Notices. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

50,464 words·~229 min read·/register/2007/08/07/07-3833·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-XV-M COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory Committee Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Alabama Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 6 p.m. and adjourn at 8 p.m. at the Sheraton Birmingham Hotel, 2101 Richard Arrington Jr., Blvd., North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203.

The purpose of the meeting is to conduct program planning for future activities. Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Central Regional Office by July 13, 2007. The address is 400 State Avenue, Suite 908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, Civil Rights Analyst, Central Regional Office, at

(913)551-1400 or by e-mail *frobinson@usccr.gov.* Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten

(10)working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Central Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of the advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, *http://www.usccr.gov,* or to contact the Central Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. It was not possible to publish this notice 15 days in advance of the meeting date because of internal processing delays. Dated at Washington, DC, August 2, 2007. Ivy L. Davis, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. E7-15353 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting with briefing of the Indiana Advisory Committee will convene at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, August 7, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, One South Capitol Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct an orientation and ethics training for new members, plan future activities, and have a briefing on religious discrimination in prisons. Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by August 14, 2007. The address is 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Carolyn Allen, Administrative Assistant,

(312)353-8311, TDD/TTY

(312)353-8362, or by e-mail: *callen@usccr.gov.* Hearing impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten

(10)working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, *http://www.usccr.gov,* or to contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. It was not possible to publish this notice 15 days in advance of the meeting date because of internal processing delays. Dated at Washington, DC, August 2, 2007. Ivy L. Davis, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. E7-15354 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 3 p.m. at the Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz Law Office, 4268 1-55 North, Jackson, Mississippi 39211. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct program planning for future activities. Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Central Regional Office by July 13, 2007. The address is 400 State Avenue, Suite 908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, Civil Rights Analyst, Central Regional Office, at

(10)working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Central Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of the advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, *http://www.usccr.gov,* or to contact the Central Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. It was not possible to publish this notice 15 days in advance of the meeting date because of internal processing delays. Dated at Washington, DC, August 2, 2007. Ivy L. Davis, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. E7-15355 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-475-818) Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Tenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (“pasta”) from Italy for the period of review (“POR”) July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that during the POR, Rummo S.p.A. Molino e Pastificio (“Rummo”) sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (“NV”). We also preliminarily determine that Atar, S.r.L. (“Atar”) is not the producer of subject merchandise and are preliminarily rescinding the review of Atar. 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 assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export price (“EP”) and NV for entries of subject merchandise produced by Rummo and to the All Others rate for entries of subject merchandise claimed to be produced by Atar. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results and partial rescission. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maura Jeffords or Christopher Hargett, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3146 or

(202)482-4161, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy* , 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996). On July 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). We received requests for review from petitioners 1 and from individual Italian exporters/producers of pasta, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2). On August 30, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, listing these four companies as respondents: Atar, Rummo, Industria Alimentare Colavita S.p.A. (“Indalco”) and Corticella Molini e Pastifici S.p.A. and its affiliate Pasta Combattenti S.p.A. (collectively, “Corticella/Combattenti”). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”). 1 New World Pasta Company; Dakota Growers Pasta Company; and American Italian Pasta Company. On August 31, 2006, Indalco timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of certain pasta from Italy. On November 28, 2006, Corticella/Combattenti also timely withdrew its request. The Department rescinded the review of these respondents on July 12, 2007. 2 2 *See Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tenth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 72 FR 38060, July 12, 2007. Between August 2006 and May 2007, the Department issued its initial questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires to each respondent, as applicable. We received responses to the Department's initial and supplemental questionnaires on November 13, 2006, April 4, 2007, April 12, 2007, May 1, 2007, and May 11, 2007, from Atar. Rummo provided responses to the Department's initial and supplemental questionnaires on October 10, 2006, October 24, 2006, February 16, 2007, February 27, 2007, May 10, 2007, and July 13, 2007. On February 16, 2007, May 18, 2007, and July 9, 2007, the petitioners filed comments on Atar's responses. On December 15, 2006, March 23, 2007, and June 21, 2007, petitioners filed comments on Rummo's responses. On March 23, 2007, the Department fully extended the due date for the preliminary results of review from April 2, 2007, to July 31, 2007. *See Certain Pasta from Italy: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 13745 (March 23, 2007). Preliminary Intent to Rescind the Review of Atar In *Notice of Final Results of the Ninth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy* , 72 FR 7011, February 14, 2007 (“ *Final Results 9th Review* ”), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (“ID Memo 9th Review”), the Department expressed its “serious concerns” regarding Atar's status as a producer by way of tolling arrangements. *See* ID Memo 9th Review at Comment 1. In the supplemental questionnaires sent to Atar in this current review, the Department asked follow-up questions pertinent to the issue of whether Atar was a producer of subject merchandise during the POR consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(h). However, Atar provided no additional information to address the Department's concerns and to demonstrate that it was the producer of subject merchandise. As discussed in the memorandum from Melissa G. Skinner to Stephen J. Claeys, RE: Status of Atar, S.r.L.("Atar”) as Manufacturer of Subject Merchandise, dated July 31, 2007, the totality of the circumstances surrounding Atar's relationships with its suppliers of tolling services and customers lead to the preliminary determination that under 19 CFR 351.401(h) Atar is not the producer. Since Atar requested the review as “a producer” and Atar does not qualify for producer status, it does not qualify for this administrative review. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily rescinds the review. Because Atar incorrectly claimed to be the manufacturer, and no other manufacturer has been identified, under these circumstances, we will instruct customs to liquidate entries that are claimed to be produced by Atar at the All Others rate. Scope of the Order Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, by Bioagricoop Scrl, by QC&I International Services, by Ecocert Italia, by Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, by Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or by Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (“ICEA”) are also excluded from this order. *See* Memorandum from Audrey Twyman to Susan Kuhbach, dated February 28, 2006, entitled “Recognition of Instituto per la Certificazione Etica e Ambientale (“ICEA”). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“ *HTSUS* ”). Although the *HTSUS* subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics:

(1)pasta shape;

(2)type of wheat;

(3)additives; and

(4)enrichment. When there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most similar product based on the characteristics listed above, in descending order of priority. When there were no appropriate comparison market sales of comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United States to constructed value (“CV”), in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (“VCOM”) between each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for comparison. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of certain pasta from Italy were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP or constructed export price (“CEP”) to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. *See* the Department's “Calculation Memorandum for Rummo S.p.A.” (“Rummo's calculation memo”) (August 30, 2007), available in the CRU. Export Price For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and

(b)of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise. We based EP and CEP on the packed cost-insurance-freight (“CIF”), ex-factory, free-on-board (“FOB”), or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States. When appropriate, we reduced these prices to reflect discounts and rebates. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign brokerage, handling and loading charges, export duties, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, warehousing, and U.S. duties. In addition, when appropriate, we increased EP or CEP as applicable, by an amount equal to the countervailing duty rate attributed to export subsidies in the most recently completed administrative review, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (advertising, cost of credit, warranties, banking, slotting fees, and commissions paid to unaffiliated sales agents). In addition, we deducted indirect selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States. These expenses include certain indirect selling expenses incurred by its affiliated U.S. distributors. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and

(f)of the Act. *See* Rummo's calculation memo. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Markets To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, because Rummo had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that 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 for Rummo. B. Cost of Production (“COP”)Analysis 1. Calculation of COP Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of Rummo pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether Rummo's comparison market sales were made at prices below the COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the Rummo's' information as submitted. 2. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. *See* Rummo's calculation memo. 3. Results of COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” *See* section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for Rummo, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. *See* Rummo's calculation memo. D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, warehousing, inland insurance, discounts, and rebates. We added interest revenue. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses, advertising, warranty expenses, commissions, bank charges, and billing adjustments, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments for Rummo, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or the United States where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, the “commission offset.” Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the VCOM for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs. Sales of pasta purchased by the respondent from unaffiliated producers and resold in the comparison market were disregarded, and sales of comingled and tolled pasta were re-coded as “Rummo.” E. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the comparison-market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect 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, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997). In the home market, Rummo reported that it sold through two channels of distribution. Rummo reported that the two channels of distribution in the home market constitute one LOT. In the U.S. market, Rummo reported that its sales were made through three channels of distribution, to two LOTs. In the U.S. market, we find that the selling activity differed between the two LOTs such that they can not be considered the same level of trade. The Department has determined that Rummo's home market sales are made at a different, and more advanced, stage of marketing than the LOTs of the U.S. sales. Nonetheless, we are unable to make an LOT adjustment because there is no other data on the record that would allow the Department to establish whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the home market. Therefore, We are preliminarily granting a CEP offset for Rummo. For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, *see* Rummo's calculation memo. Currency Conversion For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank. *See* Rummo's calculation memo. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Rummo 1.54 The Department will disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs, unless the Department alters this time limit. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument

(1)a statement of the issue, and

(2)a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(h), the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rate Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above *de minimis (i.e.* , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer. Where appropriate, to calculate the entered value, we subtracted international movement expenses ( *e.g.* , international freight) from the gross sales value. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). 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 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for Rummo, we divided its total dumping margin by the total net value of its sales during the review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of pasta from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)The cash deposit rate for Rummo will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, *de minimis* , no cash deposit will be required;

(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 final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated;

(3)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 15.45 percent, the All Others rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy* , 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice 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 increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed. These preliminary results of this administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: July 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15340 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-533-824) Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to timely requests for review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip (PET Film) from India for the period of review

(POR)July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. The review covers one respondent, MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ). The Department preliminarily determines that MTZ did not sell subject merchandise to the United States at less than normal value during the POR. 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 entries during the POR without regard to antidumping duties. The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun Jack Zhao or Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1396 or

(202)482-5255, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India on July 1, 2002. *See Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India* , 67 FR 44175 (July 1, 2002) ( *Antidumping Duty Order* ). On July 3, 2006 the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). The Department received timely requests for an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India from Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and MTZ, manufacturers and exporters of MTZ film in India, by the July 31, 2006 deadline. On August 30, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET Film from India for these two companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006) ( *Initiation Notice* ). On August 25, 2006, Jindal withdrew its request for an administrative review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), because we received the withdrawal of Jindal's request for review within the requisite 90 days of publication of the *Initiation Notice* , we rescinded the administrative review of Jindal. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Notice of Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* ,72 FR 1216 (January 10, 2007). On August 2, 2006, the Department issued its questionnaire to MTZ. 1 MTZ submitted its section A response on August 23, 2006, and submitted its sections B and C response on October 13, 2006. The Department issued a Section A supplemental questionnaire on September 6, 2006 and MTZ responded on October 11, 2006. On January 19, 2007 and January 26, 2007, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to which MTZ responded on February 20, 2007. The Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire on May 16, 2007 with two deadlines; MTZ submitted its response to Section I of this questionnaire on June 4, 2007, and to Section II of this questionnaire on June 6, 2007. On March 23, 2007, the Department, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), extended the deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty administrative review by 120 days from April 2, 2007 to July 31, 2007. *See Polyethylene Terephthalate

(PET)Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 13745 (March 23, 2007). 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales or if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed value of merchandise under investigation. Verification The Department conducted a sales verification of MTZ at the sales office in Mumbai from June 25, 2007 through June 29, 2007. Minor corrections were presented at verification on June 25, 2007 and filed with the Department in accordance with our filing requirements on June 26, 2007. On July 13, 2007, these corrections were filed in electronic format. *See Verification of the Sales Response of MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. in the Antidumping Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip (PET Film) from India (MTZ Verification Report* ), dated July 26, 2007, on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building. Period of Review This review covers the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Since the order was published, there has been one scope determination, dated August 25, 2003. In this determination, requested by International Packaging Films, Inc., the Department determined that tracing and drafting film is outside of the scope of the order. Imports of PET Film are classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for the convenience and customs purposes. The written scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Price-to-Price Comparisons To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared the export price

(EP)to NV, as described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all products produced by respondents that are covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and that were sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. All of MTZ's U.S. sales were matched to identical merchandise sold in the home market. Date of Sale It is the Department's practice to use invoice date as the date of sale in the absence of information established that a different date is appropriate. However, 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that the Secretary may use a date other than the invoice date if the Secretary is satisfied that the material terms of the sale were established on some other date. *See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 127 F. Supp. 2d 207, 217-219 (CIT 2000). MTZ reported invoice date as the date of sale for all sales in both the home and U.S. markets. After analyzing MTZ's responses including the sample sales documents provided in its responses and after reviewing documentation at verification, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale for all sales under review. U.S. Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we use EP when the subject merchandise was sold before the date of importation by the producer/exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and constructed export price

(CEP)was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. As discussed below, we conclude that all of MTZ's sales are EP sales. MTZ identified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales in its questionnaire responses. The Department based the price of each of MTZ's U.S. sales of subject merchandise on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, or to unaffiliated purchasers for exportation to the United States. In accordance with sections 772(a) and 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP using the prices MTZ charged for subject merchandise from which we made deductions for movement expenses, including, where applicable, charges for domestic inland freight, international freight, insurance, terminal handling charges, document fees, bond fees, storage fees, handling fees, U.S. brokerage and handling, which include both harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees, and U.S. duties. We did not make an adjustment for duty drawback as claimed by MTZ in its questionnaire responses. Specifically, we did not make an upward adjustment for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act because the information MTZ provided does not meet the “two-prong test” for duty drawback. The first prong is that the import duty and the duty rebate or exemption be directly linked to, and dependent on, one another; and the second prong is that the company must demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of the imported material to account for the duty drawback paid on the export of the manufactured product. *See Wheatland Tube Company v. United States* , Slip Op. 06-8 at 29 (CIT January 17, 2006); *see also Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* 71 FR 47485 (August 17, 2006), *Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States* , 374 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1261 (CIT 2005); *Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. United States* , 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (CIT 1999). At the verification, MTZ officials stated that the company was no longer claiming duty drawback for its U.S. sales because the imported raw materials cannot be tied to MTZ's exports. See *MTZ Verification Report* at page 13 Home Market Viability 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

(NV)( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the volume of MTZ's home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR. *See* section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that MTZ's quantity of sales in the home market exceeded five percent of its sales of PET Film to the United States. *See* 19 CFR 351.404(b). Therefore, MTZ's volume of sales in the home market during the POR was sufficient to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV. Normal Value In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP sale. *See* “Level of Trade” section below. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions from normal value for movement expenses, including domestic inland freight and domestic brokerage, as appropriate. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c) and 19 CFR 351.410 (d), we deducted home market credit and added U.S. credit. MTZ reported that it paid commissions on some U.S. sales and some home market sales. We made the appropriate adjustment for commissions paid in the home market pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, the “commission offset.” Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act, we deducted home market packing and added U.S. packing costs. We did not make an adjustment for other direct selling expenses, because MTZ's original and supplemental responses do not demonstrate that these expenses consist of additional direct selling expenses that have not already been accounted for elsewhere. *See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order on PET Film from India: MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd. (MTZ Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* ), dated July 31, 2007. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sale. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) ( *South African Plate Final* ). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the chain of distribution), 2 including selling functions, 3 class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 2 In performing this evaluation, we considered all of MTZ's narrative responses to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 3 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, technical service, freight and delivery, and inventory maintenance. See Exhibit A-7 of August 23, 2006 Section A questionnaire response. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either home market or third-country prices), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sale, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. MTZ reported a single level of trade and a single channel of distribution for both markets. At verification, we reviewed the information provided by MTZ with respect to the distribution system and selling functions in the home and U.S. markets. *See MTZ Verification Report* at 4 and 5. Based on our analysis, the Department preliminarily determines that only one LOT existed in each market for MTZ. As such, no LOT adjustment is warranted for MTZ. *See MTZ Preliminary Analysis Memorandum* . Currency Conversion In accordance with section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006: Manufacturer/Exporter Margin MTZ Polyfilms Ltd.

