Notices. Notice of availability of proposed changes in the NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices for public review and comment
29,506 words·~134 min read·
/register/2008/01/23/08-237·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Notice of Proposed Changes to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's National Handbook of Conservation Practices AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in the NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices for public review and comment. SUMMARY: It is NRCS's intention to issue a series of new or revised conservation practice standards in its National Handbook of Conservation Practices.
These standards include: “Filter Strip (Code 393),” “Hillside Ditch (Code 423),” “Access Control (formerly titled Use Exclusion) (Code 472),” “Drainage Water Management (Code 554),” “Vegetated Treatment Area (formerly titled Wastewater Treatment Strip) (Code 635),” and “Constructed Wetland (Code 656).” NRCS State Conservationists who choose to adopt these practices for use within their States will incorporate them into Section IV of their respective electronic Field Office Technical Guides.
These practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land
(HEL)or on land determined to be a wetland. EFFECTIVE DATES: Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with this date of publication. Final versions of these new or revised conservation practice standards will be adopted after the close of the 30-day period, after consideration of all comments. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted by one of the following methods: 1. In writing to: National Agricultural Engineer, NRCS, Post Office Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013-2890; or 2. Electronically by e-mail to: *daniel.meyer@wdc.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of these standards can be downloaded and/or printed from the following Web site: *ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice-standards/federal-register/.* Also, copies of these standards are available from National Headquarters in Washington, DC. Submit inquiries in writing to Daniel Meyer, National Agricultural Engineer, NRCS, Post Office Box 2890, Room 6139-S, Washington, DC 20013-2890; or electronically to: *daniel.meyer@wdc.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 requires NRCS to make available for public review and comment all proposed revisions to conservation practice standards used to carry out the HEL and wetland provisions of the law. For the next 30 days, NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by NRCS regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made. Signed in Washington, DC, January 9, 2008. Arlen L. Lancaster, Chief. [FR Doc. E8-1115 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Office of the Secretary Estimates of the Voting Age Population for 2007 AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Commerce. ACTION: General Notice announcing population estimates. SUMMARY: This Notice announces the voting age population estimates, as of July 1, 2007, for each state and the District of Columbia. We are giving this notice in accordance with the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 441a(e). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Enrique Lamas, Chief, Population Division, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Room HQ-5H174, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-2071. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the requirements of the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 441a(e), I hereby give notice that the estimates of the voting age population for July 1, 2007, for each state and the District of Columbia are as shown in the following table. Estimates of the Population of Voting Age for Each State and the District of Columbia: July 1, 2007 Area Population 18 and over United States 227,719,424 Alabama 3,504,314 Alaska 501,260 Arizona 4,668,889 Arkansas 2,134,260 California 27,169,291 Colorado 3,668,836 Connecticut 2,682,093 Delaware 659,118 District of Columbia 474,572 Florida 14,207,683 Georgia 7,013,141 Hawaii 997,694 Idaho 1,091,690 Illinois 9,653,389 Indiana 4,758,771 Iowa 2,276,643 Kansas 2,079,915 Kentucky 3,237,501 Louisiana 3,213,644 Maine 1,037,740 Maryland 4,259,547 Massachusetts 5,016,899 Michigan 7,624,966 Minnesota 3,937,339 Mississippi 2,150,081 Missouri 4,453,585 Montana 738,363 Nebraska 1,328,426 Nevada 1,905,380 New Hampshire 1,017,642 New Jersey 6,622,131 New Mexico 1,469,639 New York 14,884,315 North Carolina 6,843,352 North Dakota 496,906 Ohio 8,715,043 Oklahoma 2,717,809 Oregon 2,884,547 Pennsylvania 9,646,073 Rhode Island 824,717 South Carolina 3,347,792 South Dakota 599,324 Tennessee 4,685,233 Texas 17,281,014 Utah 1,828,508 Vermont 489,901 Virginia 5,885,912 Washington 4,932,056 West Virginia 1,424,654 Wisconsin 4,280,361 Wyoming 397,465 I have certified these counts to the Federal Election Commission. Dated: January 16, 2008. Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E8-1098 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Census Advisory Committee on the Hispanic Population AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of request for nominations. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is requesting nominations of individuals to the Census Advisory Committee on the Hispanic Population. The Census Bureau will consider nominations received in response to this Notice, as well as from other sources. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this Notice provides Committee and membership criteria. DATES: Please submit nominations by February 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Jeri Green, Chief, Census Advisory Committee Office, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H182, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233. Nominations also may be submitted via fax at
(301)763-8609, or by e-mail to *jeri.green@census.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Green, Chief, Census Advisory Committee Office, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H182, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone
(301)763-2070. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2) in 1995. The following provides information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process. Objectives and Duties 1. The Committee provides an organized and continuing channel of communication between Hispanic communities and the Census Bureau. Committee members identify useful strategies to reduce the differential undercount for the Hispanic population, and on ways data can be disseminated for maximum usefulness to the Hispanic population. 2. The Committee draws upon prior decennial planning efforts, research studies, test censuses, and other experiences to provide advice and recommendations for the 2010 Decennial Census Program. 3. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 4. The Committee reports to the Director of the Census Bureau. Membership 1. Members are appointed by and serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce. They are appointed to the nine-member Committee for a period of three years. 2. Members will be reevaluated at the conclusion of the three-year term, with the prospect of renewal, pending meeting attendance, administrative compliance, advisory committee needs, and the Secretary's concurrence. Committee members are selected in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines. The Committee aims to have a balanced representation, considering such factors as geography, gender, technical expertise, community involvement, and knowledge of census procedures and activities. The Committee aims to include members from diverse backgrounds, including state and local governments, academia, media, research, community-based organizations, and the private sector. No employee of the federal government can serve as a member of the Committee. Meeting attendance and active participation in the activities of the Advisory Committee are essential for sustained Committee membership, as well as submission of required annual financial disclosure statements. Miscellaneous 1. Members of the Committee serve without compensation but receive reimbursement for Committee-related travel and lodging expenses. 2. The Committee meets at least once a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held, as deemed necessary, by the Census Bureau Director or Designated Federal Official. All Committee meetings are open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Nomination Information 1. Nominations are requested as described above. 2. Nominees should have expertise and knowledge of the cultural patterns, issues, and/or data needs of the Hispanic community. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to the Census Bureau on how best to enumerate the Hispanic population and obtain complete and accurate data on this population. Individuals, groups, or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of a potential candidate. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (résumé or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must have the ability to participate in Advisory Committee meetings and tasks. Besides Committee meetings, active participation may include Committee assignments and participation in conference calls and working groups. 3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership. Dated: January 15, 2008. Steve H. Murdock, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E8-1035 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-816] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request by the respondent, Haewon MSC Co., Ltd. (Haewon), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products
(CORE)from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Haewon. We preliminarily determine that Haewon did not make sales below 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 entries subject to this review regard without regard to antidumping duties. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho or George McMahon, 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 at
(202)482-5075, or
