* 72 FR at 105-108. Because Jiangsu, Shino-Food, and Kunshan Xin'an did not cooperate to the best of their ability in this proceeding, the Department found it necessary, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(D) and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts available as the basis for our preliminary results of reviews for these companies. *See Id* . Because these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in this review, we determined that Jiangsu, Shino-Food, and Kunshan Xin'an were not entitled to separate rates. For these reasons, we considered Jiangsu, Shino-Food, and Kunshan Xin'an as part of the PRC-wide entity. At the *Preliminary Results* , the Department found that the PRC-wide entity (including Jiangsu, Shino-Food, and Kunshan Xin'an) did not respond to our requests for information and, therefore, applied adverse facts available to the PRC-wide entity pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(D) and 776(b) of the Act. *Id* . For the final results, since no new information has been placed on the record regarding the PRC-wide entity, we continue to apply adverse facts available (AFA). Selection of AFA Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from
(1)the petition,
(2)the final determination,
(3)a previous administrative review, or
(4)other information placed on the record. Because information from prior proceedings constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA)provides that “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 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. However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as total AFA a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. 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; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* (60 FR 49567)), where the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available
(BIA)because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). For this review, we have used the highest rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding, *i.e.* , the final calculated rate for Anhui Honghui in this proceeding. *See* , *e.g.* , *Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). As there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriately used as AFA, we determine that this rate has relevance and is reliable. As this rate is based on the experience of a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, we find that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the final margin calculated in the instant review for Anhui Honghui, *i.e.* , 221.02 percent, is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide entity. Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews In the *Preliminary Results* , the Department issued a notice of intent to rescind this administrative review with respect to nineteen producers/exporters of honey from the PRC, which were party to this proceeding following the initiation of this administrative review. 1 The Department issued its preliminary intent to rescind as four of these companies were found to have made no entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and the requests for review were timely withdrawn for the remaining fifteen. *See Preliminary Results* , 72 FR at 104. The Department received no comments on this issue and has no evidence to challenge this finding. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with respect to these nineteen producers/exporters of honey. 1 Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. a.k.a. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Native Produce and Animal By-Products; Shanghai Xiuwei International Trading Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Foreign Trading Company; Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. a.k.a. Zhejiang Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import & Export Group Corp.; High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.; Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp.; Henan Native Produce Import & Export Corp.; Sichuan-Dujiangyan Dubao Bee Industrial Co., Ltd.; Wuhan Bee Healthy Company, Ltd.; Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Shinomiel International Trade Corporation; Eurasia Bee's Products Co., Ltd.; Foodworld International Club, Ltd.; Inner Mongolia Youth Trade Development Co., Ltd.; Apiarist Co.; Shanghai Taiside Trading Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Qinshi Tangye; and Zhejiang Willing Foreign Trading Co., Ltd. Final Results of Review We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist for the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin (Percent) Anhui Honghui Foodstuff (Group) Co., Ltd. 221.02 PRC-wide Rate (including Jiangsu, Shino-Food, and Kunshan Xin'an) 221.02 Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(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 these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for honey from the PRC on a per-unit basis. Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price or constructed export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. We will direct CBP to levy importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( *i.e.* , per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. Cash Deposits The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:
(1)for subject merchandise exported by Anhui Honghui, we will establish a per-kilogram cash deposit rate which will be equivalent to the company-specific cash deposit established in this review;
(2)the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding (except for Jiangsu, Shino-Food and Kunshan Xin'an, whose cash-deposit rate has changed in this review to the PRC-wide entity rate, noted below);
(3)for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 221.02 percent; and
(4)for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as the final 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I *Comment 1:* Surrogate Value for Raw Honey *Comment 2:* The Use of MHPC Financial Statements *Comment 3:* Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios *Comment 4:* Calculation of NME Wage Rate *Comment 5:* Surrogate Value for Brokerage and Handling *Comment 6:* Clerical Errors [FR Doc. E7-13480 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-821] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand. The review covers 17 exporters/producers. The period of review is August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made at prices below normal value by various companies subject to this review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to submit with each argument
(1)A statement of the issue and
(2)a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Case or Richard Rimlinger, 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)482-3174 and
(202)482-4477, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 9, 2004, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand. See *Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand* , 69 FR 48204 (August 9, 2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), we received requests for an administrative review for 17 companies. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(g) and 19 CFR 351.221(b), we published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of these companies. See *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465, 57466 (September 29, 2006) ( *Initiation Notice* ). 1 1 We stated that the review covers the following companies: Advance Polybag Inc., Alpine Plastics Inc., APEC Film Ltd., API Enterprises Inc., Apple Film Co., Ltd., CP Packaging Industry Co., Ltd., King Pak Ind. Co. Ltd., Multibax Public Co., Ltd., Naraipak Co., Ltd., Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd., Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd., Thantawan Industry Public Co., Ltd., U. Yong Ltd., Part., U Yong Industry Co., Ltd., Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd. *Id* . Due to the large number of firms requested for this administrative review and the resulting administrative burden to review each company for which a request has been made, the Department is exercising its authority to limit the number of respondents selected for review. Where it is not practicable to examine all known exporters/producers of subject merchandise because of the large number of such companies, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), permits the Department to limit its examination to either a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection or exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the exporting country that can be examined reasonably. Accordingly, on October 10, 2006, we requested information concerning the quantity and value of sales to the United States from the 17 exporters/producers listed in the *Initiation Notice* . We received responses from all of the exporters/producers. We also examined import data from CBP concerning unliquidated entries of merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order. Based on our analysis of the responses and import data obtained from CBP, we determined that Advance Polybag Inc., Alpine Plastics Inc., API Enterprises Inc., and Universal Polybag Co., Ltd. (collectively UPC/API), CP Packaging Industry Co., Ltd. (CP Packaging), King Pak Ind. Co., Ltd. (King Pak), and Thai Plastic Bags Industries Co., Ltd., APEC Film Ltd., and Winner's Pack Co., Ltd. (collectively TPBG), were the four largest exporters/producers during the period of review (POR). Specifically, we determined that these exporters/producers accounted for 90.8 percent of the total reported quantity of imports of the subject merchandise from the requested companies to the United States during the POR and 83.4 percent of the total quantity from the requested companies reported in the CBP data. Accordingly, we chose to examine these four companies. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Respondent Selection” dated November 9, 2006. For the companies under review which we did not select as mandatory respondents, we have calculated a weighted average of the weighted-average margins we have established for the four mandatory respondents excluding *de minimis* rates and rates based on adverse facts available (AFA). Since initiation of the review, we extended the due date for completion of these preliminary results from May 2, 2007, to July 2, 2007. See * Notice of Extension of Deadline for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand * , 72 FR 16766 (April 5, 2007). We have conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, *e.g.* , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the order excludes