(MTZ)0.24%; ( *de minimis* ) Duty Assessment Upon publication of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(s), if the preliminary results remain unchanged in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries of subject merchandise during the POR by the importers or customers reported by MTZ in its databases. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Cash Deposit If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for MTZ will be that established in the final results of this review (currently *de minimis* ); 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in this review, 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

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and 4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous proceeding conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 5.71 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the less than fair value investigation (24.14 percent), adjusted for the export subsidy rate found in the companion countervailing duty investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Public Comment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to any party to the proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. *Id* . Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issues; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case brief, rebuttal brief, or hearing no later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h). Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. The preliminary results of this administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15322 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-401-808 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Sweden: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from petitioner Aqualon Company, a division of Hercules Incorporated (Aqualon), a U.S. manufacturer of purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CMC from Sweden. This administrative review covers imports of subject merchandise produced and exported by Noviant AB and CP Kelco AB (collectively, CP Kelco). The period of review is December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that sales of CMC by CP Kelco have not been made at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards or Angelica Mendoza, 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)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 11, 2005, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the antidumping duty order on CMC from Sweden. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden* , 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 3, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of, *inter alia* , the antidumping duty order on CMC from Sweden. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Findings, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). Pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), Aqualon timely requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CMC from Sweden on July 27, 2006. On August 30, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of this order. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). We are conducting an administrative review of the order on CMC from Sweden for CP Kelco for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. CP Kelco entered its appearance in this proceeding on August 31, 2006, and the Department issued its Antidumping Duty Questionnaire to CP Kelco on September 11, 2006. On October 17, 2006, we received the Section A Response from CP Kelco (Section A Response). On November 9, 2006, CP Kelco filed its Section B and C questionnaire responses (Section B and C Responses). On December 8, 2006, Aqualon alleged that CP Kelco made home market sales of CMC at prices below the cost of production

(COP)during the POR. On January 24, 2007, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation of home market sales made by CP Kelco. See the Department's January 24, 2007, Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards, Case Analyst and Gina Lee, Case Accountant, (Cost Initiation Memorandum) for CP Kelco. As a result, on January 24, 2007, the Department requested that CP Kelco respond to section D of the Department's questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its section D response on February 5, 2007, (Section D Response), including its cost reconciliation. On January 26, 2007, the Department issued its first sections A-C supplemental questionnaire to CP Kelco and on February 15, 2007, CP Kelco submitted its response (Supplemental Response). On April 2, 2007, the Department issued to CP Kelco a second section A through C supplemental questionnaire, and on April 13, 2007, CP Kelco submitted its response (Second Supplemental Response). On April 5, 2007, due to the complexity of the case and pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results by 120 days from April 2, 2007, until July 31, 2007. *See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 16767 (April 5, 2007). From April 23, 2007, through April 25, 2007, and from April 30, 2007, through May 4, 2007, respectively, the Department conducted on-site verifications of CP Kelco's U.S. constructed export price

(CEP)and home market sales responses. *See* “Verification” section below. On June 19, 2007, the Department sent a letter to CP Kelco requesting specific changes to its home market and U.S. sales databases, based on the verification findings and minor corrections. *See* Letter to CP Kelco AB and CP Kelco U.S. Inc. from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, regarding Request for Revised Home Market and U.S. Sales Databases, dated June 19, 2007. On June 29, 2007, the Department received CP Kelco's revised sales files as requested by the Department. Period of Review The period of review

(POR)is December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is all purified CMC, sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations, which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.307, we conducted a sales verification of the questionnaire responses of CP Kelco and CP Kelco's U.S. sales affiliate, CP Kelco U.S. Inc. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of CP Kelco's production facility in Sweden. Our verification results are outlined in the following two memoranda: 1) Memorandum to the File, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, “Verification of Home Market and U.S. Sales Information Submitted by CP Kelco A.B. and Noviant A.B.,” dated June 11, 2007 (Home Market Verification Report); and 2) Memorandum to the File, through Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, “Sales Verification of Sections A-C Questionnaire Responses Submitted by CP Kelco AB, Noviant AB, CP Kelco U.S. Inc. and Noviant Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco) in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden- Verification of United States Affiliates CP Kelco U.S. Inc. and Noviant U.S. Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco U.S.),” dated June 12, 2007 (CEP Verification Report). *See also* Memorandum to the File from Joseph Welton, Senior Accountant, through Neal M. Halper, Director, and Theresa C. Deeley, Lead Accountant, regarding “Verification of the Cost Response of CP Kelco AB in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden,” dated July 3, 2007 (Cost Verification Report). Public versions of these reports are on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building, 14 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching a determination if “necessary information is not available on the record.” In accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, for these preliminary results, we find it necessary to use partial facts available in those instances where the respondent did not provide certain information necessary to conduct our analysis. CP Kelco reported in its questionnaire responses that it “factors” its account receivables through an affiliated financial institution ( *i.e.* , sells the rights to the outstanding payments of its unpaid invoices to that financial institution). *See* , *e.g.* , Section B Response and Section C Response at pages B-13 and C-13, respectively, and Supplemental Response at pages 33, and 35-37, and at exhibits B-11, B-12, B-13, B-14, and B-15. As a result of our review of the factoring process during the verifications in Sweden and Atlanta, Georgia, we found that CP Kelco incurred transaction expenses on its factored sales in both the U.S. and home markets. These expenses are fees charged by the affiliated financial institution to CP Kelco for purchasing its account receivables and remitting payment to CP Kelco at an earlier date than payment would have been received from the invoiced customer. For a further description and analysis of CP Kelco's factoring methodology, *see* Analysis of Data Submitted by Noviant AB and CP Kelco AB (collectively, CP Kelco) in the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose

(CMC)from Sweden from Patrick Edwards, Analyst, to the File, dated July 31, 2007 (Sales Analysis Memorandum) on file in the CRU. We preliminarily determine that normal value and net U.S. price should be adjusted for these expenses. However, because we did not ask CP Kelco to provide this information on a transaction-specific basis, there is not sufficient information on the record to make a transaction-specific adjustment for these factoring charges. Pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, it is appropriate to use the facts otherwise available to make this adjustment. The methodology used to make these adjustments is discussed in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. We find that CP Kelco did report all information requested to the best of its ability. Therefore, we have not made an adverse inference in our use of partial facts available. We intend to ask CP Kelco to report its actual factoring expense on a transaction-specific basis in a later submission, and we intend to consider that information in our final results. Successor-In-Interest In February 2005, the Noviant group of companies (including Noviant's Sweden-based operation of Noviant AB) were merged with the CP Kelco group of companies, with both corporate groups previously operating as subsidiaries of the J.M. Huber Corporation. Following the merger, the operating title of the two entities became unified under the CP Kelco corporate title. Throughout 2005 and 2006, each of the European Noviant production and export companies' names were changed from “Noviant” to “CP Kelco” ( *i.e.* , Noviant AB became CP Kelco AB in Sweden). Because entries have been made under the name of the new company during the POR, the Department must make a successorship determination in order to determine the appropriate and necessary company-specific cash deposit and assessment rates to be applied to entries subsequent to the final results of this review. In December 2005, the shares of Noviant AB's U.S. sales affiliate, Noviant Inc., were sold in an agreement with CP Kelco's holding company, merging the U.S.-based operations of Noviant and CP Kelco under the CP Kelco corporate title. The completed merger of Noviant's U.S.-based operations with those of CP Kelco became effective January 1, 2006, and the company has since operated as CP Kelco U.S., Inc. (CP Kelco U.S.). For a further discussion of this issue, *see* Sales Analysis Memorandum; *see also* , Home Market Verification Report at 3-6 and CEP Verification Report at 4-8. CP Kelco U.S. is a subsidiary of CP Kelco, respondent in the current administrative review and subsidiary of J.M. Huber Corporation. In determining whether CP Kelco is the successor to Noviant AB for purposes of the antidumping duty law, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in:

(1)management,

(2)production facilities,

(3)suppliers, and

(4)customer base. *See* , *e.g.* , *Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992) ( *Brass from Canada* ); *Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 55 FR 28796 (July 13, 1990); and *Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). While examining these factors alone will not necessarily provide a dispositive indication of succession, the Department will generally consider one company to have succeeded another if that company's operations are essentially inclusive of the predecessor's operations. *See Brass from Canada* . Thus, if the evidence demonstrates, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, that the new company is essentially the same business operation as the former company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. The evidence on the record, particularly CP Kelco's response to our supplemental questionnaire specifically addressing its claimed successorship (Questions 2-11 of the Supplemental Response) and the Home Market and CEP Verification Reports, demonstrate that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, CP Kelco is the successor to Noviant AB. Specifically, we reviewed CP Kelco's organizational structure before and after the merger, as set forth in the company's questionnaire responses, and confirmed that there were only minimal changes to management and corporate structure. For instance, with respect to direct U.S. sales, sales are still made through the Unified Dental Team within Huber Engineered Materials (HEM). With respect to sales through Noviant Inc.'s successor, CP Kelco U.S., while customer care and logistics functions were transferred from Atlanta to Chicago, Illinois, and San Diego, California, those former Noviant employees did not relocate; a single new customer care representative was hired in Chicago and the existing CP Kelco U.S. logistics staff in San Diego took over logistics functions relating to CMC. From a management perspective, consistent with CP Kelco's responses and information obtained during the Department's verifications, the merger of Noviant AB with CP Kelco AB is, effectively, a name change, the primary purpose of which was to broaden the companies' marketing scope under the unified “CP Kelco” name. Consequently, our analysis of corporate management changes as a result of the merger indicates that neither the former Noviant AB nor CP Kelco AB (as well as the U.S. affiliates, Noviant Inc. and CP Kelco U.S.) experienced significant shifts in senior executive management. *See* Home Market Verification Report at 4-6 and Exhibit 4. *See also* , CEP Verification Report at 5 to 8, and Exhibits 2-4. While new management positions were created, we found that senior management in place at Noviant AB prior to the merger with CP Kelco AB still exist following the merger. The same holds true for senior management of the U.S.-based entities, Noviant Inc. and CP Kelco U.S., where we found that one senior manager left the company following the merger. These changes, standing alone, are not sufficiently significant to support a determination that CP Kelco's management and organizational structure, as well as its production and sales of the subject merchandise, are not essentially the same as those of Noviant AB. Record evidence also shows that CP Kelco uses the same CMC production facilities and suppliers as used by Noviant AB ( *id* . at 10-12). CP Kelco also provides CMC to the same customers as Noviant AB ( *id* . at 11-12); *see also* , Section A Response at 10-12. Therefore, we preliminarily find that CP Kelco is the successor to Noviant AB for purposes of this proceeding, and for the application of the antidumping law. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CMC from Sweden to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price

(EP)or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs. Product Comparisons We compared U.S. sales with sales of the foreign like product in the home 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. 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 respondent in the following order of importance:

(1)grade,

(2)viscosity,

(3)degree of substitution,

(4)particle size, and

(5)solution characteristics. Export Price and Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772 of the Act, we calculate either an EP or a CEP, depending on the nature of each sale. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold by the foreign exporter or producer before the date of importation to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. 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. CP Kelco classified two types of sales to the United States: 1) direct sales to end-user customers (EP); and 2) sales via its U.S. affiliates, CP Kelco U.S. and HEM, to end-users and distributors (CEP). For purposes of these preliminary results, we have accepted CP Kelco's classifications. We calculated EP based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We used the sale invoice date as the date of sale. 1 We based EP on the packed free on board

(FOB)or delivered duty paid prices

(DDP)to the first unaffiliated purchasers outside Sweden. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duty, while adding freight revenue, in accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and section 351.401(e) of the Department's regulations. We made further adjustments for direct expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 1 *See* the Department's Sales Analysis Memorandum for a further discussion of this issue. Based upon our findings at verification, we made a deduction from EP for the factoring charges incurred by CP Kelco on its U.S. account receivables. For the EP sales examined at verification, we used CP Kelco's verified factoring charges to represent this expense. For the remaining EP sales ( *i.e.* , the sales not examined at verification) upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges, we based the deduction upon the average ratio of factoring charges to the invoice value incurred by CP Kelco on the U.S. sales examined at verification. We calculated CEP based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer after importation. We used the sale invoice date as the date of sale. We based CEP on the gross unit price from CP Kelco to its unaffiliated U.S. customers, making adjustments where necessary for billing adjustments, rebates, and other discounts. Where applicable and pursuant to sections 772(c)(2)(A) and (d)(1) of the Act, the Department made deductions for movement expenses (foreign inland freight, international freight, U.S. movement, U.S. customs duty, brokerage and handling, marine insurance, and post-sale warehousing), while adding freight revenue, in accordance with section 772(c)(1) of the Act and section 351.401(e) of the Department's regulations. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted, where applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses, including credit expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and U.S. inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States and Sweden associated with economic activities in the United States. We also deducted CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We also made a deduction from CEP for the factoring charges incurred by CP Kelco on its U.S. account receivables. For the CEP sales examined at verification, we used CP Kelco's verified factoring charges to represent this expense. For the remaining CEP sales ( *i.e.* , the sales not examined at verification) upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges, we based the deduction upon the average ratio of factoring charges to the invoice value incurred by CP Kelco on the U.S. sales examined at verification. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , whether the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared 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. Pursuant to section 351.404(b)(2) of the Department's regulations, because CP Kelco'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 for comparison. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Cost of Production Analysis On January 24, 2007, based on an allegation from Aqualon, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost investigation of CP Kelco because Aqualon provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that CP Kelco is selling CMC in the home market at prices below its COP. *See* Cost Initiation Memorandum. Based on the Department's findings, there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that CP Kelco is selling CMC in Sweden at prices below COP. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether CP Kelco's sales in Sweden were made at prices below the COP. *See* Cost Initiation Memorandum. C. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of CP Kelco's materials and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus an amount for home market selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by CP Kelco, except for the changes noted below. 1. CP Kelco revised the standard cost of a limited number of products during December 2005, and allocated the 2005 variances ( *i.e.* , the amount by which actual costs differed from standard costs) to the revised standard costs. We reallocated variances to the standard costs which were in effect from January 2005 through November 2005. 2. We revised the cost of goods sold denominator of the reported financial expense ratio of parent company J.M. Huber Corporation to include J.M. Huber Corporation's depreciation expenses, and to deduct packing and freight costs. *See* Memorandum to Neal Halper from Joseph Welton, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - CP Kelco AB, dated July 31, 2007. D. Test of Home Market Prices We compared the weighted-average COP of CP Kelco's home market sales to home market sales prices (net of billing adjustments, discounts, any applicable movement expenses, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing) of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below 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 would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. E. Results of the Cost Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of CP Kelco's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because these below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of CP Kelco's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because such sales were made:

(1)in substantial quantities within the POR ( *i.e.* , within an extended period of time) in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, and

(2)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 ( *i.e.* , the sales were made at prices below the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POR). We used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, if such sales existed, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. In this review, we have found sales below the COP and have, as described above, disregarded such sales from our margin calculations. F. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's length. We used the sale invoice date as the date of sale. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, discounts, and rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We offset inland freight for any freight revenue (revenue received from customers for invoice items covering transportation expenses). In addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise ( *i.e.* , DIFMER) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments 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. We also made an adjustment, where appropriate, for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. *See* “Level of Trade” section below. Additionally, 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. We also made a deduction from NV for the factoring charges incurred by CP Kelco on its home market account receivables. For the home market sales examined at verification, we used CP Kelco's verified factoring charges to represent this expense. For the remaining home market sales ( *i.e.* , the sales not examined at verification) upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges, we based the deduction upon the average ratio of factoring charges to the invoice value incurred by CP Kelco on the home market sales examined at verification. G. Price-to-Constructed Value-Comparison In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on constructed value

(CV)if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match of identical or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject merchandise, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication for CP Kelco based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses, financial expense, and profit on the amounts CP Kelco incurred and realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. However, for these preliminary results, we did not base NV on CV in any instances. Accordingly, for sales of CMC for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the sales-below-cost test, we based NV on CV. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP or CEP transaction. The LOT in the comparison market is the LOT of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the LOT of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. With respect to U.S. price for EP transactions, the LOT is also that of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, the LOT is that of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer. To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different LOT from 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. If the comparison market sales are at different LOTs, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the Department makes an LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. We analyze whether different selling activities are performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or downward adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference in LOT involves the performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT adjustment, we reduce NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP sales. *See* section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. In the present review, CP Kelco claimed an LOT adjustment. See Section B Response at page B-20. In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 2 including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 2 The marketing process in the United States and comparison market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered CP Kelco's narrative response to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. CP Kelco reported two LOTs in the comparison market, Sweden, with two channels of distribution to two classes of customers:

(1)direct sales to end user customers (LOT 1 and Channel 1) and

(2)direct sales to distributors (LOT 2 and Channel 2). Based on our review of record evidence, we find that comparison market sales to both customer categories and through both channels of distribution were substantially similar with respect to selling functions and stages of marketing. CP Kelco performed the same selling functions at a similar level of performance for sales in both comparison market channels of distribution, including sales forecasting, order input/processing, advertising, warranty service, freight, delivery, and logistics services, *etc* . *See* Section A Response at Exhibit A-5; Supplemental Response at exhibit A-25. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that CP Kelco had only one LOT for its comparison market sales. CP Kelco reported one EP LOT and one CEP LOT each with its own separate channel of distribution in the United States, and with two classes of customers for CEP sales:

(1)direct sales to end user customers (EP sales of LOT 1 and Channel 5) and

(2)sales through U.S. affiliates (CEP sales) to end users and distributors of merchandise (LOTs 3 and 4 with Channel 1 to end users and Channel 2 to distributors). In reviewing CP Kelco's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that CP Kelco has a total of three channels of distribution for its U.S. sales:

(1)direct sales to end users of merchandise produced to order and from existing inventory,

(2)sales through U.S. affiliate CP Kelco U.S. to end users and distributors of merchandise produced to order and from existing inventory, and

(3)sales through U.S. affiliate HEM to end users and distributors of merchandise produced to order and from existing inventory. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is one channel of distribution for EP sales, and two channels of distribution for CEP sales. *See* Section A Response at A-17-A-23. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling functions and services performed by CP Kelco on CEP sales for both channels of distribution relating to the CEP LOT, as described by CP Kelco in its questionnaire responses, after these deductions. We have determined that the selling functions performed by CP Kelco on all CEP sales are similar because CP Kelco provides almost no selling functions to either U.S. affiliate in support of either channel of distribution. CP Kelco reported that the only services it provided for the CEP sales were packaging, order input/processing services, and very limited sales/marketing support services. See Supplemental Response at exhibit A-25. Accordingly, because the selling functions provided by CP Kelco on sales to affiliates in the United States are substantially similar, we preliminarily determine that there is one CEP LOT in the U.S. market. We then examined the selling functions performed by CP Kelco on its EP sales in comparison with the selling functions performed on CEP sales (after deductions). We found that CP Kelco performs an additional layer of selling functions on its direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers which are not performed on its sales to affiliates ( *e.g.* , sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, engineering services, procurement and sourcing services, packing, inventory maintenance, direct sales support, after-sales support services, *etc* .). *Id* . Because these additional selling functions are significant, we find that CP Kelco's direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers (EP sales) are at a different LOT than its CEP sales. Next, we examined the comparison market and EP sales. CP Kelco's comparison