(202)482-1167, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping order on CORE from Korea. *See Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea* , 58 FR 44159 (August 19, 1993) ( *Order* ). On February 28, 2007, during the semi-annual anniversary month of the *Order* , the Department received a timely request for a new shipper review of the *Order* from Haewon, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c). On March 27, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea covering the period August 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review for the period August 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007* , 72 FR 14260 (March 27, 2007). On August 30, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the new shipper review from September 17, 2007, to January 15, 2008. *See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review* , 72 FR 50099 (August 30, 2007). On June 21, 2007, United States Steel Corporation 1 submitted an allegation that Haewon's home market sales were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). The Department analyzed the information referenced in petitioners' letter of June 21, 2007, and determined that the COP allegation was company-specific, employed a reasonable methodology, provided evidence of below-cost sales, and included models which are representative of the broader range of CORE sold by Haewon. Therefore, we determined that the petitioners' COP allegation provided a reasonable basis to initiate a new shipper COP investigation. *See* the Department's July 6, 2007, COP memorandum (COP memo). As a result, the Department issued a Section D questionnaire to Haewon on July 6, 2007. The Department subsequently issued three supplemental questionnaires regarding Sections A-C of the Department's initial questionnaire to Haewon on June 29, 2007, September 14, 2007, and October 17, 2007, respectively. The Department also issued two supplemental questionnaires regarding Section D of the Department's initial questionnaire on September 14, 2007, and October 17, 2007, respectively. 1 Petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) and Nucor Corporation (Nucor) (collectively, petitioners). Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc. (Mittal Steel USA) is a domestic interested party. Period of Review The period of review
(POR)is August 1, 2006, through April 10, 2007. 2 2 Note that the Department extended the POR until April 10, 2007 in order to include HMSC's U.S. sale, which entered on this particular date. *See* Department's letter to Haewon, dated May 23, 2007. Date of Sale It is the Department's practice normally to use the invoice date as the date of sale, although we may use a date other than the invoice date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i). We have preliminarily determined that there is no reason to depart from the Department's treatment of invoice date as the date of sale for Haewon. Petitioners' Comments On October 15, 2007, November 5, 2007, and December 10, 2007, the petitioners submitted a series of comments calling into question the bona fide nature of Haewon's U.S. sale and suggesting an affiliation between Haewon and the final customer of its U.S. sale. Haewon submitted comments rebutting petitioners' allegations. The Department issued an importer questionnaire to both Haewon and its U.S. importer on November 9, 2007. Based on the Department's analysis of the November 9, 2007, questionnaire response, and the information on the record, we determined that Haewon's U.S. sale is a bona fide transaction. For a discussion of these issues, *see* Memorandum from Victoria Cho, through James Terpstra to Melissa G. Skinner, regarding the bona fide nature of Haewon's sale to the United States, dated January 15, 2008. Verification The Department conducted a verification of Haewon's sales from November 5 through November 8, 2007, and a verification of Haewon's COP from November 9 through November 15, 2007. As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we verified the information provided by Haewon. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of the relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are detailed in the company-specific verification report placed in the case file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Department of Commerce, HCHB Building, at Room 1117. *See* Haewon's Sales Verification Report and Haewon's Cost Verification Report, dated January 15, 2008. Scope of the Order This order covers flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel-or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in the order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process including products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”). Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20% -60% -20% ratio. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all CORE products produced by Haewon, covered by the scope of the order, and sold in the home market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to CORE sold in the United States. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of trade of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the Appendix V physical characteristics reported by Haewon. Haewon reported both its home market and U.S. sales on an actual weight basis; therefore, no conversions of the weight field were necessary in making our fair-value comparisons. Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CORE by the respondent to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the Export Price
(EP)to the NV, as described in the “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. Export Price Haewon sold subject merchandise directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the record facts of this review. Therefore, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we applied the Department's EP methodology to Haewon's sales. We calculated EP using, as the starting price, the packed, delivered price to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made the following deductions from the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate: foreign inland freight from the mill to warehouse to port, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and other related charges. 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, we compared Haewon's volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product to its respective volume of the U.S. sale of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Haewon's aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determined that Haewon's home market was viable. We calculated NV as noted in the “Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices” and “Calculation of NV Based on Constructed Value” sections of this notice. B. COP Analysis As referenced in the background section, the Department conducted an analysis of U.S. Steel's allegation that Haewon's home market sales were made below the COP. We found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Haewon's sales of the foreign like product in the home market were made at prices below their respective COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a new shipper COP investigation to determine whether Haewon's sales were made at prices below their COP. *See* COP Memo. 1. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of Haewon's costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental to packing and preparing the foreign like product for shipment. We relied on the COP data submitted by Haewon. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales of the foreign like product as required by section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, packing, and direct selling expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that sales of that model were made in “substantial quantities” for an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and
(C)of the Act, and were not 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. In such cases, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For purposes of these preliminary results, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. C. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices For Haewon, for those comparison products for which there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on home-market prices. We were able to match the U.S. sale to contemporaneous sales, made in the ordinary course of trade, of a similar foreign like product, based on the product matching characteristics. For Haewon, we calculated NV based on sales from its warehouse to unaffiliated customers or Haewon Steel Tech (Haewon ST), 3 which were determined to be at arm's length (see discussion below regarding these sales). We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for discounts, rebates, inland freight, and pre-sale warehouse expense. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. 3 Haewon sold a small amount of CORE to its affiliate, Haewon ST, a steel service center, in Korea. Haewon ST resold the CORE to end users in Korea. In addition to the aforementioned home market sales, Haewon acted as a toll producer of subject merchandise for another company in Korea. Haewon stated that under generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP)in Korea, these transactions are classified as sales of galvanizing services ( *i.e.* , tolling transactions), and not as sales of merchandise. *See* Haewon's Section A Questionnaire Response dated May 17, 2007, at page 20, footnote 8. That is, the unaffiliated company supplied material inputs that Haewon processed into subject merchandise and shipped back to the company. However, Haewon reported that it included the quantity and value of these sales of galvanized coil in its reported home market sales figures. Because these are not sales of subject merchandise produced by Haewon and sold to an unaffiliated party, but rather are sales for which Haewon acted as a toll producer, we did not include these transactions in our margin calculations. The basis for the price of the resales is considered business proprietary information. *See* Haewon's Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum, dated January 15, 2008. Arm's-Length Sales We included in our analysis Haewon's home-market sales to affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales were made at arm's-length prices, *i.e.* , at prices comparable to prices at which Haewon sold identical merchandise to its unaffiliated customers. Haewon's sales to affiliates constituted less than five percent of overall home-market sales. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. *See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade* , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Level of Trade As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, the Department calculates NV based on sales at the same level of trade