(1)polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and
(2)polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, *e.g.* , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners. As a result of recent changes to the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Intent to Rescind Review in Part In an October 24, 2006, submission, Multibax Public Co., Ltd. (Multibax), indicated that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Our review of information from CBP supports Multibax's claim that there were no entries of its merchandise subject to the order into the United States during the POR. See Memorandum to the File, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,” dated November 8, 2006. Because we preliminarily find that there were no imports from Multibax during the POR, we intend to rescind the administrative review with respect to this company. If we continue to find at the time of our final results of administrative review that there were no imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand from Multibax, we will rescind our review of Multibax. Duty Absorption On October 30, 2006, the petitioners 2 requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR by the respondents. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department to determine, if requested, during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. Because UPC/API is the sole respondent which sold to unaffiliated customers in the United States through itself as the importer of record and because this review was initiated two years after the publication of the order, we have made a duty-absorption determination concerning UPC/API in this segment of the proceeding in accordance with section 751(a)(4) of the Act. 2 The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation. In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by the respondent during the POR, we presume the duties will be absorbed for those sales that have been made at less than normal value. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence ( *e.g.* , an agreement between the affiliated importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. *See, e.g.* , *Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind* , 70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 2005). On May 22, 2007, the Department requested evidence from UPC/API to demonstrate that its U.S. purchasers will pay any antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries during the POR. UPC/API did not provide any such evidence. Because UPC/API did not rebut the duty-absorption presumption with evidence that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by UPC/API on all U.S. sales made through its importer of record. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified information provided by UPC/API using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public version of the verification report dated June 12, 2007, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099. Use of Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if necessary information is not available on the record or if an interested party:
(1)withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(2)fails to provide such information by the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782 of the Act;
(3)significantly impedes the proceeding; or
(4)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. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if that information is necessary to the determination but does not meet all of the requirements established by the Department, provided that all of the following requirements are met:
(1)the information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department shall promptly inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall provide that person, to the extent practicable, with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of the administrative review. In addition, 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 as facts otherwise available. The purpose of the adverse call, as explained in the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.
(1994)(SAA), is “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate {to the best of its ability} than if it had cooperated fully.” See SAA at 870. Further, as explained in the SAA, in employing adverse inferences the Department will consider “the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.” *Id* . On November 9, 2006, we sent a questionnaire to King Pak, one of the companies for which the petitioners requested an administrative review, seeking information related to King Pak's corporate structure and its production and sales of PRCBs. King Pak did not respond to the questionnaire. Because King Pak did not respond, on December 21, 2006, we sent a letter to King Pak requesting that it respond to our November 9, 2006, questionnaire, thus providing King Pak a second opportunity to respond to the questionnaire. The information requested in the questionnaire is necessary for us to complete the administrative review. King Pak has not responded to our November 9, 2006, questionnaire or to our December 21, 2006, letter. Because King Pak has failed to provide the information requested and thus has significantly impeded this proceeding, we must use facts available. See section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, because King Pak could have provided correct and verifiable data about its corporate structure, production, and sales but did not do so, we determine that King Pak has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Therefore, we conclude that the use of an adverse inference is warranted. See section 776(b) of the Act and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). As total AFA, we have preliminarily assigned King Pak the highest rate found in the less-than-fair-value investigation, which was 122.88 percent. See *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand* , 69 FR 34122, 34125 (June 18, 2004) (Final LTFV). We applied this rate to Zippac Co., Ltd. (Zippac) during the less-than-fair-value investigation. *Id* . 69 FR at 34123. We also applied this rate to King Pak, which we collapsed with Zippac, in the preceding administrative review. See *Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 1982, 1982-83 (January 17, 2007), *Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 53405, 53406 (September 11, 2006) (collapsing King Pak, Dpac Industrial Co., Ltd., Zippac, and King Bag Co.). The rate has not yet induced King Pak's compliance, cooperation, and participation in the administrative-review process. When a respondent is not cooperative, like King Pak here, the Department has the discretion to presume that the highest prior margin reflects the current margins. If this were not the case, the party would have produced current information showing the margin to be less. 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)). Further, by using the highest prior antidumping duty rate we offer the assurance that the exporter will not benefit from refusing to provide information and we apply an antidumping duty rate that bears some relationship to past practices by this company as it is part of the industry in question. See *Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United States* , 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (citing *D&L Supply Co. v. United States* , 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, to the extent practicable, the Department corroborate secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 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. As clarified in the SAA, “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and *F.Lii de Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino, S.p.A. v. United States* , 216 F.3d 1027, 1030 (2000). As emphasized in the SAA, however, the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869. Further, 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 or review. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870. With respect to the reliability aspect of corroboration, the Department found the rate of 122.88 percent to be reliable in the investigation. See *Final LTFV* , 69 FR at 34123-24. There, the Department pointed out that the rate was calculated from source documents included with the petition, namely, a price quotation for various sizes of PRCBs commonly produced in Thailand, import statistics, and affidavits from company officials, all from a different Thai producer of subject merchandise. Because the information is supported by source documents, we preliminarily determine that the information is still reliable. See Memorandum to the File entitled “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Inclusion of Memorandum, dated August 31, 2006, to the record of this administrative review” dated July 2, 2007. 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. In the investigation, the Department determined that, because the price quote reflected commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of investigation, the information was relevant to mandatory respondents which refused to participate in the investigation. See *Final LTFV* , 69 FR at 34123-24. No party, including Zippac, contested the application of that rate in the investigation. *Id* . Furthermore, the rate of 122.88 percent is King Pak's current rate and has been applied to Zippac since the less-than-fair-value investigation. Therefore, we find this rate to continue to have relevance. Export Price and Constructed Export Price For the price to the United States, we used export price
(EP)or constructed export price
(CEP)as defined in sections 772(a) and
(b)of the Act, as appropriate. We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made deductions, as appropriate, for discounts and rebates. See section 772(d) of the Act. We also made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes commissions, direct selling expenses, and U.S. repacking expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those indirect selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States and the profit allocated to expenses deducted under section 772(d)(1) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on the total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and comparison markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets. Comparison-Market Sales Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of comparison-market and U.S. sales and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, with the exception of UPC/API, we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold by all respondents in Thailand was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. With the exception of UPC/API, each company's quantity of sales in Thailand was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. See section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, with the exception of UPC/API, we based normal value on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Thailand 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 EP or CEP sales. Although UPC/API did not have a viable home market within the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act, Canada was a viable third-country market for UPC/API under section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Therefore, we based normal value for UPC/API's U.S. sales on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Canada 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 CEP sales. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we disregarded below-cost sales in the less-than-fair-value investigation of PRCBs from Thailand sold by TPBG. See *Final LFTV* , 69 FR at 34124. Therefore, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that TPBG's sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of normal value in this review may have been made at prices below the cost of production
(COP)as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in this review we have conducted a COP investigation of TPBG's sales in the comparison market. The petitioners in this proceeding filed allegations that UPC/API and CP Packaging made sales below COP in their respective comparison markets. Based on the information in the allegations, we found that we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made by UPC/API and CP Packaging at prices that are less than the COP of the product. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Request to Initiate Cost Investigation for Universal Polybag Co., Ltd., Advance Polybag Inc., API Enterprises Inc., and Alpine Plastics, Inc.,” dated January 24, 2007; Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand - Request to Initiate Cost Investigation for CP Packaging Industry Co., Ltd.,” dated January 26, 2007. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted COP investigations of sales by these firms in their respective comparison markets. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, the selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the comparison-market sales and COP information provided by each respondent in its questionnaire responses. After calculating the COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested whether comparison-market sales of the foreign like product were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See section 773(b)(2) of the Act. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported comparison-market prices less any applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, when 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 the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that these sales were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. See the Department's analysis memoranda for TPBG, UPC/API, and CP Packaging dated July 2, 2007. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales with respect to TPBG, UPC/API, and CP Packaging. Model-Match Methodology We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. Specifically, in making our comparisons, we used the following methodology. If an identical comparison-market model was reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average comparison-market prices that were based on all sales which passed the COP test of the identical product during the relevant or contemporary month. We calculated the weighted-average comparison-market prices on a level of trade-specific basis. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an identical model, we identified the most similar comparison-market model. To determine the most similar model, we matched the foreign like product based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of importance:
(1)quality;
(2)bag type;
(3)length;
(4)width;
(5)gusset;
(6)thickness;
(7)percentage of high-density resin;
(8)percentage of low-density resin;
(9)percentage of linear low-density resin;
(10)percentage of color concentrate;
(11)percentage of ink coverage;
(12)number of ink colors; and
(13)number of sides printed. Normal Value Comparison-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory, or delivered prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. We also 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 and 19 CFR 351.411 and for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to normal value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from normal value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP calculations and for U.S. indirect selling expenses to offset comparison-market commissions. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value, to the extent practicable, on sales at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If normal value was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See the *Level of Trade* section below. The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, *i.e.* , sales at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where affiliated-party sales were reported, we excluded from our analysis sales to affiliated customers for consumption in the comparison market that we determined not to be at arm's-length prices. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the prices of sales of comparable merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length prices. See *Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) (explaining the Department's practice). We included in our calculations of normal value those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's-length prices. Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used constructed value as the basis for normal value when there were no usable sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market. We calculated constructed value in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. packing expenses, and profit in the calculation of constructed value. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market. When appropriate, we made adjustments to constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 351.412 for circumstance-of-sale differences and level-of-trade differences. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to constructed value. For comparisons to CEP, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison-market direct selling expenses from constructed value. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison-market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP comparisons. When possible, we calculated constructed value at the same level of trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed value was calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, if appropriate and if possible, in accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and