(home)market and EP sales were both made to end users, while only CP Kelco's comparison market sales were made to distributors. In the case of end user sales, the selling functions performed by CP Kelco were almost identical for both markets. Other than re-packing services, which were mainly provided on U.S. sales, in both markets CP Kelco provided the following services: sales forecasting, strategic and economic planning, sales promotion, engineering services, advertising, procurement/sourcing services, packing, inventory maintenance, direct sales personnel, order/input processing, market research, technical assistance, providing guarantees, after-sales services, freight and delivery services, *etc* . *Id* . Because the selling functions and channels of distribution are substantially similar, we preliminarily determine that the comparison market LOT is the same as the EP LOT. It was therefore unnecessary to make an LOT adjustment for comparison of home market and EP prices. According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is appropriate when the LOT in the home market is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP sales and there are no data available to determine the existence of a pattern of price difference. CP Kelco reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for the CEP LOT and that, therefore, the comparison market LOT is more advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions performed by CP Kelco for sales in the comparison market and CEP sales in the U.S. market ( *i.e.* , sales support and activities provided by CP Kelco on sales to its U.S. affiliates), we preliminarily find that the comparison market LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP sales because CP Kelco provides many selling functions in the comparison market at a higher level of service ( *i.e.* , sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, advertising, personnel training, procurement services, sales promotion, inventory maintenance, direct sales personnel, market research, technical assistance, after-sales service, *etc* .) as compared to selling functions performed for its CEP sales ( *i.e.* , CP Kelco reported that the only services it provided for the CEP sales were packaging, order input/processing services, and very limited freight and delivery and sales/marketing support services). *See* Supplemental Response at exhibit A-25. Thus, we find that CP Kelco's comparison market sales are at a more advanced LOT than its CEP sales. There was only one LOT in the comparison market, and there are no data available to determine the existence of a pattern of price difference, and we do not have any other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment; therefore, we applied a CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons. To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the comparison market indirect selling expenses from NV for comparison market sales that were compared to U.S. CEP sales. As such, we limited the comparison market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D) 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 the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margin for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006, for CP Kelco to be as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-Average Margin Noviant AB and CP Kelco AB 0.00 percent 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. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 Department 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). Any hearing, if requested, 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 Upon completion of this review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise covered by the review. 3 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the results of review. 3 If for the final results we determine CP Kelco AB to be the successor to Noviant AB, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries subject to this review using CP Kelco's final rate, accordingly. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by CP Kelco and/or Noviant AB and for which CP Kelco and/or Noviant AB did not know another company would export its merchandise to 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. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of purified carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act:

(1)for subject merchandise produced by CP Kelco and/or Noviant AB, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 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) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate of 25.29 percent from the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Anitdumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands and Sweden* , 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's regulations 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 administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15323 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-201-834) Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Quimica Amtex S.A. de C.V. (Amtex), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose

(CMC)from Mexico. The review covers exports of the subject merchandise to the United States produced and exported by Amtex. We preliminarily find that Amtex made sales at less than fair value during the POR. 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 based on differences between the export price

(EP)or constructed export price

(CEP)and normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the arguments:

(1)a statement of the issues,

(2)a brief summary of the arguments (no longer than five pages, including footnotes) and

(3)a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-6312 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from Mexico on July 11, 2005. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden* , 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 3, 2006, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request administrative review of CMC from Mexico for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On July 17, 2006, Amtex requested a review of its sales of CMC for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006 (the POR). On August 30, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). On September 11, 2006, the Department issued its standard antidumping duty questionnaire to Amtex. Amtex submitted its response to section A of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire on October 10, 2006 (Amtex Section A Response). Amtex submitted its response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire on November 13, 2006 (Amtex Sections B and C Response). On March 16, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which Amtex responded on April 13, 2007 (Amtex Supplemental Response). Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on April 5, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the extension for the preliminary results of this review. *See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 16767 (April 5, 2007). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as July 31, 2007. Because the Department requires additional information from Amtex, a letter was sent out specifying the required data. See Letter from Robert M. James to Jeffrey S. Neeley entitled, “Purified Carboxymethylcellulose

(CMC)from Mexico: Section A and B Data Reporting,” dated July 30, 2007. Period of Review The period of review

(POR)is December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is all purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Date of Sale The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the Department can establish “a different date that better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale,” the Department may choose a different date. *Id* . As further discussed below, the Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the date of sale provided the invoice is issued on or before the shipment date; and that the shipment date is the date of sale where the invoice is issued after the shipment date. In both the home and U.S. markets, Amtex bills some of its sales via “delayed invoices.” See Amtex Supplemental Response at 16. Delivery is made to the customer and a *pro forma* invoice is issued, but the subject merchandise remains in storage and continues to be the property of Amtex until withdrawn for consumption by the customer (usually at the end of a regular, monthly billing cycle), at which time a final and definitive invoice is issued. In Amtex's normal books and records this final invoice date, not the *pro forma* invoice date, is recorded as the date of sale. *Id.* , at 24-26. Therefore, for these preliminary results, the Department will use the earlier of either

(a)the invoice date or

(b)shipment date as the date of sale for Amtex's NV, EP, and CEP sales. *See* Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico dated July 31, 2007 (Analysis Memorandum), for further discussion of date of sale. A public version of this memorandum is 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. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CMC in the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared U.S. price to normal value (NV), as described in the “Export price,” “Constructed Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Because we determined Amtex made both EP and CEP sales during the POR, we used both EP and CEP as the basis for U.S. price in our comparisons. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Amtex covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and sold in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on five characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of priority): 1) grade; 2) viscosity; 3) degree of substitution; 4) particle size; and 5) solution gel characteristics. 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 these product characteristics and the reporting instructions listed in the Department's September 11, 2005 questionnaire. Because there were contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to all U.S. sales, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). *See* the CV section below. Export Price

(EP)Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. . .,” as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for a number of Amtex's U.S. sales. We preliminarily find that these sales are properly classified as EP sales because these sales were made before the date of importation and were sales directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States, and because CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated. We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid, cost and freight (C&F) or free on board

(FOB)prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. Amtex reported no price or billing adjustments, and no discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the mill to the U.S. border, inland freight from the border to the customer or warehouse, and U.S. brokerage and handling. We made adjustment for direct expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Constructed Export Price

(CEP)In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and

(d)of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for a number of Amtex's U.S. sales because Amtex sold merchandise to its affiliate in the United States, Amtex Chemicals LLC (Amtex Chemicals or ACUS), which, in turn, sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. *See, e.g.* , Amtex Section A Response at 10-11. We preliminarily find these U.S. sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they occurred in the United States and were made through Amtex's U.S. affiliate, Amtex Chemicals, to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Amtex reported no price or billing adjustments, and no discounts or rebates. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight to the border, foreign brokerage and handling, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses. 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 direct selling expenses (credit costs), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. However, no adjustment for CEP profit was made for the reasons set forth in the Analysis Memorandum. *See* Analysis Memorandum at 14. Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), 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) of the Act. Because Amtex'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 the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. Amtex reported no billing adjustments, discounts or rebates in the home market. We made deductions for movement expenses including, where appropriate, foreign inland freight and insurance, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise ( *i.e.* , DIFMER) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments 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. 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. C. Constructed Value

(CV)In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match of such or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. Since there was no cost allegation in this administrative review, no section D questionnaire was issued to Amtex. Therefore, we relied upon the costs of materials and fabrication as reported by Amtex in its sections A, B, and C responses and supplemental response to calculate CV. However, Amtex's responses did not provide all the data necessary for us to compute a CV profit. Therefore we calculated a CV profit using Amtex's 2001-2002 audited financial statements, as submitted in the most recent segment of these proceedings. *See Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 66 FR 51008 (October 5, 2001) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. For details of this calculation, *see* Analysis Memorandum. For these preliminary results, we did not base NV on CV. Level of Trade and CEP In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the export transaction. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit are derived. With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. *See* section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 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, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). *See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005), results unchanged in *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil* , 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005); *see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada* , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6. Amtex reported that it had sold CMC to end-users and distributors in the home market and to end-users and distributors in the United States. For the home market, Amtex identified two channels of distribution: end users (channel 1) and distributors (channel 2). *See* Amtex's Section A Response at 8 and 9 and Exhibit A-6; *see also* Amtex Sections B and C Response at B-20. Amtex claimed a single level of trade in the home market, stating that it performs essentially the same selling functions to either category of customer. We obtained information from Amtex regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. Amtex provided a table listing all selling activities it performs, and comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution in each market. See Amtex Supplemental Response at Exhibit A-6. We reviewed Amtex's claims concerning the intensity to which all selling functions were performed for each home market channel of distribution and customer category. For virtually all selling functions, the selling activities of Amtex were identical in both channels, including sales forecasting, personnel training, sales promotion, direct sales personnel, technical assistance, warranty service, after-sales service and arranging delivery. *Id* . In fact, Amtex described the level of performance as identical across its home market end-user and distributor channels of distribution. *See* Amtex Sections B and C Response at B-20; *see also* Amtex Supplemental Response at 19 and at Exhibit 6. While we find some differences in the selling functions performed between the home market end-user and distributor channels of distribution, such differences are minor in that they are not the principal selling functions but rather particularized toward a few customers and rarely performed. *See* Amtex Supplemental Response at Exhibit 6. Based on our analysis of all Amtex's home market selling functions, we agree with Amtex's characterization of all its home market sales as being made at the same level of trade, the NV LOT. In the U.S. market, Amtex reported two levels of trade ( *i.e.* , EP and CEP sales) through two channels of distribution ( *i.e.* , end-users and distributors). We examined the record with respect to Amtex's EP sales and find that for all EP sales, Amtex performed such selling functions as sales forecasting, sales promotion, direct sales personnel, technical assistance, warranties, after-sales services and arranging delivery. *Id* . In terms of the number and intensity of selling functions performed on EP sales, these were indistinguishable between sales from Amtex to end users and to distributors. *Id* . Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that all EP sales were made at the same LOT. We compared Amtex's EP level of trade to the single NV level of trade found in the home market. While we find differences in the levels of intensity performed for some of these functions between the home market NV level of trade and the EP level of trade, such differences are minor (particularized toward a few customers and rarely performed) and do not establish distinct levels of trade within the home market. Based on our analysis of all of Amtex's home market and EP selling functions, we find these sales were made at the same level of trade. For CEP sales, however, we find that, consistent with Amtex's section B response, the CEP LOT is more advanced than the NV LOT. *Id* . The information conveyed in the Selling Functions Chart indicates that the number and intensity of selling functions performed by Amtex in making its sales to Amtex Chemicals are lower than the number and intensity of selling functions Amtex performed for its EP sales. However, Amtex's responses with regard to the home market in section B indicate that Amtex's CEP sales are at a more advanced marketing stage than are its home market sales. Amtex states directly that CEP sales are at a more advanced stage than home market sales. *See* Amtex Supplemental response at 49. Further, Amtex reports that for its CEP sales most of the principal selling functions in both markets are carried out by a single employee in the Mexico office who devotes a vastly disproportional amount of time to these CEP principal selling functions. *See* Amtex Supplemental Response at 38; *see also* Amtex Supplemental Exhibit 12. Contrary to what the section A response indicates, the record evidence submitted by Amtex itself establishes that the CEP LOT (that is, sales from Amtex to its U.S. affiliate) involves a much more intense level of activity and therefore constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than its NV LOT. Because we found the home market and U.S. CEP sales were made at different LOTs, as Amtex claimed, we examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market sales prices, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the CEP LOT. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, because the CEP LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the NV LOT, it is not possible to make a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Currency Conversions Amtex reported certain home market and U.S. sales prices and adjustments in both U.S. dollars and Mexican pesos. Therefore, we made peso-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Board, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period December 27, 2004 through June 30, 2005: Producer POR Weighted-Average Margin (percent) Quimica Amtex, S.A. de C.V. 12/27/04 - 06/30/06 2.26 The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments must provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. Amtex has reported entered values for all of its sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales of that importer. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the publication of the final results of 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). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results that the company did not know were 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 or companies involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of CMC from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for Amtex will be the rate established in the final results of review, unless that rate is less than or equal to 0.50 percent ( *de minimis* within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate of 12.61 percent from the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Anitdumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, and the Netherlands and Sweden* , 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). 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 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15324 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-421-811 Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from petitioner Aqualon Company, a division of Hercules Incorporated (Aqualon), a U.S. manufacturer of purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CMC from the Netherlands. This administrative review covers imports of subject merchandise produced and exported by Noviant B.V. and CP Kelco B.V. (collectively, CP Kelco). The period of review

(POR)is December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by CP Kelco have been made at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the export price

(EP)or constructed export price

(CEP)and NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Angelica Mendoza, 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)482-0193 or

(202)482-3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 11, 2005, the Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from the Netherlands. * See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden * , 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005) (CMC Order). On July 3, 2006, the Department published the opportunity to request an administrative review of, inter alia, CMC from the Netherlands for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Aqualon requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CMC from the Netherlands on July 27, 2006. On August 30, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering sales, entries and/or shipments of CMC for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006, for CP Kelco and Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry (Akzo). *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). On September 11, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to CP Kelco and Akzo. 1 CP Kelco submitted its section A questionnaire response

(AQR)on October 16, 2006, and its sections B and C questionnaire responses on November 21, 2006 (BCQR). On December 4 and 8, 2006, respectively, Aqualon alleged that Akzo and CP Kelco made home market sales of CMC at prices below the cost of production during the POR. 1 As noted below, the antidumping duty review for Akzo was rescinded on March 13, 2007. On December 12, 2006, Aqualon submitted comments regarding Akzo's sections A-C questionnaire responses. On January 8, 2007, the Department issued its first sections A-C supplemental questionnaire to Akzo and on January 29, 2007, Akzo submitted its response. On January 22, 2007, we initiated sales-below-cost investigations of home market sales made by Akzo and CP Kelco. *See* the Department's Memorandum to the File, from Judy Lao, Case Analyst and Nancy Decker, Senior Accountant, titled Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Noviant BV/CP Kelco BV, dated January 22, 2007 (Cost Initiation Memorandum), applicable to both Akzo and CP Kelco. As a result, on January 22, 2007, the Department requested that both Akzo and CP Kelco respond to section D of the Department's questionnaire. CP Kelco submitted its section D response on February 5, 2007, including its cost reconciliation. On February 9, 2007, the Department issued its first sections A-C supplemental questionnaire to CP Kelco and on March 12, 2007, CP Kelco submitted its response (SQR). On February 12, 2007, the Department issued a second sections A-C supplemental questionnaire to CP Kelco and on February 26, 2007, CP Kelco submitted its response. On February 15, 2007, Aqualon submitted a letter to the Department requesting a rescission of the administrative review with respect to Akzo. On March 13, 2007, the Department rescinded the administrative review with respect to Akzo. 2 *See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part* , 72 FR 11325 (March 13, 2007). On February 27, 2007, the Department issued its third-country selection memorandum in which Taiwan was chosen as the appropriate third country for CP Kelco. *See* the Department's Memorandum to Office 7 Director Richard O. Weible, from Judy Lao and Stephen Bailey, Case Analysts, titled Selection of Third Country Market for Noviant B.V. and CP Kelco B.V. (collectively, CP Kelco B.V.), dated February 27, 2007 (Third Country Memorandum). Also on February 27, 2007, Aqualon submitted comments on CP Kelco's section questionnaire response. On March 27, 2007, Aqualon submitted comments on CP Kelco's SQR. 2 The Department notes that while the rescission notice lists both Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry B.V. and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V., the Department has not made a determination on the successor to Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry B.V. On April 5, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results by 120 days from April 2, 2007, until July 31, 2007. *See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 16767 (April 5, 2007). On April 6, 2007, CP Kelco submitted certain documents that were inadvertently omitted from its March 12, 2007, SQR. Additionally on April 6, 2007, the Department issued to CP Kelco a third sections A C supplemental questionnaire, and on April 27, 2007, CP Kelco submitted its response. On April 19, 2007, the Department issued to CP Kelco its first section D supplemental questionnaire, and on May 8, 2007, CP Kelco submitted its response. On June 8, 2007, the Department issued to CP Kelco a fourth sections A C supplemental questionnaire, and on June 18, 2007, CP Kelco submitted its response. On July 10, 2007, CP Kelco submitted its sales reconciliation. On July 12, 2007, the Department requested that CP Kelco provide a revised calculation for parent company J.M. Huber's financial expense ratio that deducts packing and freight-out expenses from J.M. Huber's cost of goods sold denominator. CP Kelco submitted this information on July 13, 2007. *See* Memorandum to the File, from Joe Welton, Accountant, titled Phone Call with Respondent, dated July 13, 2007; *see also* Memorandum to Neal Halper, Director Office of Accounting, from Gina Lee, Analyst, titled Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - CP Kelco BV, dated July 31, 2007 (Cost Memorandum) for a discussion of this issue. On July 26, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to CP Kelco requesting the actual transaction-specific bank fees charged by CP Kelco's factoring agent, both for U.S. and comparison market sales. We intend to consider this information in our final results. Period of Review The POR is December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is all purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. Purified CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. Purified CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations, which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Successor-In-Interest In February 2005, the Noviant group of companies (including Noviant's Netherlands-based operation of Noviant B.V.) were merged with the CP Kelco group of companies, with both corporate groups previously operating as subsidiaries of the J.M. Huber Corporation (J.M. Huber). Following the merger, the operating title of the two entities became unified under the CP Kelco corporate title. Throughout 2005 and 2006, each of the European Noviant production and export companies' names were changed from “Noviant” to “CP Kelco” ( *i.e.* , Noviant B.V. became CP Kelco B.V. in the Netherlands). Because entries have been made under the name of the new company during the POR, the Department must make a successorship determination in order to apply the appropriate and necessary company-specific cash deposit and assessment rates. In December 2005, the shares of Noviant B.V.'s U.S. sales affiliate, Noviant Inc., were sold in an agreement with the CP Kelco entity's holding company, merging the U.S.-based operations of Noviant and CP Kelco under the CP Kelco corporate title. The completed merger of Noviant's U.S.-based operations with those of CP Kelco became effective January 1, 2006, and the company has since operated as CP Kelco U.S., Inc. (CP Kelco U.S.). For a further discussion of this merger, *see* Memorandum to the File, from Stephen Bailey, Analyst, titled Analysis of Data Submitted by Noviant B.V. and CP Kelco B.V. (collectively, CP Kelco) in the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose

(CMC)from the Netherlands, dated July 31, 2007, (Sales Analysis 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. CP Kelco U.S. is a subsidiary of CP Kelco, respondent in the current administrative review and subsidiary of J.M. Huber. In determining whether CP Kelco B.V. (and, therefore, CP Kelco U.S.) is the successor to Noviant B.V. and its U.S. affiliate Noviant Inc. for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in:

(1)management,

(2)production facilities,

(3)suppliers, and

(4)customer base. S *ee, e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992) (Brass from Canada); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 55 FR 28796 (July 13, 1990); and *Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). While examining these factors alone will not necessarily provide a dispositive indication of succession, the Department will generally consider one company to have succeeded another if that company's operations are essentially inclusive of the predecessor's operations. *See Brass from Canada* at 20461. Thus, if the evidence demonstrates, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, that the new company is essentially the same business operation as the former company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. Specifically, the evidence on the record, particularly CP Kelco's response to questions 3-9 of its SQR specifically addressing its claimed successorship, demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, CP Kelco B.V. is the successor to Noviant B.V. We reviewed CP Kelco's organizational structure before and after the merger and confirmed that there were only minimal changes to management and corporate structure. For instance, with respect to direct U.S. sales, sales are still made through the Unified Dental Team within Huber Engineered Materials (HEM). With respect to sales through Noviant Inc.'s successor, PC Kelco U.S., while customer care and logistics functions were transferred from Atlanta to Chicago, Illinois, and San Diego, California, those former Noviant employees did not relocate; a single new customer care representative was hired in Chicago and the existing CP Kelco U.S. logistics staff in San Diego took over logistics functions relating to CMC. From a management perspective, consistent with CP Kelco's responses, the merger of Noviant BV with CP Kelco BV is, effectively, a name change, the primary purpose of which was to broaden the companies' marketing scope under the unified “CP Kelco” name. Consequently, our analysis of corporate management changes as a result of the merger indicates that neither the former Noviant BV nor CP Kelco BV (as well as the U.S. affiliates, Noviant Inc. and CP Kelco U.S.) experienced significant shifts in senior executive management. While new management positions were created, we found that Noviant BV's senior management still existed within CP Kelco BV following the merger. The same holds true for senior management of the U.S.-based entities, Noviant Inc. and CP Kelco U.S., where we found that one senior manager left the company following the merger. These changes, standing alone, are not sufficiently significant to support a determination that CP Kelco's management and organizational structure, as well as its production and sales of the subject merchandise, are not essentially the same as those of Noviant B.V. Record evidence shows that CP Kelco B.V. uses the same CMC production facilities, and maintains the same customer and supplier relationships as Noviant B.V. *See* pages 8 and 12 of the SQR. For CP Kelco's sales to Taiwan, there were no changes in selling activities before and after the merger, as CP Kelco Singapore Pte. (CP Kelco's Asian sales office) performs the same selling functions as its predecessor Noviant Pte. *See* SQR at pages 12 and 15. Therefore, we preliminarily find that CP Kelco B.V. is the successor to Noviant B.V. for purposes of this proceeding, and for the application of the antidumping law. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CMC from the Netherlands to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP or CEP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we compared the EPs and CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered sales of CMC covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, *supra* , which were sold in the appropriate third-country market, Taiwan, during the POR to be the foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to CMC sold in the United States. For our discussion of market viability and selection of comparison market, *see* the “Normal Value” section of this notice, *infra* . We have relied on the following five criteria to match U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to sales in Taiwan of the foreign like product: grade, viscosity, degree of substitution, particle size, and solution characteristic. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the third-country 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 September 11, 2006, antidumping duty questionnaire. Export Price In accordance with section 772 of the Act, we calculate either an EP or a CEP, depending on the nature of each sale. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold by the foreign exporter or producer before the date of importation to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. 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. CP Kelco classified two types of sales to the United States: 1) sales to direct end user customers (EP sales); and 2) sales via its U.S. affiliates, CP Kelco U.S. and HEM, to end-users and distributors (CEP sales). For purposes of these preliminary results, we have accepted CP Kelco's classifications and identified two additional classifications. We calculated EP based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We used the sale invoice date as the date of sale. 3 We based EP on the packed freight on board

(FOB)prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers outside the Netherlands. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including foreign inland freight, and foreign brokerage and handling. 3 *See* the Department's Sales Analysis Memorandum for a further discussion of this issue. We calculated CEP based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer after importation. We used the sale invoice date as the date of sale. We based CEP on the gross unit price from CP Kelco U.S. and HEM to their unaffiliated U.S. customers, making adjustments where necessary for billing adjustments, pursuant to section 772(c)(1) of the Act. Where applicable, the Department made deductions for movement expenses (foreign inland freight, international freight, U.S. movement, U.S. customs duty and brokerage, marine insurance and post-sale warehousing), while adding freight revenue, in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act and section 351.401(e) of the Department's regulations. In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and

(2)of the Act, we also deducted, where applicable, U.S. direct selling expenses, including credit expenses, U.S. indirect selling expenses, and U.S. inventory carrying costs incurred in the United States and the Netherlands associated with economic activities in the United States. We also deducted CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , whether the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared 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. Section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act provides that the Department may determine that home market sales are inappropriate as a basis for determining NV if the administering authority determines that the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold in the exporting country is insufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. When sales in the home market are not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that sales to a particular third country market may be utilized if

(I)the prices in such market are representative;

(II)the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or exporter in that third country market is five percent or more of the aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United States; and

(III)the Department does not determine that a particular market situation in the third country market prevents a proper comparison with the U.S. price. CP Kelco reported, and we determined, that CP Kelco's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was not greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise. *See* AQR at exhibit A-1. Therefore, because CP Kelco's sales in the home market did not provide a viable basis for calculating NV, we relied on sales to a third country as the basis for NV in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. The following is a description of the Department's procedure in selecting the third country sales used to calculate NV for sales of the foreign like product made by CP Kelco. In its section A response, CP Kelco provided information regarding its sales to Taiwan, Germany, and Denmark. Upon review of the information provided by CP Kelco, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(c) of the Act, the Department selected Taiwan as the appropriate comparison market. The Department found that exports of the foreign like product to Taiwan were similar to those exported to the United States, and that exports to Taiwan were substantially larger than exports either to Germany or to Denmark. In addition, the Department did not find any evidence on the record suggesting that Taiwan would be an inappropriate third country market to select as a comparison market. Accordingly, on February 27, 2007, the Department selected Taiwan as the appropriate third country for comparison market purposes. *See* Third Country Memorandum. 4 4 CP Kelco reported sales to Taiwan in its BCQR. We also used constructed value

(CV)as the basis for calculating NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, for those sales that did not have identical or similar product matches. B. Cost of Production Analysis On January 22, 2007, after a request from Aqualon, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost investigation of CP Kelco because Aqualon provided a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that CP Kelco is selling CMC in Taiwan at prices below its cost of production (COP). Based on the Department's findings, there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that CP Kelco is selling CMC in Taiwan at prices below COP. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether CP Kelco's sales in Taiwan were made at prices below the COP. *See* Cost Initiation Memorandum. C. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of CP Kelco's material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, financial expenses and packing costs. We relied on the COP information provided by CP Kelco except for the following adjustment. We added depreciation expense, and deducted packing and freight costs incurred by CP Kelco's parent company J.M. Huber, from the cost of goods sold denominator to generate a revised cost of goods sold used in CP Kelco's financial expense ratio calculation. *See* Cost Memorandum. D. Test of Comparison Market Prices We compared CP Kelco's weighted-average COP figures to that company's Taiwan sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether sales to Taiwan had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared COP to Taiwan prices, less any applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, taxes, and discounts and rebates. In determining whether to disregard Taiwan 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 CP Kelco's Taiwan sales of a given model were made 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 CP Kelco's Taiwan 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, as described in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. E. Results of Cost Test Our sales below cost test for CP Kelco revealed that for Taiwan sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were made 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 Taiwan 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. F. Price-to-Price Comparisons We used the sale invoice date as the date of sale. 5 We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers and matched U.S. sales to NV. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and international freight 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)as appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Finally, we deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and

(B)of the Act. 5 *See* the Department's Sales Analysis Memorandum for a further discussion of this issue. G. Price-to-CV Comparisons In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV if we were unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match for the U.S. sale. We calculated CV based on the cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expense, and profit including the adjustment as described in the COP section above. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses, interest, and profit on the amounts CP Kelco incurred and realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in Taiwan. For selling expenses, we used weighted-average Taiwan selling expenses. Where appropriate, we made COS adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP or CEP transaction. The LOT in the comparison market is the LOT of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the LOT of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. With respect to U.S. price for EP transactions, the LOT is also that of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, the LOT is that of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different LOT from 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. If the comparison market sales are at different LOTs, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the Department makes an LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. We analyze whether different selling activities are performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. Under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or downward adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference in LOT involves the performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine an LOT adjustment, we reduce NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP sales. *See* section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. * See Porcelain-on- Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review * , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. In the present review, CP Kelco claimed an LOT adjustment. *See* CP Kelco's BCQR at page B-25. In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 6 including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 6 The marketing process in the United States and third country market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondent's sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered CP Kelco's narrative response to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. CP Kelco reported two LOTs in the third country market, Taiwan, with two channels of distribution to two classes of customers:

(1)direct sales from the plant to end users (LOT 1 and Channel 1), and

(2)direct sales from the plant to distributors (LOT 4 and Channel 2). Based on our review of evidence on the record, we find that third country market sales to both customer categories and through both channels of distribution were substantially similar with respect to selling functions and stages of marketing. CP Kelco performed the same selling functions for sales in both third country market channels of distribution, including sales forecasting, order input/processing, advertising, warranty service, freight and delivery services, *etc. See* CP Kelco's AQR at exhibit A-5; CP Kelco's SQR at exhibit A-34. Additionally, as explained on pages A-18 and A-19 of CP Kelco's AQR, for sales to end users and through distributors, CP Kelco Singapore Pte takes orders directly from the customer, and enters the order in the Oracle 11i ERP (Oracle) system for production (or from stock for sales through distributors). Accordingly, we preliminarily find that CP Kelco had only one LOT for its third country market sales. CP Kelco reported one EP LOT and one CEP LOT each with its own separate channel of distribution in the United States, and with two classes of customers for CEP sales:

(1)direct sales to end users of merchandise (EP sales of LOT 1 and Channel 5), and

(2)sales through U.S. affiliates (CEP sales) to end users and distributors of merchandise (LOT 4 with Channel 1 to end users and Channel 2 to distributors). In reviewing CP Kelco's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that CP Kelco has a total of four channels of distribution for its U.S. sales:

(1)direct sales to end users of merchandise produced to order,

(2)direct sales to end users of merchandise sold from inventory,

(3)sales through U.S. affiliates (CP Kelco U.S. and HEM) to end users and distributors of merchandise produced to order, and

(4)sales through U.S. affiliates (CP Kelco U.S. and HEM) from warehouse stock maintained by each company to end users and distributors of merchandise. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there are two channels of distribution for EP sales, and two channels of distribution for CEP sales. *See* CP Kelco's AQR at pages A-19-A-24. We reviewed the selling functions and services performed by CP Kelco in the U.S. market for EP sales, as described by CP Kelco in its questionnaire responses. We find that the selling functions and services performed by CP Kelco on direct sales for both U.S. channels of distribution relating to the EP LOT ( *i.e.* , sales of merchandise produced to order to unaffiliated end users and sales of merchandise from stock to unaffiliated end users) are similar. In particular, for sales produced to order and pulled from stock, CP Kelco's customer care personnel process all orders, which are entered into the Oracle system. Additionally, sales invoices are issued by CP Kelco's plant directly to the customer, and CP Kelco's logistics department arranges for freight and delivery to CP Kelco's unaffiliated U.S. customers. Other services provided within both channels of CP Kelco' EP sales include: sales forecasting, procurement/sourcing services, order/input processing, etc. *See* CP Kelco's AQR at pages A-23-A-24. Accordingly, because these selling functions are substantially similar for these two channels of distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one EP LOT in the U.S. market. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. *See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We reviewed the selling functions and services performed by CP Kelco on CEP sales for both channels of distribution relating to the CEP LOT, as described by CP Kelco in its questionnaire responses, after these deductions. We have determined that the selling functions performed by CP Kelco on all CEP sales are similar because CP Kelco provides almost no selling functions to either U.S. affiliate in support of either channel of distribution. CP Kelco reported that the only services it provided for the CEP sales were packaging, order input/processing services, and very limited freight and delivery and sales/marketing support services. *See* CP Kelco's SQR at exhibit A-34. Accordingly, because the selling functions provided by CP Kelco on sales to affiliates in the United States are substantially similar, we preliminarily determine that there is one CEP LOT in the U.S. market. We then examined the selling functions performed by CP Kelco on its EP sales in comparison with the selling functions performed on CEP sales (after deductions). We found that CP Kelco performs an additional layer of selling functions on its direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers which are not performed on its sales to affiliates ( *e.g.* , sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, engineering services, advertising, sales promotion, inventory maintenance, market research, after-sales support services, technical assistance, *etc* .). *See* CP Kelco's SQR at exhibit A-34. Because these additional selling functions are significant, we find that CP Kelco's direct sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers (EP sales) are at a different LOT than its CEP sales. Next, we examined the third country market and EP sales. CP Kelco's third country market and EP sales were both made to end users and distributors. In both cases, the selling functions performed by CP Kelco were almost identical for both markets. Other than distributor training, which was only performed for third country sales made through distributors, and re-packing services, which were mainly provided on U.S. sales, in both markets CP Kelco provided the following services: sales forecasting, strategic and economic planning, sales promotion, market research, procurement/sourcing services, order/input processing, technical assistance, after-sales services, *etc. See* CP Kelco's SQR at exhibit A-34. Because the selling functions and channels of distribution are substantially similar, we preliminarily determine that the third country market LOT is the same as the EP LOT. It was, therefore, unnecessary to make an LOT adjustment for comparison of third country market and EP prices. According to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is appropriate when the LOT in the home market or third country market is at a more advanced stage than the LOT of the CEP sales and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP effects price comparability. CP Kelco reported that it provided minimal selling functions and services for the CEP LOT and that, therefore, the third country market LOT is more advanced than the CEP LOT. Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions performed by CP Kelco for sales in the third country market and CEP sales in the U.S. market ( *i.e.* , sales support and activities provided by CP Kelco on sales to its U.S. affiliates), we preliminarily find that the third country market LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to CEP sales because CP Kelco provides many selling functions in the third country market at a higher level of service ( *i.e.* , sales forecasting, strategic/economic planning, sales promotion, inventory maintenance, direct sales personnel, market research, technical assistance, after-sales service, *etc* .) as compared to selling functions performed for its CEP sales ( *i.e.* , CP Kelco reported that the only services it provided for the CEP sales were packaging, order input/processing services, and very limited freight and delivery and sales/marketing support services). *See* CP Kelco's SQR at exhibit A-34. Thus, we find that CP Kelco's third country market sales are at a more advanced LOT than its CEP sales. There was only one LOT in the third country market, no data available to determine the existence of a pattern of price differences, and we do not have any other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment; therefore, we applied a CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons. To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the third country market indirect selling expenses from NV for third country market sales that were compared to U.S. CEP sales. As such, we limited the third country market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D) 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 the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006, to be as follows: Manufacturer / Exporter Margin (percent) Noviant B.V. and CP Kelco B.V. 24.50 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. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d). 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. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days after the publication of the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for 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 this review the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise covered by the review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by CP Kelco and for which CP Kelco did not know another company would export its merchandise to 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. 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 of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed in the final results of review;

(2)for previously 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 or the original less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and

(4)the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 14.57 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. *See CMC Order* . 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)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15337 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-405-803) Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from Aqualon Company, a division of Hercules Inc., (Petitioner) and respondents Noviant OY, CP Kelco OY; Noviant Inc., and CP Kelco U.S. Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on purified carboxymethylcellulose

(CMC)from Finland. The review covers exports of the subject merchandise to the United States produced by CP Kelco. The period of review

(POR)is December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily find that CP Kelco made sales at less than normal value during the POR. 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 based on differences between the export price

(EP)or constructed export price

(CEP)and normal value (NV). EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1121 or