(LOT)as U.S. sales, either EP or CEP. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the comparison market at the same LOT as the U.S. sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at different LOTs. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price of sales in the home market. To determine whether home-market sales are at a different LOT than U.S. sales, we examine 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 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 make an LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. We compared Haewon's selling functions in the home market to the selling functions for its U.S. sale. Haewon provided a selling functions chart for both markets in Exhibit A-5 of its May 17, 2007, section A response (section A response). Haewon reported its U.S. sale as an EP sale and it reported one LOT based on one channel of distribution. Similarly, we confirmed during verification that Haewon has one channel of distribution in the home market. As described in Haewon's section A response and at verification, the selling functions performed by Haewon in connection with its home market sales do not vary by customer category or distribution channel. Haewon did not claim an LOT adjustment because Haewon's home market sales were made at one LOT. Haewon's home market and U.S. sales were made through direct shipments from Haewon's production facility to the destination designated by the customer. Therefore, we find Haewon's home market LOT comparable to its LOT in the U.S. market. 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. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the period August 1, 2006 through April 10, 2007: Haewon 0.00 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. *See* CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument:
(1)A statement of the issue,
(2)a brief summary of the argument, and
(3)a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice. Assessment Rates Upon completion of the new shipper review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue liquidation instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this new shipper 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 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 The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of CORE from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1)The cash deposit rate for subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Haewon will be the rate established in the final results of this new shipper review; except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is *de minimis* ( *i.e.* , less than 0.5 percent);
(2)if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less-than-fair-value
(LTFV)investigation, 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 previous review, or the original 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 and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall be 17.70 percent, the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this 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: January 15, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-1105 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-909] Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2008. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain steel nails (“nails”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination within 135 days after the date of this preliminary determination. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bankhead (respondent Paslode) or Matt Renkey (respondent Xingya Group), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-9068 or 482-2312, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation On May 29, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received petitions on imports of nails from the PRC and United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) filed in proper form by Mid Continent Nail Corporation, Davis Wire Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (Atlas Steel & Wire Division), Maze Nails (Division of W.H. Maze Company), Treasure Coast Fasteners, Inc., and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (collectively, “Petitioners”). These investigations were initiated on July 9, 2007. *See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations,* 72 FR 38816 (July 16, 2007) ( *“Initiation Notice”* ). On July 31, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC and UAE of nails. The ITC's determination was published in the **Federal Register** on August 6, 2007. *See Certain Steel Nails From China and the United Arab Emirates* (Investigation No. 731-TA-1114 and 1115) (Preliminary), Publication 3939 (August 2007) ( *“ITC Preliminary Determination”* ). Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the *Initiation Notice.* ( *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) and *Initiation Notice* 72 FR at 38817.) In this investigation and the concurrent investigation of nails from the UAE, we received three scope exclusion requests during the period July 2007 through January 2008. On July 30, 2007, Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (Stanley), an interested party in this proceeding, requested that banded brads and finish nails imported with a “nailer kit” or “combo kit” 1 as a single package be excluded from this investigation as being outside the “class or kind” of merchandise. Stanley conducted a *Diversified Products* 2 analysis in support of its position claiming that banded products imported in the same package as a pneumatic nailer and sold as a “nailer kit” or “combo kit” are not within the class of kind of merchandise covered in the scope of the instant investigation. In addition, Stanley states that, to the best of its information and belief, none of the petitioning companies in this investigation manufacture banded brads or finish nails. 1 A “nailer kit” consists of a pneumatic nailer, a “starter box” of branded products and a carrying case. A “combo kit” consists of an air compressor, a pneumatic nailer, a “starter box” of banded products and related accessories, such as an air hose. 2 Prior to being codified in the regulations, these factors were identified by the Court of International Trade in *Diversified Products Corp.* v. *United States,* 572 F. Supp. 883 (CIT 1983), and therefore, they are also referred to as the *“Diversified Products factors.”* On August 9, 2007, Petitioners objected to this exclusion request, arguing that the scope of this proceeding is comprehensive and, while the scope contains specific exclusions, it does not exclude any nails based on their importation in combination with one or more other articles. Petitioners claimed that it is their intention that the scope of this proceeding include all certain steel nails exhibiting the physical characteristics identified in the written scope description, regardless of how imported. Furthermore, according to Petitioners, a *Diversified Products* analysis requires a determination that collated steel finish nails remain scope merchandise, whether imported on their own or with a nail gun. Finally, Petitioners cite several cases 3 in support of their contention that Department precedent supports their argument that these finish nails are merchandise covered by the scope of investigation. According to Petitioners, these rulings address fundamentally different types of kits or sets of merchandise, in which the subject merchandise at issue is subsumed with a set of goods whose essential character is defined as something other than the merchandise itself. 3 *See, e.g.* , Memorandum from Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Final Scope Ruling—Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China—Request by Fiskars Brands, Inc.* (June 3, 2005); Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Enforcement, To Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Final Scope Ruling—Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China—Request by Target Corporation Regarding “Hello Kitty Fashion Totes”* (September 29, 2004). On August 15, 2007, Stanley responded to Petitioners' August 9, 2007, submission claiming that none of Petitioners' arguments supports a conclusion that banded products imported in nailer kits are within the subject class of kind of merchandise. On December 12, 2007, Stanley revised its July 30, 2007, scope exclusion request arguing that its new request reflects a broader exclusion and is easily administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) because the description of the excluded brads and finish nails is framed solely in terms of their physical characteristics. On December 18, 2007, Petitioners filed a letter stating that they agree with Stanley's December 12, 2007, scope exclusion request. Therefore, based on the scope exclusion request from Stanley, the fact that Petitioners are in agreement with this request, and that there appears to be no impediment to enforceability by CBP, 4 we preliminarily determine that the above described products are not subject to the scope of this investigation. 5 4 *See* Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson, Senior Case Analyst, to The File entitled “Proposed Scope Exclusion,” dated January 15, 2008. 5 On January 8, 2008, Illinois Tool Works Inc. (“ITW”), an interested party, opposed the exclusion request filed by Stanley, arguing that it is the only U.S. producer of the product at issue. While the Department notes ITW's objection, it strives to craft a scope that both includes the specific products for which Petitioners have requested relief, and excludes those products which may fall within the general scope definition, but for which Petitioners do not seek relief. In addition, Petitioners requested that the Department modify the scope of these investigations to exclude certain trademarked products in submissions dated October 5, 2007, October 12, 2007, October 24, 2007, and November 1, 2007. 