(8)of the Act. Level of Trade To the extent practicable, we determined normal value for sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there were no sales at the same level of trade, we compared U.S. sales to comparison-market sales at a different level of trade. The normal-value level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. When normal value is based on constructed value, the level of trade is that of the sales from which we derived SG&A and profit. To determine whether comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. No company reported any significant differences in selling functions between different channels of distribution or customer type in either the comparison or U.S. markets. Therefore, for each respondent, we determined that all comparison-market sales were made at one level of trade. Moreover, for each respondent that had EP sales, we determined that all comparison-market sales were made at the same level of trade as the EP customer. UPC/API was the only respondent with CEP sales. We found that the comparison-market level of trade was equivalent to the CEP level of trade. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins on PRCBs from Thailand exist for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006: Producer/Exporter Percent Margin TPBG 0.87 UPC/API 1.52 CP Packaging 0.74 King Pak 122.88 Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 3 3 The petitioners are the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC, and Superbag Corporation. Producer/Exporter Percent Margin Apple Film Co., Ltd. 1.13 Naraipak Co., Ltd. 1.13 Polyplast (Thailand) Co., Ltd. 1.13 Sahachit Watana Plastic Ind. Co., Ltd. 1.13 Thantawan Industry Public Co., Ltd. 1.13 U. Yong Ltd., Part. 1.13 U. Yong Industry Co., Ltd. 1.13 Comments We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate in a hearing if a hearing is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following:
(1)the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants;
(3)a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice of preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs from interested parties, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted not later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, any hearing will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the arguments not exceeding five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the weighted-average margins we calculated for the companies selected for individual review, excluding any which are *de minimis* or determined entirely on AFA. 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) ( *Assessment of Antidumping Duties* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see *Assessment of Antidumping Duties* . We will issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review. Export-Price Sales With respect to EP sales, for these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and EP) for each exporter's importer or customer by the total number of units the exporter sold to that importer or customer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit dollar amount against each unit of merchandise in each of that importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Constructed Export-Price Sales For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)the cash-deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of this review except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash-deposit rate will be zero;
(2)for previously reviewed or investigated 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 less-than-fair-value 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;
(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 2.80 percent, the “all others” rate for this proceeding. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importer 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13381 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-826] Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from V&M do Brasil, S.A. (VMB), the respondent, and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), the petitioner, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Brazil. This administrative review covers imports of subject merchandise from VMB. The period of review is August 1, 2005, through July 16, 2006. We preliminarily determine that sales of seamless pipe by VMB have not been made at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or Stephen Bailey, 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)482-3362 or
(202)482-0193, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 3, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Brazil. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil* , 60 FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). On August 1, 2006, the Department published the opportunity to request administrative review of, inter alia, seamless pipe from Brazil for the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). In accordance with section 351.213(b)(1) of the Department's regulations, on August 31, 2006, the respondent VMB and the petitioner U.S. Steel requested that we conduct an administrative review of VMB's sales of seamless pipe. On September 29, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 2006). On October 10, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to VMB. VMB submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire (section A response) on November 6, 2006, its responses to sections B and C (section B response and section C response) on November 28, 2006, and its response to section D of the questionnaire (section D response) on December 5, 2007. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for all four responses on January 25, 2007, and received VMB's response on February 20, 2007 (first supplemental questionnaire response). 1 On April 18, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to VMB pertaining to VMB's February 20, 2004, supplemental response for sections A through D, and received VMB's response on May 10, 2007. On May 25, 2007, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to VMB pertaining to VMB's May 10, 2007, supplemental response for section D, and received VMB's response on June 8, 2007. 1 VMB provided a quantity and value reconciliation, as required under section A of the Department's antidumping question, in its first supplemental questionnaire response, dated February 20, 2007. On May 2, 2007, the International Trade Commission determined revocation of the antidumping duty orders on seamless pipe from Argentina and Brazil would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States. *See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, and Germany* , 72 FR 26153 (May 8, 2007), and *ITC Publication* 3918 (May 2007), Investigation No. 731-TA-707-709 (Second Review). Thus, the Department revoked the antidumping duty orders on seamless line pipe from Argentina and Brazil, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 751(d) of the Act. *See Revocation Pursuant to Second Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina and Brazil* , 72 FR 28027 (May 18, 2007) ( *Revocation of Seamless Pipe from Argentina and Brazil* ). The Department stated in the *Revocation of Seamless Pipe from Argentina and Brazil* that it will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is July 16, 2006. As a result, the Department is completing the instant review of seamless pipe from Brazil. Accordingly, the period of review for this proceeding is from August 1, 2005, to July 16, 2006. Period of Review The period of review
(POR)is August 1, 2005, through July 16, 2006. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Review The products covered by this antidumping duty review are seamless pipes produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this review also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters below, regardless of specification. For purposes of this review, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thickness are commonly referred to as tubes. The seamless pipes subject to this antidumping duty review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.19.10.20, 7304.19.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The following information further defines the scope of this order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above: Specifications, Characteristics and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard. Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification. Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent ASTM A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple-certify the pipes. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers. The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple-certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications. The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if used in a standard, line or pressure application. For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order. Specifically excluded from this review are boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 or API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line or pressure applications. In addition, finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods
(OCTG)are excluded from the scope of this review, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. Finally, also excluded from this review are redraw hollows for cold-drawing when used in the production of cold-drawn pipe or tube. Excluded from this order are shipments of seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness or manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn) that 1) has been cut into lengths of six to 120 inches, 2) has had the inside bore ground to a smooth surface, 3) has had multiple layers of specially formulated corrosion resistant glass permanently baked on at temperatures of 1,440 to 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in thicknesses from 0.032 to 0.085 inch (40 to 80 mils), and 4) has flanges or other forged stub ends welded on both ends of the pipe. The special corrosion resistant glass referred to in this definition may be glass containing by weight 1) 70 to 80 percent of an oxide of silicone, zirconium, titanium or cerium (Oxide Group RO2), 2) 10 to 15 percent of an oxide of sodium, potassium, or lithium (Oxide Group RO), 3) from a trace amount to five percent of an oxide of either aluminum, cobalt, iron, vanadium, or boron (Oxide Group R2O3), or 4) from a trace amount to five percent of a fluorine compound in which fluorine replaces the oxygen in any one of the previously listed oxide groups. These glass-lined pressure pipes are commonly manufactured for use in glass-lined equipment systems for processing corrosive or reactive chemicals, including acrylates, alkanolamines, herbicides, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and solvents. The glass-lined pressure pipes excluded from this antidumping duty review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024 and 7304.39.0028 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether VMB made sales of seamless pipe to the United States at less than fair value, we compared the constructed export price
(CEP)to the NV, as described below. Specifically, in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared the CEP of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NV. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by VMB covered by the descriptions in the “Scope of the Antidumping Duty Review” section of this notice to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to VMB's U.S. sales of seamless pipe. We have relied on the following six criteria to match U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to sales in Brazil of the foreign like product: product specification, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold drawn), outside diameter, wall thickness, surface finish, and end finish. 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 October 10, 2006, questionnaire. Constructed Export Price Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as 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 sections 772(c) and (d). In the instant review, VMB sold subject merchandise through an affiliated company, Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes Corporation (V&M Corp.) of Houston, Texas. VMB reported all of its U.S. sales of seamless pipe as CEP transactions. After reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined that VMB's transactions are classified properly as CEP sales because these sales occurred in the United States and were made through its U.S. affiliate to an unaffiliated buyer. Such a determination is consistent with section 772(b) of the Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *AK Steel Corp. et al. v. United States* , 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( *AK Steel* ). In *AK Steel* , the Court of Appeals examined the definitions of EP and CEP, noting “the plain meaning of the language enacted by Congress in 1994, focuses on where the sale takes place and whether the foreign producer or exporter and the U.S. importer are affiliated, making these two factors dispositive of the choice between the two classifications.” *AK Steel* at 1369. The court declared, “the critical differences between EP and CEP sales are whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or outside the United States and whether it is made by an affiliate,” and noted the phrase “outside the United States” had been added to the 1994 statutory definition of EP. *AK Steel* at 1368-70. Thus, the classification of a sale as either EP or CEP depends upon where the contract for sale was concluded ( *i.e.* , in or outside the United States) and whether the foreign producer or exporter is affiliated with the U.S. importer. For these CEP sales transactions, we calculated price in conformity with section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, delivered, duty-paid prices to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These movement expenses included foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including imputed credit expenses and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared VMB's volume of home market sales of seamless pipe to the volume of U.S. sales of seamless pipe, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because VMB's aggregate volume of home market sales of seamless pipe was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of seamless pipe, we determined the home market was viable. See section A response at Exhibit 1. B. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed segment, the Department determined that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of production
(COP)and, therefore, excluded such sales from its calculation of NV. *See Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 56473 (September 27, 2006). The Department's affirmative findings of sales-below-cost in the preliminary results of the prior period review did not change in the final results. Therefore, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below the COP for this POR. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether VMB's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of VMB's material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative expenses (G&A), interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP data reported by VMB, except as noted below: 1. We recalculated VMB's financial expense ratio (INTEX) calculation by excluding the offset for long-term interest income. For further details regarding this adjustment, *see* the Department's “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - V&M do Brasil, S.A.” (COP Memorandum), on file in the Department's Central Records Unit
(CRU)located in Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, dated July 2, 2007. We compared the weighted-average COP figures to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net of any applicable billing adjustments, indirect taxes (ICMS, IPI, COFINS and PIS), and any applicable movement charges. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B)of the Act, whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because:
(1)they were made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities,” in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act, and
(2)based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Our cost test for VMB revealed that for home market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that for certain models, more than 20 percent of the home market sales of those models were sold at prices below COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV. C. Price-to-Price Comparisons We matched all U.S. sales to NV. We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We adjusted gross unit price for billing adjustments, interest revenue, indirect taxes, and the per-unit value of any post-transaction complementary invoices (or credit notes) that were issued to adjust for any errors in the originating invoice. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, insurance and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, 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 and 19 CFR 351.411, 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 made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses and commissions. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B)of the Act. 2 2 *See* the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, dated July 2, 2007, for further discussion of date of sale and other details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-average margin. A public version of the memorandum is available in the Department's CRU. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT)as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine different selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, where possible, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales for which we are unable to quantify a LOT adjustment, 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 levels between NV and CEP sales affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). In the present review, VMB claimed that there was no LOT in the home market comparable to the LOT of the CEP sales, and requested a CEP offset. *See* section B response at VI-41 through VI-43. VMB reported two channels of distribution in the home market: one to unaffiliated distributors and one to end-users. *See* section A response at Exhibit 10. We examined the selling activities reported for each channel of distribution and organized the reported selling activities into the following four selling functions: 1) sales process and marketing support, 2) freight and delivery, 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing, and 4) warranty and technical services. We examined the reported selling functions and found that VMB's home market selling functions for all customers include sales forecasting, planning, order processing, general selling functions performed by VMB sales personnel, technical assistance, delivery of the merchandise, and provision for warranties. VMB also claimed packing as a selling function performed for all customers. *]* first supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 1. However, we make a separate COS adjustment for packing and do not consider this to be a selling function relevant to LOT. VMB further reported several selling functions unique to each channel of distribution: personnel training, sales promotion, distributor/dealer training, sales/marketing support, and market research are selling functions performed only in sales to distributors. In contrast, advertising and after-sales services are provided solely to end-users. *See* first supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 1. VMB also paid commissions on sales to some end-users. In addition, VMB reported the selling function of inventory maintenance with regard to sales to one end-user customer, for which a small percentage of VMB's sales are transferred to unaffiliated warehouses from which this customer regularly extracts merchandise on a just-in-time basis. *See* section A Response at VI-18; *see also* section B response at VI-28. Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily conclude that the selling functions for the reported home market channels of distribution are sufficiently different to consider them as two LOTs. For CEP sales, we examined the selling activities related to each of the selling functions between VMB and its U.S. affiliate, V&M Corp. VMB reported that all of its sales to the United States are CEP sales made through V&M Corp., *i.e.* , through one channel of distribution, and claimed that there is only one LOT. We examined VMB's selling functions (&, sales forecasting, order processing, and freight and delivery) for sales to V&M Corp. and found that these selling functions are performed regardless of whether shipments are going to V&M Corp. or directly to the unaffiliated customer. *See* first supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 1. Therefore, we preliminary determine that VMB's U.S. sales constitute a single LOT. We then compared the selling functions VMB provided in the home market LOTs with the selling functions provided for the U.S. LOT. While VMB provides a comparable level of assistance for freight and delivery in both the home and U.S. markets, VMB provides significantly more assistance for marketing support, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for the home market than the U.S. market. Additionally, VMB provides more technical services for the home market than the U.S. market. On this basis, we determined that the HM LOTs are not similar to VMB's U.S. LOT. Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily determine that there is no LOT in the home market comparable to the CEP LOT, and it is, therefore, not possible to determine whether the difference in LOT affects price comparability. Consequently, we examined whether a CEP offset may be appropriate pursuant to section 351.412(f) of the Department's regulations. We find that the selling functions VMB performs for sales to its U.S. affiliate are fewer and less complex than the selling functions VMB performs for either LOT in the home market. Compared to U.S. sales, the chain of distribution in the home market is at a level much more advanced. For example, many sales to distributors go through unaffiliated warehouses and VMB provides after-sales services to end-users ( *e.g.* , surveys and repairs). In contrast, VMB's selling functions for U.S. sales end with delivery at the port of entry. Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the home market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, we preliminarily determine that a CEP offset adjustment is appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) 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 certified by Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva). Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2005, through July 16, 2006, to be as follows: Manufacturer / Exporter Margin (percent) V&M do Brasil, S.A. 0.00 The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 2 days after the scheduled date for the submission of rebuttal briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department will issue the final results of these preliminary results, 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, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis ( *i.e.* , at or above 0.50 percent). 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). *See* 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review. 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) ( *Assessment Policy Notice* ). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the 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 “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. *See Assessment Policy Notice* for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The Department notified CBP to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after July 16, 2006, the effective date of revocation of the antidumping duty order. Notification to Importers 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 Act. Dated: July 2, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13383 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-908] Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Kristina Horgan, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1442 or
(202)482-8173, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postponement of Preliminary Determination On February 28, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated the antidumping duty investigation of sodium hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 9926 (March 6, 2007) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”); *see also Notice of Correction of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 11325 (March 13, 2007). The notice of initiation stated that the Department would make its preliminary determination for this antidumping duty investigation no later than 140 days after the date of issuance of the initiation. On June 25, 2007, ICL Performance Products, LP and Innophos, Inc. (“Petitioners”) made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) and section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) for a postponement of the preliminary determination. Petitioners requested postponement of the preliminary determination to allow the Department additional time in which to review the complex questionnaire responses and issue requests for clarification and additional information. For the reasons identified by the Petitioners, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing the preliminary determination under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, by 50 days to September 6, 2007. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended. This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Dated: July 2, 2007. David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13378 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of Minnesota, et al., Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments 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, 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 Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Comments: None received. Decisions: Approved. We know of no instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as each is intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time of its order. *Docket Number: 07-025* . Applicant: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Instrument: Confocal Raman Microscope. Manufacturer: Witec, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 72 FR 33204, June 15, 20007. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides capability for distinguishing polymorphs in organic crystalline films, identifying components in polymer blends at the micron level, distinguishing components in complex biofilms, characterizing the surface composition of coated aerosol particles, etc. Precise mapping control through a piezo scan table, as well as high resolution and adaptation to different wavelengths of the laser are essential features. *Docket Number: 07-034* . Applicant: Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 72 FR 33204, June 15 2007. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides capability of high voltage electron microscopy. *Docket Number: 07-035* . Applicant: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL, Ltd., Japan Intended Use: See notice at 72 FR 33204. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides capability of high voltage electron microscopy. The capabilities of each of the foreign instruments described above are pertinent to each applicant's intended purposes and we know of no other instrument or apparatus being manufactured in the United States which is of equivalent scientific value to any of the foreign instruments. Faye Robinson, Director,Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13477 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-122-815] Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada: Final Results of 2005 Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 20, 2007, the Department of Commerce published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada for the period January 1, 2005, through August 15, 2005. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Our analysis of the comments received on the preliminary results did not lead to any changes in the net subsidy rate. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. The final net subsidy rate for the reviewed company is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Reviews.” EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAllister or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202)482-1174 or