(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department published the antidumping duty order on CMC from Finland on July 11, 2005. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Sweden* , 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). On July 3, 2006, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of CMC from Finland for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On July 26, 2006, petitioners requested a review of all producers of CMC, including Noviant OY for the period December 27, 2004 through June 30, 2006 (the POR). CP Kelco requested an administrative review of sales by CP Kelco and various affiliates for the same period. On July 27, 2006, Petitioner modified its request to include producer CP Kelco OY as well as producer Noviant OY. On August 30, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). On September 11, 2006, the Department issued its standard antidumping duty questionnaire to CP Kelco. CP Kelco submitted its response to section A of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire on October 17, 2006 (CP Kelco's October 17, 2006 section A questionnaire response). CP Kelco submitted its response to sections B and C of the Department's questionnaire on November 21, 2006 (CP Kelco's November 21, 2006 sections B and C response). On December 8, 2006, Petitioner alleged that during the POR, CP Kelco made sales of foreign like product at prices below the cost of production in the home market. On February 5, 2007, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether CP Kelco's sales of CMC were made at prices below CP Kelco's cost of production. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Enforcement, Regarding Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Noviant CMC OY and CP Kelco OY, dated February 5, 2007. The preliminary results of this investigation are discussed in the “Normal Value” section of this notice, below. On February 6, 2007, the Department sent a letter to CP Kelco requesting that the company respond to section D of the Department's antidumping questionnaire (cost of production). CP Kelco submitted its section D response on February 27, 2007. On February 23, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which CP Kelco responded on April 5, 2007 (CP Kelco's April 5, 2007 supplemental questionnaire response). On April 3, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which CP Kelco responded on May 15, 2007 (CP Kelco's May 15, 2007 supplemental questionnaire response). On April 6, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section D, to which CP Kelco responded on April 30, 2007. Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the normal time frame, on April 5, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of the extension for the preliminary results of this review. *See Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 72 FR 16767 (April 5, 2007). This extension established the deadline for these preliminary results as July 31, 2007. From April 23 through 25, 2007, the Department conducted verification of U.S. sales made through CP Kelco U.S. Inc. and Noviant U.S., Inc. (collectively CP Kelco U.S.). *See* the Verification section, below. From May 14 through May 18, 2007, the Department conducted a verification of CP Kelco's EP and home market

(HM)sales. From May 21 through May 25, 2007, the Department conducted verification of CP Kelco's costs of production. On June 7, 2007, the Department issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire for sections A, B, and C, to which CP Kelco responded on June 18, 2007 (CP Kelco's June 18, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response). At the request of the Department, on June 29, 2007 CP Kelco submitted new home market and U.S. sales databases to address revisions to the reporting methodology for viscosity and degree of substitution for certain products. CP Kelco also submitted a new cost of production database on June 29, 2007 to address these revisions and to correct a minor error involving the calculation of packing costs disclosed at the May 21 through May 25, 2007, cost of production verification. *See* Memorandum to the File, from Joseph Welton and Theresa Deeley, regarding “Verification of the Cost Response of CP Kelco OY in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland,” dated July 3, 2007. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is all purified carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sometimes also referred to as purified sodium CMC, polyanionic cellulose, or cellulose gum, which is a white to off-white, non-toxic, odorless, biodegradable powder, comprising sodium CMC that has been refined and purified to a minimum assay of 90 percent. CMC does not include unpurified or crude CMC, CMC Fluidized Polymer Suspensions, and CMC that is cross-linked through heat treatment. CMC is CMC that has undergone one or more purification operations which, at a minimum, reduce the remaining salt and other by-product portion of the product to less than ten percent. The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheading 3912.31.00. This tariff classification is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Verification As mentioned above in the “Background” section of this notice, from April 23 through 25, 2007, the Department conducted verification of U.S. sales made through CP Kelco U.S. From May 14 through 18, 2007, the Department conducted verification of CP Kelco's EP and HM sales. From May 21 through May 25, 2007 the Department conducted verification of CP Kelco's costs of production. As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we verified sales and costs of production information provided by CP Kelco, using standard verification procedures such as the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public and proprietary versions of our CEP, HM/EP, and costs of production verification reports, which are on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)in room B-099 of the main Department building. *See* Memorandum to the File, from the Tyler Weinhold and Patrick Edwards, regarding “Sales Verification of Sections A-C Questionnaire Responses submitted by CP Kelco OY, Noviant OY, CP Kelco U.S. Inc. And Noviant Inc. (collectively, CP Kelco) in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland - Verification of United States Affiliates CP Kelco U.S. Inc. and Noviant U.S. Inc. (Collectively, CP Kelco U.S.)” dated July 31, 2007 (the CEP Verification Report); Memorandum to the File, from Tyler Weinhold and Mark Flessner, regarding “Sales Verification of Sections A-C Questionnaire Responses submitted by CP Kelco OY, Noviant OY, CP Kelco U.S. Inc. and Noviant Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Purified Carboxymethylcellulose

(CMC)from Finland” (the Home Market and EP Verification Report); and Memorandum to the File, from Joseph Welton and Theresa Deeley, regarding “Verification of the Cost Response of CP Kelco OY in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland” dated July 31, 2007. Successor-In-Interest On February 9, 2006, Noviant OY, the respondent in this review, was purchased by a holding company within the CP Kelco group. Prior to the purchase, Noviant OY changed its name to CP Kelco OY and began to operate under that trade name. On January 1, 2006, Noviant Inc., Noviant OY's affiliated U.S. importer/reseller merged with CP Kelco U.S. Inc. The resulting corporation is named CP Kelco U.S. Inc., and has operated and done business under that trade name since the merger. Because entries have been made under the names of both Noviant OY and CP Kelco OY during the POR, the Department must make a successorship determination in order to apply the appropriate and necessary company-specific cash deposit rates. In determining whether CP Kelco OY is the successor to Noviant OY for purposes of applying the antidumping duty law, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in:

(1)management,

(2)production facilities,

(3)suppliers, and

(4)customer base. *See, e.g., Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992) (Brass from Canada); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 55 FR 7759 (March 5, 1990) (unchanged in final results of review, 55 FR 28796 (July 13, 1990)); and *Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944 (February 14, 1994). While examining these factors alone will not necessarily provide a dispositive indication of succession, the Department will generally consider one company to have succeeded another if that company's operations are essentially inclusive of the predecessor's operations. *See Brass from Canada* . Thus, if the evidence demonstrates, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, that the new company is essentially the same business operation as the former company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. The evidence on the record indicates that CP Kelco OY is the successor to Noviant OY. *See, e.g.* , CP Kelco's October 17, 2006, section A questionnaire response at pages 7, 8, 10, and 11; CP Kelco's April 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at pages 3, 4, 6 to 10, 16 and 43 through 54 and Exhibits A-20, A-21, A-22, A-23, A-33 and A-35; and the Home Market and EP Verification Report at Verification Exhibit 6. Specifically, the evidence shows CP Kelco OY has the same customers and suppliers, uses the same production facilities, and sells material under the same product names and commercial brands as did Noviant OY. *See, e.g.* , CP Kelco's October 17, 2006, Section A questionnaire response at Exhibits A-8, A-14, and A-16, CP Kelco's April 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibits A-24, A-28, and A-29, and the Home Market and EP Verification Report at pages 8 and 9 and Verification Exhibit 6. We also reviewed CP Kelco OY's and Noviant OY's organizational structures and officers before and after the merger and confirmed there were only minimal changes. *See* the Home Market and EP Verification Report at Verification Exhibit 6. *See also* , the CEP Verification Report at page 8, Verification Exhibit 2, and pages 229 of Verification Exhibit 3. CP Kelco's responses and information obtained during the Department's verifications confirmed that the purchase of Noviant OY had little effect on the company's operations in Finland, other than the resulting name change from Noviant OY to CP Kelco OY. The primary purpose of the acquisition was to unify CP Kelco's and Noviant's international marketing and sales forces and to broaden Noviant OY's marketing scope worldwide under the unified “CP Kelco” name. We found CP Kelco continued to market the same products under the same product names and commercial brands as a result of the merger. *See, e.g.* , CP Kelco's October 17, 2006, section A questionnaire response at Exhibits A-9, A-14, and A-16, and the Home Market and EP Verification Report at pages 18 through 20. CP Kelco operates entirely out of the same production facility as Noviant OY. *See, e.g.* , CP Kelco's October 17, 2006, section A questionnaire response at page A-7, CP Kelco's April 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at page 52 and Exhibits A-24, and the Home Market and EP Verification Report at pages 6 and Verification Exhibit 3. We found no pattern of significant changes in CP Kelco's suppliers as a result of the merger. *See, e.g.* , CP Kelco's April 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at pages 52 through 54, and the Home Market and EP Verification Report at pages 6 and 9 through 12 and Verification Exhibit 3. We found that there were no significant changes in CP Kelco's Home Market or U.S. sales processes. *See, e.g.* , CP Kelco's November 21, 2006, sections B and C questionnaire response at Exhibits B-2, and C-2, CP Kelco's April 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at pages 45 through 51 and the HM and EP Verification Report at pages 14 through 18. We found no pattern of significant changes in CP Kelco's U.S. or HM customers. *See, e.g.* , CP Kelco's October 17, 2006, section A questionnaire response at Exhibits A-8, CP Kelco's November 21, 2006, sections B and C questionnaire response at Exhibits B-2, and C-2, CP Kelco's April 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at page 54 and Exhibits A-28, and A-29. We found no significant changes in CP Kelco's home market sales personnel. *See, e.g.* the HM and EP Verification Report at pages 14 through 18. With respect to sales through Noviant Inc.'s successor, CP Kelco U.S., while customer care and logistics functions were transferred from Atlanta, Georgia, to Chicago, Illinois, and San Diego, California, those former Noviant employees did not relocate; a single new customer care representative was hired in Chicago and the existing CP Kelco U.S. logistics staff in San Diego took over logistics functions relating to CMC. *See, e.g.,* the CEP Verification Report at pages 6 through 8. Our analysis of corporate management changes as a result of the merger indicates that neither the Noviant OY/CP Kelco OY nor the U.S. affiliates, Noviant Inc. and CP Kelco U.S. experienced significant shifts in senior executive management. *See* CP Kelco's April 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response at pages 43 through 45 and 52, the Home Market Verification Report at pages 4 through 6 and Exhibit 4 and the CEP Verification Report at pages 5 to 8, and Exhibits 2 through 4. We found that, with one exception, senior managers in place at Noviant OY prior to the merger with CP Kelco OY are still in place following the acquisition of Noviant OY. The same holds true for senior management of the U.S.-based entities, Noviant Inc. and CP Kelco U.S., where we found that only one senior manager left the company following the merger. Despite these changes, CP Kelco OY's management staff is substantially the same as Noviant Oy's. In addition, evidence on the record shows that CP Kelco OY uses the same CMC production facilities and suppliers as used by Noviant OY. Evidence on the record also shows that CP Kelco OY also provides CMC to the same customers and has the same sales processes as Noviant OY. Therefore, we preliminarily find CP Kelco OY is the successor to Noviant OY for purposes of this proceeding, and for the application of the antidumping law. Use of Facts Available Section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended (The Tariff Act) provides that the Department will, subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching a determination if “necessary information is not available on the record.” In accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, for these preliminary results we find it necessary to use partial facts available in those instances where the respondent did not provide certain information necessary to conduct our analysis. CP Kelco reported in its questionnaire responses that it “factors” its accounts receivables through an affiliated financial institution ( *i.e.* , sells the rights to the outstanding payments of its unpaid invoices to that financial institution). See, e.g. , November 21, 2006, sections B and C questionnaire response at pages B-13 and C-13 and CP Kelco's April 5, 2007 supplemental questionnaire response at pages 78, 79, and 80, and at exhibits B-20, B-21, B-22, B-23, and B-24. As a result of our review of the factoring process during the verifications in Finland, and Atlanta, Georgia, we found that CP Kelco incurred transaction expenses on its factored sales in both the U.S. and home markets. These expenses are fees charged by the affiliated financial institution to CP Kelco for purchasing its accounts receivable and remitting payment to CP Kelco at an earlier date than payment would have been received from the invoiced customer. For a further description and analysis of CP Kelco's factoring methodology, *see* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File Regarding Analysis of Data Submitted by Noviant Inc., CP Kelco U.S. Inc., Noviant OY Inc., and CP Kelco OY Inc., (collectively, CP Kelco) in the Preliminary Results of the 2004-2006 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Purified Carboxymethylcellulose

(CMC)from Finland (A-405-803), dated July 31, 2007 (the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum). We preliminarily determine that normal value and net U.S. price should be adjusted for these expenses. However, because we did not ask CP Kelco to provide this information on a transaction-specific basis, there is not sufficient information on the record to make a transaction-specific adjustment for these factoring charges. Pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, it is appropriate to use the facts otherwise available to make this adjustment. The methodology used to make these adjustments is discussed in the EP, CEP, and NV sections of this notice, below. We find that CP Kelco reported all information requested to the best of its ability. Therefore, we have not made an adverse inference in our use of partial facts available. We intend to ask CP Kelco to report its actual factoring expenses on a transaction-specific basis in a later submission, and we intend to consider this information in our final results. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CMC in the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the “Export Price,” “Constructed Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to individual U.S. transactions. Because we determined CP Kelco made both EP and CEP sales during the POR, we used both EP and CEP as the basis for U.S. price in our comparisons. These calculations are described in further detail in the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all products produced by CP Kelco covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, and sold in the HM during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We relied on five characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of foreign like product (listed in order of priority): 1) grade; 2) viscosity; 3) degree of substitution; 4) particle size; and 5) solution gel characteristics. *See* The Department's September 27, 2006, antidumping duty questionnaire at Appendix 5. 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 these product characteristics and the reporting instructions listed in the Department's September 11, 2005, questionnaire. Because there were sales of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to each U.S. sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value (CV). Export Price Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. . .,” as adjusted under section 772(c). In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, we used EP for a number of CP Kelco's U.S. sales. We have preliminarily found that these sales are properly classified as EP sales because these sales were made before the date of importation and were sales directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We based EP on the packed, delivered duty paid or free-on-board (FOB)-warehouse prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made adjustments for price or billing adjustments and discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. brokerage and handling. We also reduced movement expenses, where appropriate, by the amount of certain freight revenue paid by the customer. We made adjustments for direct expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. Based upon our findings at verification, we also made a deduction from EP for the factoring charges incurred by CP Kelco on its U.S. accounts receivable. *See* the “Facts Available” section, above. For the EP sales examined at verification, we used CP Kelco's verified factoring charges to represent this expense. There was not enough information on the record to calculate a transaction-specific adjustment for CP Kelco's other EP sales upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges ( *i.e.* , the sales not examined at verification). Therefore, for the remaining EP sales upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges, we based the deduction upon the average ratio of factoring charges to the invoice value incurred by CP Kelco on both the EP and CEP sales examined at verification. However, we only made this adjustment for those EP sales for which CP Kelco reported a factoring date (those sales which were factored). Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter,” as adjusted under sections 772(c) and

(d)of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, we used CEP for a number of CP Kelco's U.S. sales because CP Kelco sold merchandise to affiliate CP Kelco U.S. in the United States which, in turn, sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers. *See* the “Successor-In-Interest” section, above. We have preliminarily found that these U.S. sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they occurred in the United States and were made through CP Kelco's U.S. affiliate, CP Kelco U.S., to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We based CEP on the packed, delivered duty paid or FOB warehouse prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments for price or billing errors and early payment discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. warehousing expenses. We also reduced movement expenses, where appropriate, by the amount of certain freight revenue paid by the customer. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (credit costs), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act. Based upon our findings at verification, we made a deduction from CEP for the factoring charges incurred by CP Kelco on its U.S. accounts receivable. *See* the “Facts Available” section, above. For the CEP sales examined at verification, we used CP Kelco's verified factoring charges to represent this expense. There was not enough information of the record to calculate a transaction-specific adjustment for CP Keloc's other CEP sales upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges ( *i.e.* , the sales not examined at verification). Therefore, for the remaining home market sales upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges, we based the deduction upon the average ratio of factoring charges to the invoice value incurred by Kelco on both the EP and CEP sales examined at verification. However, we only made this adjustment for those sales for which CP Kelco reported a factoring date (those sales which were factored). Normal Value A. Selection of Comparison Market In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( *i.e.* , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), 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) of the Tariff Act. As CP Kelco'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 the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. B. Cost of Production Analysis As explained above in the Background section of this notice, on December 8, 2006, Petitioner alleged that CP Kelco made sales of the foreign like product at prices below the cost of production in the home market during the POR. The Department found there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in the home market were made at prices below the cost of production. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we initiated a cost investigation on February 5, 2007, to determine whether CP Kelco's sales made during the POR were at prices below its COP. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7, AD/CVD Enforcement, Regarding Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Noviant CMC OY and CP Kelco OY, dated February 5, 2007. C. Calculation of Cost of Production

(COP)In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of CP Kelco's materials and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus an amount for home market selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, financial expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by CP Kelco, except for the changes noted below. 1. Under section 773 (f)(3) of the Tariff Act ( *i.e.* , the “Major Input Rule”), we increased CP Kelco's reported cost of manufacturing based on the difference between its affiliated supplier's cost of steam and the net transfer price charged to CP Kelco after deducting revenues received from selling excess steam. 2. We revised CP Kelco's reported G&A expense ratio to include goodwill amortization costs as recognized in CP Kelco's normal books and records. We also revised the cost of goods sold denominator of the G&A expense ratio based on the verified packing costs. 3. We revised the cost of goods sold denominator of the reported financial expense ratio of parent company JM Huber to include JM Huber's depreciation expenses, and to deduct packing and freight costs. *See* Memorandum to Neal Halper from Joe Welton, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - CP Kelco OY, dated July 31, 2007. D. Test of Home Market Prices We compared the weighted-average COP of CP Kelco's home market sales to home market sales prices of the foreign like product (net of billing adjustments, discounts, any applicable movement expenses, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing), as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. 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 Tariff Act, whether such sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. E. Results of the Cost Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of CP Kelco's sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because these below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of CP Kelco's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because such sales were made:

(1)within an extended period of time and in “substantial quantities” within the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and

(C)of the Tariff Act, and

(2)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 Tariff Act ( *i.e.* , the sales were made at prices below the weighted-average per-unit COP for the POR). In this review, we have disregarded such sales from our margin calculation. We used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, if such sales existed, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act. F. Price-to-Price Comparisons We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, and rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. We offset inland freight for any freight revenue (revenue received from customers for invoice items covering transportation expenses). In addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost ( *i.e.* , DIFMER), where those differences were attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale

(COS)in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments for imputed credit expenses. We also made an adjustment, where appropriate, for the CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. *See* “Level of Trade and CEP Offset” section below. 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 Tariff Act. Based upon our findings at verification, we also made a deduction from NV for the factoring charges incurred by CP Kelco on its home market accounts receivable in accordance with. *See* the “Facts Available” section, above. For those home market sales transactions examined at verification, we used the actual factoring charges incurred by CP Kelco to represent this expense. There was not enough information of the record to calculate a transaction-specific adjustment for CP Keloc's other home market sales upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges (i.e., the sales not examined at verification). Therefore, for the remaining home market sales upon which CP Kelco incurred factoring charges, we based the deduction upon the average ratio of factoring charges to the invoice value incurred by Kelco on the home market sales examined at verification. However, we only made this adjustment for those sales for which CP Kelco reported a factoring date (those sales which were factored). G. Constructed Value

(CV)In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we base NV on CV if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match of such or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of the Tariff Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed in making the subject merchandise, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication for CP Kelco based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. However, for these preliminary results, we did not base NV on CV in any instances. Level of Trade and CEP Offset In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the export transaction. The NV LOT is based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A expenses and profit are derived. With respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. market, the CEP LOT is defined as the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. *See* section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 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, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP offset provision). *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From Canada* , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8; *see also Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 2005) (unchanged in final results of review, 70 FR 58683 (October 7, 2005)). For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. *See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States* , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. *See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 6. CP Kelco reported that it had sold CMC to end-users and distributors in the home market and to end-users and distributors in the United States. For the home market, CP Kelco identified two channels of distribution in the home market and the U.S. market: end users (channel 1) and distributors (channel 2). *See* CP Kelco's November 21, 2006, sections B and C questionnaire response at page B-10. These channels of distribution correspond to CP Kelco's two end user and distributor customer categories reported in each market. In the home market, CP Kelco claimed two levels of trade, level 1 (end users) and level 4 (distributors), corresponding to its end user and distributor channels of distribution and customer categories. *See, e.g.* , CP Kelco's November 21, 2006, sections B and C questionnaire response at page B-20. As described above, CP Kelco made both direct

(EP)sales of subject merchandise to U.S. customers and sales of subject merchandise through its affiliate, CP Kelco U.S. (CEP sales). CP Kelco reported that its EP U.S. sales to both end users and distributors were made at the same level of trade as home market end-user sales, level of trade 1. *See id* . However, CP Kelco reported that its CEP sales were made at a separate level of trade, level of trade 2. We obtained information from CP Kelco regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported foreign market and U.S. sales. CP Kelco provided a table listing all selling activities performed, and comparing the levels of trade among each channel of distribution, customer categories and levels of trade for both markets. *See* CP Kelco's April 5, 2007, supplemental questionnaire at Exhibit A-27. We reviewed the intensity to which all selling functions were performed for each home market channel of distribution and customer category and between CP Kelco's EP and home market channels of distribution and customer categories. For certain activities, such as sales forecasting, advertizing, procurement/sourcing services, order input/processing, paying commissions, and providing warranty services, CP Kelco described the level of performance as identical across CP Kelco's home market end-user and distributor channels of distribution. *See id* . For several other functions, the level of performance was identical between the home market end-user sales and EP sales. These were strategic/economic planning, engineering services, distributor/dealer training, packing, inventory maintenance, and maintaining direct sales personnel. *See id* . For several other selling functions, the level of performance was identical between the home market distributor sales and EP sales. These were sales promotion, sales/marketing support, and providing guarantees. *See id* . Also, for the “provide freight and delivery” selling function CP Kelco reported that the level of performance was identical for home market end-user and distributor sales. For several other functions, CP Kelco reported only small differences between the home market end-user and distributor channels of distribution. These were personnel training/exchange, sales promotion, packing, sales/marketing support, and market research. *See id* . For certain other functions, CP Kelco reported that only small differences existed between the home market end-user channel of distribution and U.S. EP sales. These were sales promotion, sales/marketing support and providing after sales service. *See id* . Finally, CP Kelco reported that only small differences existed between the home market distributor channel of distribution and U.S. EP sales for personnel training and exchange and market research. *See id* . While we find differences in the levels of intensity performed for some of these functions among the home market end-user and distributor channels of distribution and EP sales, such differences are minor and do not establish distinct, multiple levels of trade in Finland. Based on our analysis of all of CP Kelco's home market selling functions, we find all home market sales were made at the same LOT, and that U.S. EP sales were made at this same level of trade, the NV and EP LOT. We then compared the NV LOT, based on the selling activities associated with the transactions between CP Kelco OY and its customers in the home market, to the CEP LOT, which is based on the selling activities associated with the transaction between CP Kelco OY and its affiliated importer, CP Kelco U.S. Our analysis indicates the selling functions performed for home market customers are either performed at a higher degree of intensity or are greater in number than the selling functions performed for CP Kelco U.S. For example, in comparing CP Kelco's selling activities, we find most of the reported selling functions performed in the home market are not a part of CEP transactions ( *e.g.* , personnel training and exchange, engineering services, advertising, sales promotion, market research, technical assistance, providing rebates, providing cash discounts, paying commissions, providing warranty service, providing guarantees, providing after-sales services, and performing repacking). For those selling activities performed for both home market sales and CEP sales ( *e.g.* , sales processing, strategic/economic planning, distributor/dealer training, procurement/sourcing services, inventory maintenance, order input/processing, maintaining direct sales personnel, sales/marketing support, and providing freight and delivery services), CP Kelco reported that it performed each activity at a higher level of intensity in the home market. We note that CEP sales from CP Kelco OY to CP Kelco U.S. generally occur at the beginning of the distribution chain, representing essentially a logistical transfer of inventory. In contrast, all sales in the home market occur closer to the end of the distribution chain and involve smaller volumes and more customer interaction which, in turn, require the performance of more selling functions. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the NV and EP LOT is at a more advanced stage than the CEP LOT. Because we found the home market and U.S. CEP sales were made at different LOTs, we examined whether a LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be appropriate in this review. As we found only one LOT in the home market, it was not possible to make a LOT adjustment to home market sales, because such an adjustment is dependent on our ability to identify a pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales on which NV is based and home market sales at the LOT of the export transaction. *See* 19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Because the data available do not form an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, and because the NV and EP LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act. Currency Conversions CP Kelco reported certain U.S. sales prices and certain U.S. and HM expenses and adjustments in both U.S. dollars and euros. Therefore, we made euro-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Board, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period December 27, 2004, through June 30, 2006: Manufacturer / Exporter Weighted Average Margin (percentage) CP Kelco 5.70% The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Comments Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. CP Kelco has reported entered values for all of its sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales of that importer. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made during the POR if these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP within fifteen days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CMC from Finland entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: 1) The cash deposit rate for CP Kelco OY and Noviant OY will be the rate established in the final results of review; 2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV)investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 3) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be the “all others” rate of 6.65 percent from the LTFV investigation. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands and Sweden* , 70 FR 39734 (July 11, 2005). 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. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: July 27, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15343 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BLLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-337-806 Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain individually quick frozen

(IQF)red raspberries from Chile. The period of review

(POR)is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. This review covers sales of IQF red raspberries by six producers/exporters. We preliminarily find that, during the POR, sales of IQF red raspberries were made below normal value. Also, we intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Fruticola Olmue S.A. (Olmue) and Vital Berry Marketing S.A. (VBM). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salim Bhabhrawala (VBM), David Layton (Valles Andinos), Yasmin Nair (Arlavan, Vitafoods), David Neubacher (Valle Frio), Shane Subler (Olmue), or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-1784,

(202)482-0371,

(202)482-3813,

(202)482-5823,

(202)482-0189, or

(202)482-0196, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 9, 2002, the Department of Commerce (Department) published an antidumping duty order on certain IQF red raspberries from Chile. *See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: IQF Red Raspberries From Chile* , 67 FR 45460 (July 9, 2002). On July 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). On July 31, 2006, we received a request for review of 60 companies from the Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm; Enfield Farms, Inc.; Maberry Packing; and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). We also received requests for review from Arlavan S.A. (Arlavan), Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. (Vitafoods), Olmue, Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda. (Valle Frio) 1 , Valles Andinos S.A. (Valles Andinos), and VBM, 2 on July 31, 2006. Santiago Comercio Exterior S.A. (“SANCO”) requested a deferral of administrative review on July 31, 2006. 1 In the third administrative review, the Department collapsed Valle Frio with its affiliated producer, Agricola Framparque (Framparque). *See* Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, “ *Collapsing of Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.,* ” dated July 31, 2006. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* (unchanged in final) ( *Third Administrative Review of Raspberries from Chile* ), 71 FR 45000, 45001 (Aug. 8, 2006). There have been no change in the facts since then, so for the instant administrative review, we are treating Valle Frio and Framparque as a single entity. 2 These six companies were also included in the petitioners' July 31, 2006 request for review of 60 companies. On August 30, 2006, we initiated an administrative review of all 60 companies. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (Aug. 30, 2006). On December 4, 2006, we published a correction to the initiation notice to reflect SANCO S.A.'s request for deferral of administrative review. *See Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Correction to Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 70363 (Dec. 4, 2006). On November 28, 2006, the petitioners withdrew their review request for 53 of the 60 companies for which they had originally requested an administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), on December 12, 2006, we partially rescinded this administrative review with respect to these 53 companies. *See Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 74487 (Dec. 12, 2006). Thus, the six companies in this review are: Arlavan, Vitafoods, Olmue, Valle Frio, Valles Andinos, and VBM (collectively, the respondents). On November 29, 2006, the Department issued antidumping questionnaires to the respondents. The respondents submitted their initial responses to the antidumping questionnaire from December 2006 through February 2007. After analyzing these responses, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents to clarify or correct the initial questionnaire responses. We received timely responses to these questionnaires. On March 21, 2007, we requested that Valle Frio and Vitafoods respond to the constructed value

(CV)portion of the Department's questionnaire. On April 12, 2007, and April 16, 2007, we requested that Arlavan and certain suppliers of Arlavan and Valles Andinos respond to the CV portion of the Department's questionnaire. We received timely responses to these requests for CV information from all but one supplier, Sociedad Comercial Antillal Ltda. (Antillal). For further discussion, *see* “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section of this notice. On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the **Federal Register** an extension of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of this review until no later than July 31, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). *See Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries From Chile: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 2005-2006 Administration Review* , 72 FR 10707 (Mar. 9, 2007). Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review On February 12, 2007, we published the final results of the third administrative review, in which we revoked the antidumping duty order with respect to SANCO. *See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Determination to Revoke the Order In Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* , 72 FR 6524, 6525 (Feb. 12, 2007). Therefore, we are rescinding the deferred fourth administrative review with respect to SANCO. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are imports of IQF whole or broken red raspberries from Chile, with or without the addition of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety, grade, size or horticulture method ( *e.g.* , organic or not), the size of the container in which packed, or the method of packing. The scope of the order excludes fresh red raspberries and block frozen red raspberries ( *i.e.* , puree, straight pack, juice stock, and juice concentrate). The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheading 0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during June 2007, we verified the information provided by VBM and Olmue in Chile using standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. The Department reported its findings on July 31, 2007. *See* Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Sales and Raw Materials Purchases Responses of Vital Berry Marketing S.A. in the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated July 31, 2007 ( *Verification Report - VBM* ); and Memorandum to the File, “ *Verification of the Sales and Raw Materials Purchases Responses of Fruticola Olmué S.A. in the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* ,” dated July 31, 2007 ( *Verification Report - Olmue* ). These reports are on file in the Central Records Unit

(CRU)in room B-099 of the main Department building. Intent To Revoke In Part The Department “may revoke, in whole or part” an antidumping order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation based on an absence of dumping that is described in 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). In determining whether to revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Secretary will consider:

(A)whether one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than normal value (“NV”) for a period of at least three consecutive years;

(B)whether, for any exporter or producer that the Secretary previously has determined to have sold the subject merchandise at less than NV, the exporter or producer agrees in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and

(C)whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). The Department's regulations require, *inter alia* , that a company requesting revocation submit the following:

(1)a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future;

(2)a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the receipt of such a request; and

(3)an agreement that the order will be reinstated if the company is subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. *See* 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1)(i)-(iii). On July 31, 2006, Olmue and VBM submitted certifications that for a consecutive three-year period, including the current review period, they sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV. Olmue and VBM also certified that they would not sell the subject merchandise at less than fair value in the future, and agreed to immediate reinstatement in the antidumping duty order if they are subsequently found to be selling the subject merchandise at less than fair value. Therefore, because we have determined that these respondents satisfy the requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b), we preliminarily determine to revoke the antidumping order with respect to Olmue and VBM. *See* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, “ *Preliminary Determination to Revoke in Part the Antidumping Duty Order on Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile for Fruticola Olmué S.A. and Vital Berry Marketing S.A.,* ” dated July 31, 2007. This memorandum is on file in room B-099 of the CRU. Use of Facts Otherwise Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person:

(A)withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority;

(B)fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act;

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or

(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil* , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,

(SAA)at 870. Furthermore, affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference. *See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States* , 337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003); *Antidumping Countervailing Duties: Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). In this case, we have found that facts otherwise available with an adverse inference is appropriate for Antillal, a supplier of Arlavan. Antillal is an interested party because it is a producer of the subject merchandise. *See* section 771(9)(A) and section 771(28) of the Act. Antillal did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Thus, Antillal withheld information necessary to the calculation of a dumping margin and failed to act to the best of its ability. *See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile* , 71 FR 45000, 45007 (Aug. 8, 2006) (unchanged in final); *cf. Shandong Huarong Mach. Co., Ltd. v. United States* , 435 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1282 (CIT June 9, 2006) (“court agrees . . . that Company C, as a foreign manufacturer of subject merchandise, is an interested party under § 1677(9)(A)”). Consequently, we preliminarily determine that an adverse inference is appropriate for Antillal. The Department did not receive constructed value information for Valles Andinos's organic raspberry products. Because this information is necessary to the calculation of Valles Andinos's constructed value, the Department must rely on facts otherwise available under section 776 of the Act. The Department preliminarily finds that this information is unavailable because the suppliers we requested constructed value information from did not supply Valles Andinos with organic raspberry products during the POR. Thus, the unavailability of this information is not the result of Valles Andinos's lack of cooperation and adverse inferences under section 776(b) of the Act are inapplicable. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of IQF red raspberries from Chile to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared export price

(EP)to NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold by the respondents in the comparison market covered by the description in the “Scope of the Order” section, above, to be foreign-like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, in order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign-like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. *See* the “Normal Value” section, below, for further details. We compared U.S. sales to monthly weighted-average prices of contemporaneous sales made in the comparison market. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to CV. In making product comparisons, consistent with our determination in the original investigation, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by the respondent in the following order: grade, variety, form, cultivation method, and additives. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile* , 66 FR 67510, 67511 (Dec. 31, 2001). Normally, the Department employs invoice date as the date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). However, if the Department determines that another date reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale, the Department may use this date. *Id* . The respondents, excluding Vitafoods and Valles Andinos, ship the subject merchandise on or before the date of invoice. We are using the date of shipment ( *i.e.* , *guia de despacho* /dispatch note date) as the date of sale for these respondents because this is the date on which the material terms of sale were established. *See* , *e.g.* , *Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews* , 63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998). Vitafoods sells its merchandise in the home market using only an invoice, not a *guia de despacho* . This invoice replaces, and is used for the same purpose as, the *guia de despacho* . Therefore, for Vitafoods, we are relying on invoice date as shipment date for home market sales. For U.S. sales, Vitafoods issues a guia de despacho, which we are relying upon for date of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). Valles Andinos reported contract date as the date of sale for its comparison market and U.S. sales because it stated that this is the date the final terms of sale are set. There is no evidence that the terms of sale change after the contract date. Therefore, for Valles Andinos, we are using contract date as the date of sale.

(A)Vitafoods We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because the constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the free-on-board (FOB), cost and freight (CFR), or cost, insurance, and freight

(CIF)price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with Vitafoods's response, we adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance. *See* Memorandum to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A.,* ” dated July 31, 2007 ( *Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ). For its U.S. market sales, Vitafoods reported the bill of lading date as the shipment date. We have revised the shipment date to match the issuance date of the *guia de despacho* , because that is when the merchandise under review was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the Chilean port. We also recalculated U.S. imputed credit expenses using the revised date of shipment. For further discussion, *see* *Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . In accordance with Vitafoods's supplemental questionnaire response, we adjusted the product control number for certain whole and broken and crumble products to reflect their Grade D product classifications. For further discussion, *see Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .

(B)Arlavan We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, free on truck (FOT), FOB, or CFR price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the warehouse and/or to the port, domestic warehousing, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, and port charges. For its U.S. market sales, Arlavan reported the bill of lading date as the shipment date. We have revised the shipment date to match the issuance date of the *guia de despacho* , because that is when the merchandise under review was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the Chilean port. We also recalculated U.S. imputed credit expenses using the revised date of shipment. For further discussion, *see* Memorandum to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Arlavan S.A.,* ” dated July 31, 2007 ( *Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ), which is on file in the CRU.