6 However, we found that the proposed scope modification language, which would exclude only specifically registered trademarked products, would provide an improper scope for this investigation because its effect would be to exclude only products of the parties controlling those trademarks, while the same products without the specified trademarks would be included, creating a scope that is neither impartial nor reasonable. Furthermore, the trademark requirement may cause significant administrability problems for CBP should an antidumping duty order be issued. Therefore, on November 15, 2007, we determined it inappropriate to modify the scope of this investigation in accordance with Petitioners' request. *See* Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, AD/CVD Operations regarding “Certain Steel Nails from the PRC) and the UAE: Scope Modification Request” dated November 15, 2007. 6 Each submission contained a revised version of the proposed scope modification. On January 3, 2008, Hilti (China) Ltd. (“Hilti”), an interested party, requested that fasteners having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal to .5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools be excluded from the scope of this investigation. 7 On January 9, 2008, Petitioners filed a letter stating that they agree with Hilti's January 4, 2008, scope exclusion request. However, we received this request too late to consider for purposes of the preliminary determination, but will consider it for the final determination. 7 On January 8, 2008, Illinois Tool Works Inc. (“ITW”), an interested party, opposed the exclusion request filed by Hilti, arguing that it is the only U.S. producer of the product at issue. Respondent Selection On July 10, 2007, the Department requested quantity and value (“Q&V”) information from a total of 121 companies 8 that Petitioners identified as potential producers or exporters of nails from the PRC. Also, on July 10, 2007, the Department sent a letter requesting Q&V information to the China Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & Exports (“BOFT”) of the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) requesting that BOFT transmit the letter to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, or produce the subject merchandise for the companies who were engaged in exporting the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. 8 Petitioners identified 123 companies in the Petition. However, Qingdao D&L and Shanhgai Suntec were each listed twice with slightly different names, but the same address, thus, we treated each as a single company. Between July 25, 2007, and July 30, 2007, the Department received Q&V responses from 71 interested parties. 9 The Department did not receive any type of communication from BOFT regarding the request for Q&V information. *See* Respondent Selection Memorandum at 2. On July 25, 2007, Illinois Tool Works Inc. and Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Paslode”) submitted a letter requesting that it be selected as a mandatory respondent. On August 10, 2007, Petitioners submitted comments on the Q&V responses. On August 13, 2007, Paslode rebutted Petitioners' Q&V comments. On August 24, 2007, we rejected untimely Q&V responses from six companies. *See* August 24, 2007, letters from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Re: Quantity and Value Questionnaire Response for Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China Investigation: Rejection of Submission. On September 11, 2007, the Department selected Paslode and Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd, Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd., Yunfa International Resources In., Senco Products, Inc., and Omnifast Inc. (collectively “Xingya Group”) as mandatory respondents in this investigation (“Mandatory Respondents”). *See* Respondent Selection Memorandum at 5. 9 For a complete list of all parties from which the Department requested Q&V information, *see* Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Nicole Bankhead, Sr. International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated September 11, 2007, (“Respondent Selection Memorandum”). Separate Rates Applications Between August 6, 2007, and September 10, 2007, we received separate rate applications from 68 companies 10 (collectively, “SR Applicants”), including the mandatory respondents: Paslode and Xingya Group 11 . On October 23, 2007, the Department rejected the separate rate application of Hilti because it was untimely. *See* Letter from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Rejection of Separate Rate Application, Including Quantity and Value Data, dated October 23, 2007. We issued deficiency questionnaires to Sinochem Tianjin Import and Export (“Sinochem”) on December 3, 2007, and Guangdong Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation (“Guangong FT”) and Shouguang Meiqing (“Meiqing”) on December 27, 2007. 12 We received responses from Sinochem on December 5, 2007, Guangong FT on December 27, 2007, and Meiqing on January 3, 2008. 10 The Department did not receive a separate rate application from Beijing Prouded Metal Group Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu SOHO International Group Corporation withdrew its separate rate request on September 7, 2007. 11 This included Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd and Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd. 12 We also issued a deficiency questionnaire to Union Enterprise Co., Ltd. (“Union”) on December 7, 2007. However, upon further review we determined that Union is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise, and therefore the Department's deficiency questionnaire, which requested additional information on sections that wholly foreign-owned enterprises are not required to answer, was withdrawn on December 3, 2007. *See* Memorandum to: The File, From: Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst, Re: Separate Rate Application for Union Enterprise (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., dated December 4, 2007. On December 27, 2007, we sent all SR Applicants a letter requesting that companies that had submitted a separate rate application with the supplier name treated as business proprietary information (“BPI”) resubmit the names of their suppliers as public information. We received responses between December 31, 2007, and January 11, 2008 from the following companies: China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., Ltd., The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd., Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Shanghai Cuvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product. Co., Ltd., Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import and Export Co., Ltd., Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Group Co., Ltd., Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd., Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd., Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd., SDC International Australia Pty. Ltd., S-Mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd., Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd., PT Enterprise Inc., Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., Ltd., Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd., Tianjin Xiantong Material & Trade Co., Ltd., Qingdao D&L, and Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. 13 13 Hilti also submitted a letter stating that it was the supplier of the merchandise it exported to the United States. However, as noted above, we rejected Hilti's separate application as untimely. Additional companies also resubmitted the names of their suppliers, however, they previously reported as public and therefore we are not listing the companies that already submitted their supplier names publically. Product Characteristics and Questionnaires The Department requested comments from all interested parties on proposed product characteristics and model match criteria to be used in the designation of control numbers (“CONNUMs”) to be assigned to the subject merchandise in the *Initiation Notice.* On July 30, 2007, the Department received comments from Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products, Ltd. and its affiliated companies (“Shanxi Yuci”), Paslode, Stanley, and Petitioners. The Department also received rebuttal comments from Stanley, Shanxi Yuci, and Xingya Group on August 9, 2007. On September 11, 2007, the Department issued its sections A, C, D, and E, questionnaire with product characteristics and model match criteria used in the designation of CONNUMs and assigned to the merchandise under consideration to Paslode and Xingya Group. Between October 2, 2007, and January 4, 2008, the Department received section A, C, and D questionnaire responses from Paslode and Xingya Group. The Department also issued supplemental questionnaires to both companies and received responses during this time period. Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on the section C and D questionnaire responses of Paslode and Xingya Group between November 13, 2007 and December 6, 2007. On December 19, 2007, the Department requested that Xingya Group clarify the quantity and value it reported in its supplemental section C response filed on December 18, 2007. Xingya Group responded to this letter on December 28, 2007. Petitioners submitted additional deficiency comments and surrogate value rebuttals on January 2, 2008, pertaining to both Xingya Group and Paslode. On January 8, 2008, Paslode rebutted Petitioners' January 2, 2008, comments. Surrogate Country On September 19, 2007, the Department determined that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. *See* Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails (“nails”) from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated September 19, 2007 (“Surrogate Country List”). On September 27, 2007, the Department requested comments on the surrogate country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments on November 1, 2007 (“Petitioners’ Surrogate Country Letter”). No other interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, *see* “Surrogate Country” section below. Surrogate Value Comments On December 3, 2007, Petitioners, Xingya Group, and Paslode, submitted comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. On December 13, 2007, Petitioners, Xingya Group, and Paslode filed rebuttal comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of production in this proceeding. Between December 20, 2007, and January 8, 2008, both Paslode and Xingya Group submitted additional surrogate value comments. Critical Circumstances On November 7, 2007, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of nails from the PRC. On November 19, 2007, the Department issued questionnaires