(202)482-0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On April 20, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada for the period January 1, 2005, through August 15, 2005. *See Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 19881 (April 20, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. (“NHCI”) submitted a case brief on May 7, 2007. In its case brief, NHCI agreed with the Department's *Preliminary Results* with respect to NHCI. US Magnesium LLC (“the petitioner”) did not file a case or rebuttal brief. Scope of the Orders The products covered by these orders are shipments of pure and alloy magnesium from Canada. Pure magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight with magnesium being the largest metallic element in the alloy by weight, and are sold in various ingot and billet forms and sizes. The pure and alloy magnesium subject to the orders is currently classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the merchandise subject to the orders are dispositive. Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are summarized in *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure and Alloy Magnesium From Canada* , 57 FR 6094 (February 20, 1992). Period of Reviews The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or POR, is January 1, 2005, through August 15, 2005. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the record and comments received, we have made no changes to the preliminary results net subsidy rate. Final Results of Reviews In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject to these reviews. For the period January 1, 2005, through August 15, 2005, we find the net subsidy rate for NHCI to be 0.00 percent. Cash Deposit Instructions On July 6, 2006, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(iii), the Department revoked the countervailing duty orders on pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada ( *see Revocation of the Countervailing Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada* , 71 FR 38382 (July 6, 2006)). The effective date of the revocations is August 16, 2005. As a result of this action, we are not issuing cash deposit instructions. Assessment Rates Because the countervailing duty rate for NHCI is zero, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate entries of this company during the period January 1, 2005, through August 15, 2005, without regard to countervailing duties. The Department will issue appropriate instructions directly to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 3, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13482 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XA90 Nominations for the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Advisory Committee AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Request for nominations. SUMMARY: NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, is seeking nominations for the advisory committee established under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (Act). The advisory committee, to be composed of individuals from groups concerned with the fisheries covered by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (Convention), will be given the opportunity to provide input to the United States Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (Commission) regarding the deliberations and decisions of the Commission. DATES: Nominations must be received no later than September 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Nominations should be directed to William L. Robinson, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, and may be submitted by any of the following means: • E-mail: *pir.wcpfc@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: “Advisory committee nominations”. E-mail messages, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Mail or hand delivery: 1601 Kapiolani Blvd. Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814. • Facsimile: 808-973-2941. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond P. Clarke, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-944-2205; facsimile: 808-973-2941; e-mail: *raymond.clarke@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Convention and the Commission The objective of the Convention is to ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (UNCLOS) and the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UNCLOS Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The Convention establishes the Commission, the secretariat of which is based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. The Convention applies to all highly migratory fish stocks (defined as all fish stocks of the species listed in Annex I of the UNCLOS occurring in the Convention Area, and such other species of fish as the Commission may determine), except sauries. The United States played a very active role in supporting the negotiations and the development of the Convention and signed the Convention when it was opened for signature in 2000. It has participated as a cooperating non-member in the Commission since it became operational in 2005. Upon completion of the Convention ratification process, which will occur July 27, 2007, the United States will become a Contracting Party to the Convention and a full member of the Commission. Under the Act, the United States will be represented on the Commission by five United States Commissioners, appointed by the President. Advisory Committee The Act (Public Law 109-479, sec 501-511) provides (in sec 503(d)) that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the United States Commissioners to the Commission, will appoint certain members of the advisory committee established under the Act. The members to be appointed to the advisory committee are to include not less than 15 nor more than 20 individuals selected from the various groups concerned with the fisheries covered by the Convention, providing, to the extent practicable, an equitable balance among such groups. On behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS is now seeking nominations for these appointments. In addition to the 15-20 appointed members, the advisory committee also includes the chair of the Western and Central Pacific Fishery Management Council's Advisory Committee (or designee), and officials of the fisheries management authorities of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands (or their designees). Members of the advisory committee will be invited to attend all non-executive meetings of the United States Commissioners to the Commission and at such meetings will be given opportunity to examine and be heard on all proposed programs of investigation, reports, recommendations, and regulations of the Commission. Each appointed member of the advisory committee will serve for a term of two years and will be eligible for reappointment. The Secretaries of Commerce and State will furnish the advisory committee with relevant information concerning fisheries and international fishery agreements. NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, will provide to the advisory committee administrative and technical support services as are necessary for its effective functioning. Appointed members of the advisory committee will serve without pay, but while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the advisory committee will be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United States Code. They will be considered Federal employees while performing service as members of the advisory committee only for purposes of:
(1)injury compensation under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code;
(2)requirements concerning ethics, conflicts-of-interest, and corruption, as provided by title 18, United States Code, and
(3)any other criminal or civil statute or regulation governing the conduct of Federal employees in their capacity as Federal employees. Procedure for Submitting Nominations Nominations for the advisory committee should be submitted to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Self nominations are acceptable. Nominations should include the following information:
(1)Full name, address, telephone, facsimile, and e-mail of nominee;
(2)nominee's organization(s) or professional affiliation(s) serving as the basis for the nomination, if any; and
(3)a background statement, not to exceed one page in length, describing the nominee's qualifications, experience and interests, specifically as related to the fisheries covered by the Convention. Dated: July 6, 2007. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-13476 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB29 Permits; Foreign Fishing AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of receipt of foreign fishing application. SUMMARY: NMFS publishes for public review and comment information regarding a foreign fishing application submitted under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). DATES: Comments must be received by July 25, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments or requests for a copy of the application to NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, International Fisheries Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments on this notice may also be submitted by e-mail. The address for providing e-mail comments is *nmfs.foreignfishing@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following document identifier: RIN 0648-XB29. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert A. Dickinson, Office of International Affairs,
(301)713-2276. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) provides, among other things, that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may issue a transshipment permit which authorizes a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage in fishing consisting solely of transporting fish or fish products at sea from a point within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ)or, with the concurrence of a state, within the boundaries of that state to a point outside the United States. Section 204(d)(3)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that an application may not be approved until the Secretary determines that “no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for which the application is submitted has indicated ... an interest in performing the transportation at fair and reasonable rates.” NMFS is publishing this notice as part of its effort to make such a determination with respect to the application described below. Summary of Application NMFS has received an application requesting authorization for five Mexican vessels to receive, within the Pacific waters of the U.S. EEZ south of 34°00′ N. lat. and east of 121°00′ W. long., transfers of live tuna from U.S. purse seiners for the purpose of transporting the tuna alive to an aquaculture facility located in Baja California, Mexico. Interested U.S. vessel owners and operators may obtain a copy of the complete application from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). Dated: July 5, 2007. Jean-Pierre Ple, Acting Director, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-13484 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XB31 Marine Mammals; File No. 1127-1921 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Hawaii Marine Mammal Consortium, PO Box 6107, Kamuela, HI 96743, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on 24 cetacean species found in Hawaiian waters. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before August 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: 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; and Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)973-2935; fax (808)973-2941. 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. 1127-1921. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandy Hutnak or Carrie Hubard, (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 Hawaii Marine Mammal Consortium seeks a five year permit to conduct research on 24 cetacean species, including the following endangered species: blue whale ( *Balaenoptera musculus* ), fin whale ( *B. physalus* ), humpback whale ( *Megaptera novaeangliae* ), sei whale ( *B. borealis* ), and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). The objectives of the research are to assess the status, numbers, distribution, and life histories of cetacean species in Hawaiian waters. The type of take involved would consist of Level A harassment (biopsy sampling) and Level B harassment (close approach, photo-id, audio recording, underwater photography and video, photogrammetry, and collection of sloughed skin and fecal samples). All age classes, except mothers and associated calves less than one year old, would be biopsy sampled. The core study area is the leeward coast of the island of Hawaii, but activities might be conducted in any of the near shore waters of the main and northwestern Hawaiian Islands, including waters off the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. No mortality or incidental harassment of non-target species is being requested. 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: July 5, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-13474 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice To Adopt a Standard Model for Mathematical Vertical Datum Transformations AGENCY: National Geodetic Survey (NGS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce a decision by the Federal Geodetic Control Subcommittee
(FGCS)to recommend adoption of a standard method for mathematical transformations between the vertical geodetic datums: The National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). These methods are designated, in descending order of accuracy:
(1)The recomputation or readjustment of survey observations method,
(2)the mathematical transformation method, and
(3)the average shift method. In order to maintain consistency of results and to minimize misuse associated with the mathematical transformation method, FGCS recommends software identified as VERTCON (Vertical Conversion) as a Federal standard. DATES: Individuals or organizations wishing to submit comments on the adoption of VERTCON as the standard method, should do by August 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the attention of David Doyle, Chief Geodetic Surveyor, Office of the National Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Service (N/NGS2), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, fax 301-713-4324, or via e-mail *Dave.Doyle@noaa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information should be directed to David Doyle, Chief Geodetic Surveyor, National Geodetic Survey (N/NGS2), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone:
(301)713-3178. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The intent of this notice is to standardize a vertical datum transformation method when a mathematical transformation is desired. FGCS selected the method incorporated in the software identified as VERTCON. It is not the intent of the notice to declare when to use a datum transformation or by what method but only to declare that when a mathematical transformation is appropriate, VERTCON is recommended. Note that VERTCON is not appropriate to transform between NGVD 29 and NAVD 88 for first-, second-, or third-order heights, as defined in the Federal Geodetic Control Committee (FGCC), Standards and Specifications for Geodetic Control Networks, and retain first- or second-, or third-order accuracies in the results. Method 1, recomputation or readjustment of survey observations, is usually more appropriate to maintain first-, second-, and third-order FGCC accuracies. VERTCON can be accessed for on-line computation from the NGS Geodetic Tool Kit at *http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOL/Vertcon/vertcon.html,* or copies of the VERTCON software are available for free download from the NGS Web site *http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PC_PROD/pc_prod.shtml#VERTCON.* Dated: July 5, 2007. Elizabeth R. Scheffler, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management. [FR Doc. 07-3377 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
CFR
25 references not yet in our index
  • 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
  • 358 F. Supp. 2d 1313
  • 481 F.3d 1355
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
  • 115 F.3d 965
  • 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291
  • 988 F.2d 1573
  • 806 F. Supp. 1008
  • 997 F.2d 1453
  • 43 F.3d 1442
  • 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
  • 117 F.3d 1401
  • 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246
  • 337 F.3d 1373
  • 298 F.3d 1330
  • 899 F.2d 1185
  • 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339
  • 113 F.3d 1220
  • 216 F.3d 1027
  • 226 F.3d 1361
  • Pub. L. 89-651
  • 15 CFR 301
  • Pub. L. 109-479
  • 50 CFR 216
  • 50 CFR 222
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Request for nominations
C.F.R.§ 351.213
C.F.R.§ 351.301
C.F.R.§ 351.401
C.F.R.§ 351.408
C.F.R.§ 351.224
C.F.R.§ 351.309
C.F.R.§ 351.310
C.F.R.§ 351.402
C.F.R.§ 351.403
F. Supp.346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
F. Supp.358 F. Supp. 2d 1313
F. App'x481 F.3d 1355
Cites 48 · 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.