(C)Olmue We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, CFR price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with Olmue's response, we adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where appropriate, inland freight to the warehouse in Chile, warehousing in Chile, inland freight to the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and handling, and international freight. We made minor adjustments to the following fields in Olmue's U.S. sales listing: movement expenses, date of shipment, indirect selling expenses, variable cost of manufacturing, and total cost of manufacturing; based on our findings at verification that the amounts for certain sales were misreported. Because of our findings with respect to the variable cost of manufacturing and total cost of manufacturing fields in Olmue's sales data, we also made minor adjustments to the variable overhead cost, fixed overhead cost, direct labor cost, and general and administrative (G&A) expense fields of Olmue's reported cost of production data. *See Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Verification Report - Olmue* .

(D)Valle Frio We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where appropriate, inland freight incurred in transporting merchandise to the Chilean port and domestic brokerage and handling expenses.

(E)Valles Andinos We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the packed, FOB or CFR price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included freight incurred in transporting merchandise from the plant to the Chilean port and domestic brokerage and handling. We calculated imputed credit expenses for all sales based on Valles Andinos's actual borrowing experience, the date the customer paid, the shipment date based on the *guia de despacho* , and the reported gross unit price. For further discussion, *see* Memorandum to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Valles Andinos, S.A.,* ” dated July 31, 2007, (“ *Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ”), which is on file in the CRU. We revised Valles Andinos's indirect selling expenses to exclude income taxes paid, in accordance with the Department's normal practice. *See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .

(F)VBM We calculated EP because the merchandise was sold prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, and because constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We based EP on the duty delivered paid

(DDP)prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, domestic inland freight, domestic brokerage and handling, certain pre-sale warehousing expenses, international freight, and U.S. customs duties. We adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for certain billing adjustments. We also made minor adjustments to the following fields in VBM's U.S. sales listing: movement expenses, inventory carrying cost, variable cost of manufacturing, and total cost of manufacturing; based on our findings at verification that the amounts for certain sales were misreported. *See VBM Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Verification Report - VBM* . Normal Value A. Home Market Viability Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. Quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. *See* 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2). Arlavan, Olmue, Valle Frio, and Valles Andinos reported that their home market sales of IQF red raspberries during the POR were less than five percent of their sales of IQF red raspberries to the United States. Therefore, these four respondents did not have viable home markets for purposes of calculating NV. As their largest third country markets, Arlavan and Valles Andinos reported Canada, and Olmue and Valle Frio reported France. In all instances, sales to the third countries exceed five percent of sales to the United States. We reviewed these largest third country markets that were reported by the respondents, and found that the merchandise sold in these markets was more comparable to that sold in the United States than merchandise sold by the respondents in smaller third country markets. Accordingly, for purposes of calculating NV, Arlavan and Valles Andinos reported their sales to Canada; Olmue and Valle Frio reported their sales to France. VBM and Vitafoods reported that their home market sales of IQF red raspberries during the POR were more than five percent of their sales of IQF red raspberries to the United States. Therefore, VBM's and Vitafoods's home markets were viable for purposes of calculating NV. Accordingly, VBM and Vitafoods reported their home market sales. To derive NV for all respondents, we made the adjustments detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” and “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” sections, below. B. Cost of Production Analysis In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding at the time of initiation ( *i.e.* , the second administrative review), the Department found that Olmue made sales in the comparison market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. Therefore, the Department has determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Olmue made IQF red raspberry sales in the comparison market ( *i.e.* , France) at prices below the cost of production

(COP)during the period of review and has initiated a COP inquiry for this respondent. *See* section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses, financial expenses (INTEX), and comparison market packing costs, where appropriate. 2. Individual Adjustments for Olmue We relied on the COP data submitted by Olmue in its cost questionnaire responses except in specific instances where, based on our review of the submissions, we believe that an adjustment is required, as discussed below. We adjusted the cost of the raw materials purchased by Olmue from an affiliated supplier to reflect the higher of transfer price, the affiliated supplier's COP, or market price in accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the Act. *See* 19 CFR 351.407(b). We also disallowed the reported financial revenue offsets to Olmue's financial expenses because, despite repeated requests to Olmue for clarification, we were not able to distinguish the company's financial revenues related to short-term interest bearing assets from the financial revenues earned on long-term interest assets. For further discussion, *see* Memorandum to the File, “ *Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Fruticola Olmue S.A.,* ” dated July 31, 2007, which is on file in the CRU. Also, as discussed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” and “Export Price” sections, we made minor adjustments to the variable overhead cost, fixed overhead cost, direct labor cost, and G&A expense fields in Olmue's COP listing based on our findings at verification that the amounts were misreported. *See Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Verification Report - Olmue* . 3. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for Olmue to its comparison market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( *i.e.* , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. *See also* sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the comparison market prices. The prices were exclusive of any applicable billing adjustments, movement expenses, direct selling expenses, commissions, indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. 4. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR are at prices less than the COP, we determine such sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we compare prices to the POR average COP, we also determine that such sales are not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregard these below-cost sales. For Olmue, we found that more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales of IQF red raspberries within an extended period of time were made at prices less than the COP. Further, the prices at which the merchandise under review was sold did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded these below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of IQF red raspberries for which there were no useable comparison market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. *See* “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section, below. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We determined price-based NVs for each company as follows: For all respondents, we made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and we deducted movement expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, where applicable, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in circumstances of sale

(COS)in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other (the commission offset). Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of:

(1)the amount of the commission paid in the U.S. market; or

(2)the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Company-specific adjustments are described below.

(A)Vitafoods We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Chile. We adjusted the starting price by deducting quantity discounts and movement expenses, including inland freight expenses from the plant to the distribution warehouse, warehousing, and inland freight expenses from distribution warehouse to the customer. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( *i.e.* , credit expenses, direct selling expenses, commission expenses, and advertising expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , credit expenses). We recalculated imputed credit expenses because the amounts reported for certain sales did not conform with the credit expense calculation methodology described by Vitafoods at page B-21 of its January 19, 2007, Sections B and C Questionnaire Response. *See Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .

(B)Arlavan We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price, where applicable, by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight to the warehouse, domestic warehousing, Chilean brokerage and customs fees, agriculture certificates, temperature control recorders during transit, port charges, and international freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , external quality control/ biological testing, courier charges, and credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , external quality control/ microbiological testing, courier charges, and credit expenses). For its comparison market sales, Arlavan reported the bill of lading date as the shipment date. We have revised the shipment date to match the issuance date of the *guia de despacho* , because that is when the merchandise under review was shipped from the plant or warehouse to the Chilean port. Consequently, we recalculated comparison market imputed credit expenses using the revised date of shipment. For further discussion, *see Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .

(C)Olmue We based comparison market prices on the packed, CFR price to unaffiliated purchasers in France. In accordance with Olmue's response, we adjusted the reported gross unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments. We adjusted the starting price by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight to the Chilean port, international freight, and brokerage and handling. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , microbiological/pesticide testing, international storage expenses, bank expenses, commissions, credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *i.e.* , microbiological/pesticide testing, international storage expenses, bank expenses, commissions, credit expenses). *See Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . We made minor adjustments to the following fields in Olmue's comparison market sales listing: date of shipment, date of sale, price adjustments, movement expenses, direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses, variable cost of manufacturing, and total cost of manufacturing; based on our findings at verification that the amounts for certain sales were misreported. Because of our findings with respect to the variable cost of manufacturing and total cost of manufacturing fields in Olmue's sales data, we also made minor adjustments to the variable overhead cost, fixed overhead cost, direct labor cost, and G&A expense fields of Olmue's reported cost of production data. *See Olmue Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Verification Report - Olmue* .

(D)Valle Frio We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in France or sold to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to France. We adjusted the starting price by deducting movement expenses, including, where appropriate, inland freight from the plant to the port, international freight, and container handling/brokerage charges. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, commissions, microbiological/pesticide testing, label expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, microbiological/pesticide testing, label expenses). *See* Memorandum to the File, “ *Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.* ,” dated July 31, 2006 ( *Valle Frio Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ), which is on file in the CRU.

(E)Valles Andinos We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in Canada. We adjusted the starting price by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight from the plant to the Chilean port, domestic brokerage and handling, and international freight. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, bank fees, and courier fees) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, bank fees, and courier fees). See *Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . In accordance with the Department's normal practice, we revised Valles Andinos's indirect selling expenses reported to exclude income taxes paid. We calculated imputed credit expenses for all sales based on Valles Andinos's actual borrowing experience, the date the customer paid, the shipment date based on the *guia de despacho* , and the reported gross unit price. *See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* .

(F)VBM We based comparison market prices on the packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in VBM's home market. We adjusted the starting price by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight to the warehouse and warehousing/storage expenses. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for comparison market sales ( *e.g.* , credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( *e.g.* , credit expenses, bank fees, postage and handling charges, and microbiological testing expenses). *See VBM Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . We also made minor adjustments to the following fields in VBM's home market sales listings: movement expenses, credit expenses, variable cost of manufacturing, and total cost of manufacturing; based on our findings at verification that the amounts for certain sales were misreported. *See VBM Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* ; *see also Verification Report - VBM* . D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for IQF red raspberries for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on the CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For Olmue, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section, above. The Department determined that for certain merchandise sold in the United States, Valle Frio, Vitafoods, Arlavan, and Valles Andinos did not have comparison market sales. *See* Memorandum to the File, “ *Difference-in-merchandise Calculation for Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda.* ” dated March 21, 2007; Memorandum to the File, “ *Difference-in-merchandise Calculation for Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A.* ” dated March 21, 2007; and Memorandum from Yasmin Nair and Saliha Loucif, International Trade Compliance Analysts, to Susan Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, “ *Requests for Constructed Value* ” dated March 28, 2007. Valles Andinos is a trading company. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we sent questionnaires to Valles Andinos's suppliers. Specifically, we sent questionnaires to Valles Andinos's two largest suppliers. Arlavan produces and sells IQF red raspberries, and also acts as a trading company for other producers' IQF red raspberries. Because Arlavan's sales of its own product during the POR were not substantial, we also sent questionnaires to Arlavan's two largest suppliers. We received a complete questionnaire response from one supplier (Agricola San Antonio Limitada (San Antonio)); however, as explained below, we have not received complete, useable information from the other supplier, Antillal. The Department sent the questionnaire to Antillal on April 16, 2007. On May 22, 2007, Antillal requested an extension of two weeks to respond to the questionnaire. The Department granted this extension request in full. However, on June 6, 2007, the new deadline for submission of Antillal's information, the Department was notified by Arlavan that Antillal was not providing a response. Because Antillal failed to provide the information required by the Department for these preliminary results, the Department has applied adverse facts available to calculate a CV for Antillal. *See* “Individual Company Adjustments” and “Use of Facts Otherwise Available” sections, below. 1. Individual Company Adjustments With the exception of Antillal, as discussed above, we relied on the CV data submitted by the respondents except in specific instances where, based on our review of the submissions, we believe that an adjustment is required. These adjustments are discussed below. Arlavan As discussed *supra* , one of Arlavan's suppliers, Antillal, failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, and for this supplier, the Department has applied adverse facts available. *See* section 776 of the Act. We calculated a weighted-average CV for Arlavan using: 1) the CV of Arlavan's one responding supplier (San Antonio) for purchases from San Antonio; 2) Arlavan's own reported CV, as adjusted; and 3) the weighted average of the two highest COPs or CVs of all respondents' reported COP/CV information as AFA for Antillal's CV. These three CV values were weighted by quantities that were purchased or produced by Arlavan during the POR. For further discussion, *see Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . We revised Arlavan's reported per unit cost of manufacturing to take into consideration yield, dividing by output quantity rather than input quantity. We also adjusted Arlavan's reported G&A and INTEX expense calculations to exclude internal freight from the cost of goods sold denominator. For further discussion, *see Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . Consistent with the Department's normal practice, we revised San Antonio's fixed overhead and INTEX ratio to include items that were improperly excluded by San Antonio. For further discussion, *see Arlavan Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . We note that we continue to have outstanding cost reconciliation and valuation issues with San Antonio's and Arlavan's responses. For purposes of calculating these preliminary results, we are accepting the data provided by San Antonio and Arlavan. However, we intend to ask for further information following publication of these preliminary results to determine whether the aforementioned responses accurately reflect San Antonio's and Arlavan's constructed values. Valles Andinos We calculated an average CV using the information provided by Valles Andinos's two suppliers, Pehuenche and Punsin. The average CV was weighted by quantities that were purchased by Valles Andinos from these two suppliers during the POR. For further discussion, *see Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . Although we received responses to our requests for supplemental information concerning constructed value reported by Valles Andinos suppliers, Pehuenche and Punsin, we have outstanding cost reconciliation and valuation issues with both responses. For purposes of calculating these preliminary results, we are accepting the data provided by Pehuenche and Punsin. However, we intend to ask for further information following publication of these preliminary results to determine whether these aforementioned responses accurately reflect these suppliers' constructed values. We revised Pehuenche's cost of manufacturing to include a raw material price adjustment. We also revised Pehuenche's G&A and INTEX expenses to include certain omitted expenses. *See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . As mentioned previously, we did not receive constructed value information for Valles Andinos's organic raspberry products. *See* discussion *supra* . Therefore, we are using as neutral facts available the average difference between organic and non-organic raspberry products, all other product characteristics being equal, reported by other respondents to this administrative review, and we are applying this difference to the reported costs of Valles Andinos's non-organic raspberry products to derive constructed value for the organic products. *See Valles Andinos Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . Vitafoods In accordance with the Department's normal practice, we have made adjustments to G&A expenses and INTEX expenses reported by Vitafoods. We revised Vitafoods's reported G&A expense ratio to include profit on sale of fixed assets, expenses associated with waste disposal, and fines paid. We revised Vitafoods's reported INTEX ratio to include net profit/loss in forward exchange operations. For further discussion, *see Vitafoods Preliminary Calculation Memorandum* . We based SG&A expenses and profit for the above-mentioned respondents on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We used U.S. packing costs as described in the “Export Price” section, above. We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. E. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade

(LOT)as the EP sale. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). *See* 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. *Id* .; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa* , 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market ( *i.e.* , the “chain of distribution”), 3 including selling functions, 4 class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. 3 The marketing process in the United States and comparison market begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the chain of distribution the sale occurs. 4 Selling functions associated with a particular chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have organized the common selling functions into four major categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty services. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales ( *i.e.* , NV based on either comparison market or third country prices) 5 , we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 5 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and profit for CV, where possible. In this review, we determined the following, with respect to the LOT, for each respondent.

(A)Vitafoods Vitafoods reported a single LOT in each market, and claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore, Vitafoods did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Vitafoods regarding its marketing processes for its U.S. and home market sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. Vitafoods reported one channel of distribution for sales to the United States. In this channel of distribution, Vitafoods arranges to get the subject merchandise to the port for export. For these sales, Vitafoods's customer is the importer of record. Because Vitafoods has reported no significant variation in the selling activities for these sales, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT for Vitafoods's U.S. sales. Vitafoods has reported two channels of distribution for its home market sales. In the first channel of distribution (channel 1), merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and then delivered to the customer's facility. In the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and then transported to the distribution center where it is delivered to the customer. Because Vitafoods has not reported substantial differences in the selling activities for these two channels, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT for Vitafoods's home market sales. Comparing sales in Vitafoods's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. Vitafoods did make billing adjustments ( *i.e.* , discounts) on home market sales, however, these discounts are granted to each category of customers and do not significantly increase the level of selling activities performed by Vitafoods. Although Vitafoods performed some limited advertising for its home market sales, it did not provide technical services or post-sale warehousing for either U.S. or home market sales. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and home markets, and that Vitafoods's U.S. and home market sales were made at the same LOT.

(B)Arlavan Arlavan reported a single LOT in each market, and claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same. Therefore, Arlavan did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Arlavan regarding its marketing processes for its comparison market and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. Arlavan has reported five channels of distribution for sales to the United States. In the first channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is shipped directly from the processing plant to the customer on a CFR (Chilean port) basis. In the second channel of distribution (channel 3), merchandise is shipped directly to the customer on an FOB (Chilean port) basis. In the third channel of distribution (channel 4), merchandise is shipped from the warehouse to the customer on an CFR (Chilean port) basis. In the fourth channel of distribution (channel 5), merchandise is picked up at the processing plant by a home market customer

(FOT)and re-sold to the United States by that customer. In the fifth channel of distribution (channel 6), merchandise is picked up at the warehouse by a home market customer

(FOT)and re-sold to the United States by that customer. For all sales to the United States, Arlavan's customer is the importer of record. For third-country sales, Arlavan sells in one channel of distribution (channel 4), where merchandise is shipped from the warehouse to the customer on a CFR (Chilean port) basis. For both markets, Arlavan sold to brokers. Comparing sales in Arlavan's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. We examined the information reported by Arlavan regarding its marketing processes for its third country and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. For sales to the third country and United States, Arlavan's selling activities were limited to receiving and processing orders, and, depending on the terms of sale, arranging for delivery to the third country. Arlavan offered no technical assistance, inventory maintenance services, or advertising in either market for IQF red raspberries, regardless of channel of distribution. Arlavan indicated that all export sales require that a microbiological analysis be conducted in order to ensure compliance with phytosanitary requirements. According to Arlavan, all selling activities were performed in Chile. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, and that Arlavan's U.S. and third country sales were made at the same LOT.

(C)Olmue Olmue reported a single channel of distribution and a single LOT in the third country and U.S. markets. Olmue claimed that its sales in both markets were at the same LOT. Therefore, Olmue did not request a LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by Olmue regarding its sales processes for its third country and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. Olmue reported that it sold to similar categories of customers in France and the United States. In both markets, Olmue reported similar selling activities regardless of the customer category. Sales in both markets were direct shipments from the plant to the customer. Therefore, there were no differences in the channels of distribution between the two markets. Also, Olmue did not grant rebates or discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or advertise on sales to the U.S. or third country markets. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, and that Olmue's sales to the U.S. and third country markets were made at the same LOT.