requesting data for monthly exports to the United States from January 2005 through October 2007 from Paslode and Xingya Group, and received responses on December 3, 2007. We also received comments regarding Petitioners critical circumstance allegations from Shanxi Yuci, Beijing Daruixing, Jinhai Hardware, and Certified Products International Inc. (“CPI”) and Stanley on November 19, 2007, and November 29, 2007, respectively. Paslode and Xingya Group submitted their responses on December 3, 2007. For a detailed discussion, *see* the “Critical Circumstances” section below. Targeted Dumping On December 11, 2007, Petitioners filed an allegation of targeted dumping by Paslode based on a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among regions. On December 13, 2007, Petitioners revised certain aspects of their allegation. On December 14, 2007, Petitioners filed an allegation of targeted dumping by Xingya Group based on a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among customers. Petitioners also submitted the programming code they used in their targeted dumping allegations on December 14, 2007. On December 20, 2007, Paslode submitted comments on Petitioners' targeted dumping allegation. On December 26, 2007, Xingya Group submitted comments on Petitioners' targeted dumping allegation. On December 31, 2007, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments to Paslode's targeted dumping comments. On January 3, 2008, Petitioners filed rebuttal comments to Xingya Group's December 26, 2007, comments. On January 9, 2008, Paslode submitted additional targeted dumping comments, which Petitioners responded to on January 10, 2008. Petitioners and Paslode submitted additional targeted dumping comments on January 14, 2008. See “Targeted Dumping” section below for further discussion. Postponement of Preliminary Determination On November 1, 2007, Petitioners made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination in the instant investigation, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. The Department extended the preliminary determination on November 5, 2007. *See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations,* 72 FR 63558 (November 9, 2007). Postponement of Final Determination On January 3, 2008, Xingya Group requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department:
(1)Postpone its final determination by 60 days in accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(2)(ii) and 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act; and
(2)extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4-month period to a 6-month period. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, May 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot-dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel nails subject to this proceeding are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75. Excluded from the scope of this proceeding are roofing nails of all lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.10.00. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are certain brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. 14 14 *See* “Scope Comments” section below for further discussion. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. Non-Market-Economy Country For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as a non-market economy (“NME”). *See Initiation Notice,* 72 FR at 38820. The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. See, * e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, * 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China* , 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination. Surrogate Country When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOP”) valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under the normal value section below. The Department's practice is explained in *Policy Bulletin 04.1,* 15 which states that “Per capita GNI 16 is the primary basis for determining economic comparability.” The Department considers the five countries identified in its Surrogate Country List as “equally comparable in terms of economic development.” *Id.* Thus, we find that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and Philippines are all at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of the PRC. 15 *See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,* (March 1, 2004), (“Policy Bulletin 04.1”) available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* 16 GNI stands for gross national income, which comprises GDP plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and property income) from nonresident sources. *See, e.g.,* *http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm.* Second, *Policy Bulletin 04.1* provides some guidance on identifying comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable merchandise. Based on the data provided by Petitioners, we find that India is a producer of comparable merchandise. *See* Petitioners' Surrogate Country Letter at 6. Petitioners provided a list of Indian steel nail companies that produce nails of varying complexity, *i.e.* , collated nails, etc. *Id.* Additionally, the Department obtained worldwide export data for nails. Because the Department was unable to find production data, we are relying on export data as a substitute for overall production data in this case. Of the five countries listed in the Surrogate Country List, only two countries, India and Indonesia, are exporters of nails. *Id.* Consequently, at this time, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Egypt are not being considered as appropriate surrogate countries for the PRC because they are not exporters of nails. Moreover, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Specifically, during 2006 United States imports of comparable merchandise from India were 560,043 pounds versus 80,935 pounds from Indonesia. As noted above, the Department only received surrogate country comments from Petitioners. The Department is preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate country on the basis that:
(1)It is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act;
(2)it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and
(3)we have reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. Thus, we have calculated normal value using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Paslode's and Xingya Group's factors of production. *See* Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination, dated January 15, 2008 (“Surrogate Value Memorandum”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value the factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. 17 17 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). *See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part,* 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Affiliations We preliminarily find that the Xingya Group, comprised of Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd., Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd., Wuxi Chengye Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Hong Kong Yu Xi Limited, to be affiliated parties within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act, due to common ownership, shared management, and familial connections. *See* Xingya Group August 20, 2007, supplemental Q&V response at 2-3 and Exhibit 1 (“Xingya Group Supplemental Q&V Response”), and its November 13, 2007, supplemental Section A response at 7-8 and Exhibit 8 (“Xingya Group November Response”). Furthermore, we find that they should be considered as a single entity for purposes of this investigation. *See generally* 19 CFR 401(f). In addition to being affiliated, we find that a significant potential for manipulation of price exists. *See* 19 CFR 401(f)(2). Specifically, there exists a level of common ownership, shared management, and an intertwining of business operations. *See* Xingya Group Supplemental Q&V Response at 2-3 and Exhibit 1 and Xingya Group November Response at 7-8 and Exhibit 8. Additionally, based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and presented in Paslode's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Paslode Shanghai is affiliated with its U.S. customer ITW pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act because of cross-ownership. *See* Paslode September 7, 2007, Separate Rate Application at Attachment 3. We note that no party has to date objected to these affiliation and collapsing decisions. Separate Rates Additionally, in the *Initiation Notice,* the Department notified parties of the recent application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. *See Initiation Notice,* 72 FR at 38821. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. *See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,* (April 5, 2005), (“ *Policy Bulletin 05.1* ”) available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* 18 However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over its export activities) has not changed. 18 The *Policy Bulletin 05.1,* states: “{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applied both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.” *See Policy Bulletin 05.1* at 6. In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. As discussed fully below, Paslode and Xingya Group, and all but one of the SR Applicants have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of *de jure* and *de facto* government control, and therefore satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate. 19 19 All separate rate applicants receiving a separate rate are hereby referred to collectively as the “SR Recipients.” We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,* 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value,* 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,* 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“ *Sparklers* ”), as further developed in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,* 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. Additionally, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. Wholly Foreign-Owned In its separate-rate application, Paslode reported that it is wholly foreign-owned. Paslode explained that it is ultimately owned by ITW, which is located in the United States. Additionally, 23 separate rate companies reported that they are wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy in their separate-rate applications (collectively “Foreign-owned SR Applicants”). *See* “PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION” section below for companies marked with a “‸” designating companies as wholly foreign-owned. Therefore, because there is no PRC ownership of Paslode and the above-mentioned separate rate companies, *i.e.* they are wholly foreign-owned, and we have no evidence indicating that they are under the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether these companies are independent from government control. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China,* 64 FR 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate rate to Paslode and the Foreign-owned SR Applicants. Located in a Market Economy Four of the responding exporters in this investigation are located outside the PRC (collectively “Foreign SR Applicants”). *See* “PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION” section below for companies marked with a “+” designating companies as located in a market economy. Further, there is no PRC ownership in any of these companies. Therefore, we determine that no separate rates analysis is required for these exporters because they are beyond the jurisdiction of the PRC government. ( *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China,* 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996) citing *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Disposable Pocket Lighters from the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 22359, 22361 (May 5, 1995)). Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese-Owned Companies Certain companies stated that they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned companies (collectively “PRC SR Applicants”). *See* “PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION” section below for companies marked with a “*” designating companies as joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. 1. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:
(1)An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3)other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See Sparklers,* 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Xingya Group and the PRC SR Recipients supports a preliminary finding of *de jure* absence of governmental control based on the following:
(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporters' business and export licenses;
(2)there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and
(3)and there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. *See, e.g.* , Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd. September 10, 2007, Separate Rate Application (“Suzhou Xingya SRA”). 2. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* governmental control of its export functions:
(1)Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency;
(2)whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and
(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. *See Silicon Carbide,* 59 FR at 22586-87; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China,* 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. We determine that, for Xingya Group and the PRC SR Recipients, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of *de facto* absence of governmental control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing the following:
(1)Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3)each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4)each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. *See* Suzhou Xingya SRA. Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Xingya Group 20 and the PRC SR Recipients demonstrate an absence of *de jure* and *de facto* government control with respect to each of the exporters' exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in *Sparklers* and *Silicon Carbide.* As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we have granted a separate company-specific rate to Xingya Group. Additionally, we have granted all SR Applicants, except as identified below, a weighted-average margin, for the purposes of this preliminary determination. Finally, and as discussed previously, we granted Paslode a separate company-specific rate because it is wholly foreign-owned. 20 Some companies within Xingya Group submitted a timely separate application, however, because these companies are considered part of Xingya Group single entity we did not consider their separate rate status on an individual basis. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate The Department is not granting a separate rate to Tianjin Certified Products Inc. (“TCPI”) because it was not created nor did it export during the POI. Therefore, in accordance with Department practice, TCPI is not eligible for a separate rate. The PRC-Wide Entity 21 21 This includes the following six companies whose Q&V the Department rejected: Tianjin Master Fastener Co., Ltd., Wuxi Baolin Nail Enterprises, Zhejiang Jinhua Friendship Industry Co., Ltd., Tianjin Ever Win Metal Products Co., Ltd., Tianjin Jetcom Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shanghai Shengxiang Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd. and Hilti, whose untimely separate rate application was rejected. It also includes the two companies that the Department received Q&V responses for but did not receive separate rate applications. The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of nails from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information during the POI. *See Respondent Selection Memorandum.* We issued our request for Q&V information to 121 potential Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to BOFT and MOFCOM. 22 We received 72 23 Q&V responses filed by the July 30, 2007, deadline. *See Respondent Selection Memorandum* at 2. We did not receive Q&V responses from 71 of the companies to which we sent our request for Q&V information. However, out of the 71 companies that did not submit Q&V responses, 11 companies did not receive our Q&V questionnaire. *See* Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, senior trade analyst, Re: Companies Unresponsive to the Department's Request for Quantity and Value data for the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated January 15, 2008. Therefore, we are not including the companies that did not receive our Q&V questionnaires in our analysis. Furthermore, we note that there was no additional information on the record to allow for the Department to contact these entities. 24 22 For a list of companies to which the Department sent its request for Q&V information, *see* Respondent Selection Memorandum at Attachment 1. 23 The Department inadvertently included Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd (“Jinhai”) as a company that did not respond to the Department's Q&V response in the Respondent Selection Memo; Jinhai submitted a timely Q&V response. 24 Two companies also stated that they did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POI and thus are preliminarily not subject to any further analysis in this investigation. Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject merchandise from the PRC, the companies which responded to the Q&V questionnaire, the SR Recipients, Paslode, and Xingya Group, do not account for all imports into the United States. Although all exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that there were PRC exporters of the subject merchandise during the POI that received the Department's Q&V request and did not respond to the Department's request for information. We have treated these PRC exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A)withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B)fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and
(e)of the Act,
(C)significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or
(D)provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond to our request for Q&V information and did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, and, as previously noted, the Government of the PRC received our questionnaire and did not respond. *See* Respondent Selection Memorandum at Attachment II for a full list of non-responsive companies. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. *See also* Statement of Administration Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 Vol. I at 869-70
(1994)*reprinted in* 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99 ( *“SAA”* ); *Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,* 68 FR 4986, 4991 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,* 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. *see also SAA* at 870, 19 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199; *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation,* 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate. Further, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (“AFA”) information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan,* 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the
(a)highest margin alleged in the petition, or