(D)Valle Frio Valle Frio reported two channels of distribution in the third country market and a single channel of distribution in the United States. Valle Frio indicated that its sales to the United States and third country markets were made at the same LOT and it did not request a LOT adjustment. In the single channel of distribution for U.S. sales, merchandise is shipped directly to the customer on an FOB (Chilean port) basis. For third country sales in the first channel of distribution (channel 1), Valle Frio shipped the merchandise directly to the third country market. In the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is sold to a Chilean customer who re-sold the product to the third country. For both markets, Valle Frio sold to wholesalers and distributers. Comparing sales in Valle Frio's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. We examined the information reported by Valle Frio regarding its marketing processes for its third country and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the type and level of selling activities performed. For sales to the third country and United States, Valle Frio's selling activities were limited to receiving and processing orders, and, depending on the terms of sale, arranging for delivery to the third country. Valle Frio offered no technical assistance, inventory maintenance services, or advertising in either market for IQF red raspberries, regardless of channel of distribution. Valle Frio indicated that all export sales require that a microbiological analysis be conducted in order to ensure compliance with phytosanitary requirements. According to Valle Frio, all selling activities were performed in Chile. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and third country markets, and that Valle Frio's U.S. and third country sales were made at the same LOT.

(E)Valles Andinos Valles Andinos indicated that its sales to the United States and third country markets were made at the same LOT and it did not request a LOT adjustment. Valles Andinos reported one channel of distribution in the comparison market. In this channel, sales are made directly to the customer. All sales are shipped from Valles Andinos's supplier's cold storage facilities in Chile to the port, and are delivered by sea freight to the comparison market customer. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that comparison market sales are made at a single LOT. In the U.S. market, Valles Andinos reported one channel of distribution. In this channel, sales are made directly to the customer. All sales are shipped from Valles Andinos's supplier's cold storage facilities in Chile to the port, and are delivered by sea freight to the U.S. customer. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the sales are made at a single LOT in the United States. Comparing sales in Valles Andinos's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. Valles Andinos did not grant rebates or discounts, provide technical services or post-sale warehousing, or advertise on either U.S. or third country sales. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and comparison markets, and that Valles Andinos's sales in the U.S. and comparison market were made at the same LOT.

(F)VBM VBM reported four distinct channels of distribution to the United States, and two channels of distribution in the home market. VBM claimed that the LOT in each of these markets was the same, and therefore, it did not request an LOT adjustment. We examined the information reported by VBM regarding its marketing processes for its home market and U.S. sales, including customer categories and the types and levels of selling activities performed. For U.S. sales in the first channel of distribution (channel 1), merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse before being transported to the port of shipment. For U.S. sales in the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is transported directly from the processing plant to the port for shipment. For U.S. sales in the third channel of distribution (channel 3), merchandise is transported directly to the customer. For U.S. sales in the fourth channel of distribution (channel 4), merchandise is transported to the port, and picked up by the customer. VBM reports that there are no pricing differences between these four channels of distribution. In all channels of distribution, VBM is responsible for arranging inland freight to the port in Chile. VBM is also the importer of record. VBM sells to the same types of customer in all four channels of distribution. Except for small differences regarding transportation of the product from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and to the ultimate customer in the United States, there are no differences in the selling activities for these four channels of distribution. Therefore, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in the U.S. market. VBM has also reported two channels of distribution for its home market sales. For home market sales in the first channel of distribution (channel 1), merchandise is transported from the processing plant to the cold storage warehouse, and is picked up directly from the warehouse by the customer. For home market sales in the second channel of distribution (channel 2), merchandise is picked up by the customer at the processing plant. Because VBM has not reported substantial differences in the selling activities for these two channels, we preliminarily find that there is a single LOT in VBM's home market. Comparing sales in VBM's two markets, there is no indication that there were significantly different selling activities or sales process activities. Therefore, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists in both the U.S. and home markets, and that VBM's sales in the U.S. and home markets were made at the same LOT. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily find the following weighted-average dumping margins: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average margin percentage Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. 3.19 Arlavan S.A. 0.19 ( *de minimis* ) Fruticola Olmue S.A. 0.05 ( *de minimis* ) Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda./Agricola Framparque 0.00 Valles Andinos S.A. 1.14 Vital Berry Marketing, S.A. 0.12 ( *de minimis* ) Public Comment and Disclosure Within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of this review, we will disclose to interested parties any calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results. *See* 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 5 days after the date for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument:

(1)a statement of the issue;

(2)a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included; and

(3)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 hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales made by respondents for which they have reported the importer of record and the entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondents did not report the entered value for U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific *ad valorem* rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is above *de minimis* , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP. The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. *See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, *see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties* , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). Cash Deposit Requirements On July 20, 2007, the Department published a **Federal Register** notice that, *inter alia* , revoked this order, effective July 9, 2007. *See IQF Red Raspberries from Chile: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Order* , 72 FR 39793 (July 20, 2007). Therefore, there will be no need to issue new cash deposit instructions pursuant to the final results of this administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: July 31, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-15327 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-913] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce EFFECTIVE DATES: August 7, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Toni Page, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3148 and

(202)482-1398, respectively. Initiation of Investigation The Petition On June 18, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a petition filed in proper form by Titan Tire Corporation and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, ALF-CIO-CLC (petitioners). On June 22, 2007 and July 3, 2007, the Department issued requests for additional information and clarification of certain areas of the petition involving general issues concerning the countervailing duty

(CVD)allegations. Based on the Department's requests, the petitioners filed additional information concerning the petition on June 27, 2007 and July 5, 2007. In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), petitioners allege that manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR tires) in the People's Republic of China (the PRC) received countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring an industry in the United States. The Department finds that petitioners filed this petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and

(D)of the Act and petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation that they are requesting the Department to initiate ( *see, infra,* “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition”). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires from the PRC. *See* Attachment to this notice for a complete description of the merchandise covered by this investigation. Comments on Scope of Investigation During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations ( *Antidumping Duties: Countervailing Duties: Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter, the GOC) for consultations with respect to the countervailing duty petition. The Department held these consultations in Beijing, China with representatives of the GOC on July 16, 2007. *See* the Memorandum to The File, entitled, “Consultations with Officials from the Government of the People's Republic of China” (July 16, 2007) (public document on file in the CRU of the Department of Commerce, Room B-099). Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:

(i)At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and

(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:

(i)Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or

(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC., Inc.* v. *United States,* 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd* . v. *United States,* 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” ( *i.e.,* the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that certain OTR tires constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, *see* the *Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)(OTR Tires CVD Initiation Checklist),* Industry Support at Attachment II, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. On July 6, 2007, the Department extended the initiation deadline by 20 days to poll the domestic industry in accordance with section 702(c)(4)D) of the Act, because it was “not clear from the petitions whether the industry support criteria have been met * * *” *See Extension of the Deadline for Determining the Adequacy of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Petitions: New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 38816 (July 16, 2007). On July 16, 2007, we issued polling questionnaires to all known domestic producers of certain OTR tires identified in the petition and by the Department's research. The questionnaires are on file in the CRU. For a detailed discussion of the responses received, *see OTR Tires CVD Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II. Based on an analysis of the data collected, we determine that the petitioners have demonstrated industry support representing over 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. Therefore, the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, given that the petitioners represent more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act are also met. Accordingly, we determine that this petition is filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See *OTR Tires CVD Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II. The Department finds that the petitioners filed the petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and

(D)of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the countervailing duty investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. *See OTR Tires CVD Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II. Injury Test Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Iniury and Causation Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the reduced market share, lost sales, reduced production and capacity utilization rate, reduced shipments, underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost revenue and sales, reduced employment, decline in financial performance, decrease in capital expenditure, and increase in import penetration. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See OTR Tires CVD Initiation Checklist* at Attachment III. Subsidy Allegations Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a petition on behalf of an industry that

(1)alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and

(2)is accompanied by information reasonably available to petitioners supporting the allegations. The Department has examined the countervailing duty petition on OTR tires from the PRC and found that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are initiating a countervailing duty investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of OTR tires in the PRC receive countervailable subsidies. For a discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, *see OTR Tires CVD Initiation Checklist* . We are including in our investigation the following programs alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers and exporters of the subject merchandise: GOC Loan Programs 1. Discounted Loans for Export-Oriented Enterprises 2. Loan Forgiveness for State Owned Enterprises

(SOEs)3. Preferential Lending to SOEs GOC Currency Program 4. Foreign Currency Retention Scheme GOC Grant Programs 5. Grants to the Tire Industry for Electricity 6. The State Key Technologies Renovation Project Fund GOC Provision of Goods or Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 7. Provision of Land and Utilities to SOEs for Less than Adequate Remuneration 8. Provision of Land and Utilities to Foreign Invested Enterprises

(FIEs)for Less than Adequate Remuneration GOC Income Tax Programs 9. Preferential Tax Policies for Enterprises with Foreign Investment (Two Free, Three Half Income Program) 10. Preferential Tax Policies for Export-Oriented FIEs 11. Corporate Income Tax Refund Program for Reinvestment of FIE Profits in Export-Oriented Enterprises 12. Tax Benefits for FIEs in Encouraged Industries that Purchase Domestic Origin Machinery 13. Tax Subsidies to FIEs Based in Specially Designated Geographic Areas GOC Indirect Tax Programs and Import Tariff Programs 14. Value Added Tax

(VAT)Rebate for FIE Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment 15. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries 16. VAT Export Rebates 17. Exemption from Payment of Staff and Worker Benefit Taxes for Export-Oriented Enterprises Provincial Grant Programs 18. Funds for Outward Expansion of Industries in Guangdong Province 19. Export Interest Subsidy Funds for Enterprises Located in Guangdong and Zhejiang Provinces Provincial Provision of Goods and Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration 20. Provision of Land and Utilities at Less Than Adequate Remuneration to Export-Oriented Enterprises and FIEs by Provincial Governments Provincial and Local Tax Programs for FIEs 21. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for “Productive” FIEs For further information explaining why the Department is investigating these programs, *see* the *OTR Tires CVD Initiation Checklist* . We are not including in our investigation the following programs alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC: 1. Managed Exchange Rate Export Subsidy (Currency Manipulation) Petitioners allege that the GOC's manipulates its currency to maintain an undervalued RMB. According to petitioners, the undervalued RMB benefits PRC exporters. Petitioners have not sufficiently alleged the elements necessary for the imposition of a countervailing duty and did not support the allegation with reasonably available information. Therefore, we do not plan to investigate the currency manipulation program. 2. Preferential Lending to the Tire Industry Petitioners allege that state-owned commercial banks must be under directives from the GOC to give preferential loans to the tire industry. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that such loans could be specific to the tire industry. 3. Grants to the Tire Industry for Land-Usage Fees Petitioners allege that the GOC offers grants to Chinese tire manufacturers to cover land-usage fees. Petitioners did not provide any evidence of grants to cover land usage fees specific to the tire industry. 4. VAT Export Rebate of Prior-Stage, Cumulative Taxes Petitioners allege that the VAT levied on capital goods in the PRC actually constitutes a prior stage cumulative tax. Paragraph

(h)of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I to the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement applies to prior stage indirect taxes and VAT systems are expressly excluded from consideration under paragraph (h). 5. Lower VAT Rebates for Downstream Products Petitioners allege that the GOC provides lower rebates for exports of major inputs to tire production than it provides to exports of tires; thus, benefitting tire production by suppressing the market for inputs. Petitioners were unable to demonstrate that the price of inputs ( *e.g.* , rubber) had been affected by the alleged lower export rebate. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to the PRC The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. *See e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 10 Unfinished,

(TRBs)From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review* , 68 FR 7500, 7500-1 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in *TRBs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review* , 68 FR 70488, 70488-89 (December 18, 2003). In the amended preliminary determination in the investigation of coated free sheet paper from the PRC, the Department preliminarily determined that the current nature of the PRC economy does not create obstacles to applying the necessary criteria in the CVD law. *See Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination* , 72 FR 17484, 17486 (April 9, 2007) ( *CFS Preliminary Determination* ), and Memorandum for David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from The People's Republic of China—Whether the Analytic Elements of the *Georgetown Steel* Opinion are Applicable to China's Present-Day Economy,” (March 29,2007), on file in the CRU. Therefore, because the petitioners have provided sufficient allegations and support of their allegations to meet the statutory criteria for initiating a countervailing duty investigation of OTR tires from the PRC, initiation of a CVD investigation is warranted in this case. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the GOC. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the petition to each exporter named in the petition, as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702( d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of subsidized OTR tires from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a u.s. industry. *See* section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 30, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Attachment—Scope of the Investigation for the Petitions Covering Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China The products covered by the scope are new pneumatic tires designed for off-the-road

(OTR)and off-highway use, subject to exceptions identified below. Certain OTR tires are generally designed, manufactured and offered for sale for use on off-road or off-highway surfaces, including but not limited to, agricultural fields, forests, construction sites, factory and warehouse interiors, airport tarmacs, ports and harbors, mines, quarries, gravel yards, and steel mills. The vehicles and equipment for which certain OTR tires are designed for use include, but are not limited to:

(1)Agricultural and forestry vehicles and equipment, including agricultural tractors, 1 combine harvesters, 2 agricultural high clearance sprayers, 3 industrial tractors, 4 log-skidders, 5 agricultural implements, highway-towed implements, agricultural logging, and agricultural, industrial, skid-steers/mini-loaders; 6

(2)construction vehicles and equipment, including earthmover articulated dump products, rigid frame haul trucks, 7 front end loaders, 8 dozers, 9 lift trucks, straddle carriers, 10 graders, 11 mobile cranes, compactors; and

(3)industrial vehicles and equipment, including smooth floor, industrial, mining, counterbalanced lift trucks, industrial and mining vehicles other than smooth floor, skid-steers/mini-loaders, and smooth floor off-the-road counterbalanced lift trucks. 12 The foregoing list of vehicles and equipment generally have in common that they are used for hauling, towing, lifting, and/or loading a wide variety of equipment and materials in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. The foregoing descriptions are illustrative of the types of vehicles and equipment that use certain OTR tires, but are not necessarily all-inclusive. While the physical characteristics of certain OTR tires will vary depending on the specific applications and conditions for which the tires are designed ( *e.g.* , tread pattern and depth), all of the tires within the scope have in common that they are designed for off-road and off-highway use. Except as discussed below, OTR tires included in the scope of the petitions range in size (rim diameter) generally but not exclusively from 8 inches to 54 inches. The tires may be either tube-type or tubeless, radial or non-radial, and intended for sale either to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 4011.20.10.25, 4011.20.10.35, 4011.20.50.30, 4011.20.50.50, 4011.61.00.00, 4011.62.00.00, 4011.63.00.00, 4011.69.00.00, 4011.92.00.00, 4011.93.40.00, 4011.93.80.00, 4011.94.40.00, and 4011.94.80.00. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive. 1 Agricultural tractors are four-wheeled vehicles usually with large rear tires and small front tires that are used to tow farming equipment. 2 Combine harvesters are used to harvest crops such as corn or wheat. 3 Agricultural sprayers are used to irrigate agricultural fields. 4 Industrial tractors are four-wheeled vehicles usually with large rear tires and small front tires that are used to tow industrial equipment. 5 A log skidder has a grappling lift arm that is used to grasp, lift and move trees that have been cut down to a truck or trailer for transport to a mill or other destination. 6 Skid-steer loaders are four-wheel drive vehicles with the left-side drive wheels irIdependent of the right-side drive wheels and lift arms that lie alongside the driver with the major pivot points behind the driver's shoulders. Skid-steer loaders are used in agricultural, construction and industrial settings. 7 Haul trucks, which may be either rigid frame or articulated (i.e., able to bend in the middle) are typically used in mines, quarries and construction sites to haul soil, aggregate, mined ore, or debris. 8 Front loaders have lift arms in front of the vehicle. It can scrape material from one location to another, carry material in its bucket or load material into a truck or trailer. 9 A dozer is a large four-wheeled vehicle with a dozer blade that is used to push large quantities of soil, sand, rubble, etc., typically around construction sites. They can also be used to perform “rough grading” in road construction. 10 A straddle carrier is a rigid frame, engine-powered machine that is used to load and offload containers from container vessels and load them onto (or off of) tractor trailers. 11 A grader is a vehicle with a large blade used to create a flat surface. Graders are typically used to perform “finish grading.” Graders are commonly used in maintenance of unpaved roads and road construction to prepare the base course onto which asphalt or other paving material will be laid. 12 A counterbalanced lift truck is a rigid frame, engine-powered machine with lift arms that has additional weight incorporated into the back of the machine to offset or counterbalance the weight of loads that it lifts so as to prevent the vehicle from overturning. An example of a counterbalanced lift truck is a counterbalanced fork lift truck. Counterbalanced lift trucks may be designed for use on smooth floor surfaces, such as a factory or warehouse, or other surfaces, such as construction sites, mines, etc. Specifically excluded from the scope are new pneumatic tires designed, manufactured and offered for sale primarily for on-highway or on-road use, including passenger cars, race cars, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, minivans, mobile homes, motorcycles, bicycles, on-road or on-highway trailers, light trucks, and trucks and buses. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following designations that are used by the Tire and Rim Association: Prefix letter designations: • P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars; • LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks; and, • ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service. Suffix letter designations: • TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156″ or plus 0.250″; • MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes; • HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15″ tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation. *Example:* 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC; • LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service; and • MC—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles. The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: Pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; tires of a kind used on aircraft, all-terrain vehicles, and vehicles for turf, lawn and garden, golf and trailer applications; and, tires of a kind used for mining and construction vehicles and equipment that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds). [FR Doc. 07-3833 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 19

Traces to 19 documents

CFR