(b)the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China,* 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at “Facts Available.” In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a margin based on information in the petition, because the margin derived from the petition is higher than the calculated margins for the selected respondents. In this case, we have applied the petition rate of 118.04 percent. Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. 25 It is the Department's practice also to consider independent sources such as published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See SAA* at 870, 19 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199. 25 Secondary information is described in the *SAA* as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See SAA* at 870. To “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See SAA* at 870, 19 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199. As noted in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews,* 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan,* 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 2005), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and normal value in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. *See Initiation Notice,* 72 FR at 38820. To corroborate the AFA margin selected, we compared the U.S. price and normal values from the petition to the U.S. price and normal values for the Xingya Group. *See* Memorandum to the File from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel nails from the People's Republic of China: Xingya Group, dated January 15, 2008 (“Xingya Group Analysis Memorandum”). For the reasons discussed therein, we find that the rate of 118.04 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. Consequently, we are applying 118.04 percent as the single antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from Paslode, Xingya Group, and the SR Recipients. Margin for the Separate Rate Applicants The Department received timely and complete separate rates applications from the Separate Rates Applicants, who are all exporters of nails from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, these companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above. Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have established a weighted-average margin for the Separate Rates Applicants based on the rates we calculated for Paslode and Xingya Group. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Date of Sale Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, “{i}n identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business.” However, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. *See* 19 CFR 351.401(i); *see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.* v. *United States,* 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (“ *Allied Tube* ”). The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. In *Allied Tube,* the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) noted that a “party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to satisfy the Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.” *Allied Tube* 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (citations omitted). In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both the respondent and the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some other date. In other words, the date of the invoice is the presumptive date of sale, although this presumption may be overcome. For instance, in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan,* 61 FR 14064, 14067 (March 29, 1996), the Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were established at that point. After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation that Paslode and Xingya Group placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for all Paslode sales and for all CEP sales made by Xingya Group. For the Xingya Group's EP sales, where shipment date preceded invoice date, we used shipment date as the date of sale. For EP sales where shipment date was the same as or after the invoice date, we used the invoice date as the date of sale. *See* Xingya Group October 23, 2007, Section C questionnaire response at 11. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of nails to the United States by Paslode and Xingya Group were made at less than fair value, we compared the export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”), as appropriate, to normal value (“NV”), as described in the “U.S. Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. U.S. Price A. EP For Xingya Group, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. price for certain sales on EP because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by deducting, where applicable, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and rebates from the gross unit price. We based these movement expenses on surrogate values where a PRC company provided the service and was paid in Renminbi (“RMB”) ( *see* “Factors of Production” section below for further discussion). For details regarding our EP calculation, *see* Xingya Group Analysis Memorandum. B. CEP In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. price for certain sales on CEP because these sales were made by Paslode's and Xingya Group's U.S. affiliates. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: Marine insurance, discounts, rebates, billing adjustments, foreign movement expenses, and international freight, and United States movement expenses, including brokerage and handling. Further, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price the following selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States: Credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, and indirect selling expenses. In addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based movement expenses on either surrogate values, actual expenses, or an average of the two as explained above in the “EP” section of this notice. For details regarding our CEP calculations, *see* Memorandum to the File from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Paslode, dated January 15, 2008 (“Paslode Analysis Memorandum”); Xingya Group Analysis Memorandum. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. Factor Valuation Methodology In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP data reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in *Sigma Corp.* v. *United States,* 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the Surrogate Value Memorandum and company-specific analysis memoranda. Additionally, for detailed descriptions of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, see the company-specific analysis memoranda dated January 15, 2008. *See* Paslode Analysis Memorandum; Xingya Group Analysis Memorandum. For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,* 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,* 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as that from the other Indian sources, represent data that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China,* 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 ( *“CTVs from the PRC”* ). Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. *See* H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The People's Republic of China,* 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Paslode and Xingya Group used to produce the subject merchandise during the POI, except where listed below. For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html.* The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. *See* Surrogate Value Memorandum. To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the audited financial statements from Lakshmi Precision Screws' 2006-2007 Annual Report. While this company produces comparable rather than identical merchandise, it uses an integrated wire-drawing production process with steel wire rod as the main input, which closely mirrors that of the mandatory respondents. Lakshmi therefore possesses a more similar cost structure than that of a company which produces merchandise from higher value steel wire that does not undergo the wire-drawing stage. To value low and medium carbon steel wire rod, we used price data fully contemporaneous with the POI for 6mm and 8mm steel wire rod available on the Web site of the Indian Joint Plant Committee (“JPC”). The JPC is a joint industry/government board that monitors Indian steel prices. These data are publicly available, specific to the input in question, represent a broad market average, and are tax-exclusive. *See* 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). For a detailed discussion of all surrogate values used for this preliminary determination, see Surrogate Values Memorandum. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Critical Circumstances On November 7, 2007, Petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of nails from the PRC. On December 3, 2007, Paslode and Xingya Group submitted information on their exports of nails from January 2005 through September 2007 as requested by the Department (collectively, “mandatory respondents”) (see mandatory respondents” December 3, 2007 Critical Circumstances Questionnaire responses (“CCQR”)). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because Petitioners submitted critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations not later than the date of the preliminary determination. Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or
(ii)the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and
(B)there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” the Department normally will examine:
(i)The volume and value of the imports;
(ii)seasonal trends; and
(iii)the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during the “relatively short period” of time may be considered “massive.” Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins ( *i.e.* , the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later ( *i.e.* , the comparison period). The comparison period is normally compared to the three months prior to the filing of the petition ( *i.e.* , the base period). *Id* . The regulations also provide, however, that if the Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, the Department may establish the base and comparison periods based on the earlier date. *Id* . In determining whether the above statutory criteria have been satisfied, we examined:
(1)The evidence presented in Petitioners' November 7, 2007, submission;
(2)new evidence obtained since the initiation of the LTFV investigation ( *i.e.* , additional import statistics released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection); and
(3)additional information obtained from Xingya and Paslode ( *see* CCQR). In accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, to determine whether importers of nails from the PRC knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, the Department must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the preliminary antidumping duty determination and the ITC preliminary injury determination. The Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price EP sales and 15 percent or more for CEP sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of sales at LTFV. *See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances* , 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 2002) unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany* , 67 FR 55802 (August 30, 2002). In this preliminary determination, Xingya Group has a margin of 44.57 percent and Paslode has a margin of 20.77 percent. The SR Recipients, which have preliminarily received a separate rate, have a margin of 29.36 percent, based on a weighted-average of the margins of the Mandatory Respondents. The PRC-wide entity has a margin of 118.04. We find that the antidumping duty preliminary margins for Xingya Group, Paslode, the SR Recipients, and the PRC-wide entity support a finding that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of sales at LTFV of nails from the PRC from these respondents. In determining whether to find that an importer knew or should have known that there would be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that there would be material injury by reason of dumped imports. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan* , 64 FR 30574, 30578 (June 8, 1999). On July 31, 2007, the ITC issued its preliminary affirmative injury determination for nails from the PRC. *See ITC Preliminary Determination* . As a result, the Department has determined that importers knew or should have known that there would be material injury by reason of dumped imports of subject merchandise from Japan. In accordance with section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department must determine whether there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h), we will not consider imports to be massive unless imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent over imports in the base period. As discussed above, the Department normally determines the comparison period for massive imports based on the filing date of the petition. Based on the May 29, 2007, filing date, we have determined that June 2007 is the month in which importers, exporters or producers knew or should have known an antidumping duty investigation was likely. It is our practice to base the critical circumstances analysis on all available data, using base and comparison periods of no less than three months. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India* , 69 FR 47111 (Aug. 4, 2004) unchanged in the final determination, ( *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India,* 69 FR 76916 (December 23, 2004)); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 20594 (Apr. 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. We believe that a five-month period is most appropriate as the basis for our critical circumstances analysis because using five months capture all data available at this time, based on June 2007 as the beginning of the comparison period. Additionally, a five-month period properly reflects the “relatively short period” set forth in the statute for determining whether imports have been massive. *See* 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, in applying the five-month period, we used a comparison period of January 2007, to May 2007, and a base period of June 2007, to October 2007. Mandatory Respondents The Department used the shipment data of Paslode and Xingya Group to examine the relevant comparison period of five months before June 2007 and five months following that period. When we compared Xingya Group's import data during the base period with the comparison period, it had an increased volume of exports over the base period of greater than 15 percent and consequently, we find their imports to be massive. *See* Memorandum to the File from Paul Walker, Senior Case Analyst: Critical Circumstances Data for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China, dated January 15, 2008, at Attachment II (“CC MTF”) for the exact percentage changes. Additionally, when we compared Paslode's import data during the base period with the comparison period, it did not have an increased volume of exports over the base period of greater than 15 percent and consequently, we find their exports not to be massive. SR Recipients For the SR Recipients, we did not request the monthly shipment information necessary to determine if there were massive imports. As the basis to measure whether massive imports existed for purposes of critical circumstances, we relied on the experience of the Mandatory Respondents receiving a separate rate. When we compared the weight-averaged import data during the base period with the comparison period from the Mandatory Respondents, we found that the weight-averaged volume of imports of nails for the SR Recipients did not increase 15 percent over the base period. *See* CC MTF at Attachment II for the exact percentage changes. PRC Entity Because the PRC entity failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, we were unable to obtain shipment data from the PRC entity for purposes of our critical circumstances analysis, and there is no information on the record with respect to its export volumes. We relied on the ITC Dataweb site ( *http://databweb.usitc.gov* ) to determine whether there were imports of nails from the PRC during the base and the comparison periods not accounted for in the shipment data for the Mandatory Respondents. *See* CC MTF at Attachment I. We found that there were such imports and we were able to rely on such data to quantify the imports attributed to the PRC-wide entity because the HTSUS article codes covering imported nails from China contain mostly data for subject merchandise, allowing us to segregate the Mandatory Respondents' data from the China-wide import data. We have deducted the Mandatory Respondents' data from the China-wide import data as to avoid possible double-counting. When we compared the PRC-wide entity import data during the adjusted base period with the adjusted comparison period, we found that the volume of imports of nails for the PRC-wide entity during the comparison period was greater than 15 percent over the base period. *See* CC MTF at Attachment II. Consequently, we find that the PRC-wide entity did have an increased volume of exports over the base period of greater than 15 percent, and therefore, we find their imports to be massive. In accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department preliminarily determines that importers knew or should have known that the PRC entity was selling nails at LTFV because the PRC entity's preliminary dumping margin was greater than 15 percent. See Xingya Group Analysis Memo. In addition, as a result of the ITC's affirmative preliminary determination in the instant LTFV investigation, the Department preliminarily finds there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, consistent with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. *See ITC Preliminary Determination* . As discussed above, the volume of imports of nails from the PRC-wide entity was massive within the meaning of section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. The volumes of imports of nails for Xingya Group was above 15 percent, and were thus massive within the meaning of 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. However, for Paslode and the SR Recipients, the volume of imports was below 15 percent, and were thus not massive within the meaning of section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. As a result, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for the PRC-wide entity and Xingya Group, but do not exist for imports of nails from Paslode and the SR Recipients. We will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances for all producers/exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC when we make our final dumping determination in this investigation, which is currently 135 days after the preliminary determination. Targeted Dumping Based on our examination of the targeted dumping allegations filed by Petitioners on December 10, 2007, December 14, 2007, 26 and consideration of the rebuttal comments submitted by Paslodes and the Xingya Group, we have determined that the allegations indicate that there is a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differs significantly. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea* , 72 FR 60630 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1-8. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination, we have preliminarily accepted the Petitioner's allegation that Paslode targeted certain regions and Xingya targeted certain customers during the POI. 27 *See* Memorandum To The File from Alex Villanueva, Program Manager To James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China—Preliminary Analysis on Targeting,” dated January 15, 2008. 26 On January 10, 2008, Petitioners provided an almost identical targeted dumping allegation with the exception of converting the export price from kilograms to a per-carton basis. 27 The Department made certain adjustments to Petitioner's allegations. *See Id* . We note, however, that the Department is in the process of re-assessing the framework and standards for both targeted dumping allegations and targeted dumping analyses. Accordingly, we intend to develop a new framework in the context of this proceeding and to apply it in time for parties to have an opportunity to comment before the final determination. In formulating this new methodology the Department requests comments by February 15, 2008, regarding certain principles:
(1)Whether it is appropriate to collapse into one test the assessment of patterns of low prices and of significant price differentials;
(2)if so, whether the test for a pattern of low prices ought to be established on the basis of a simple comparison of the average price to the alleged target with an average non-targeted price; and
(3)whether any test for a significant price difference ought to simply be based on an absolute, bright-line threshold or whether it should account for other aspects of the non-targeted group's data. In preliminarily accepting the allegation of targeted dumping, we find that the price differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-average comparison methodology for targeted sales because that methodology, by averaging the high prices with the low prices, has the effect of masking the extent of sales at LTFV. *See* section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, we used the average-to-transaction methodology for these sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(f)(1). When calculating the weighted-average margin for Paslode and Xingya Group, we combined the margin calculated for the targeted sales using the average-to-transaction methodology with the margin calculated for the non-targeted sales using the average-to-average methodology. In combining the margins for the targeted and non-targeted U.S. sales databases, we have not offset any margins found among the targeted U.S. sales. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information upon which we will rely in making our final determination. Combination Rates In the *Initiation Notice* , the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. *See Initiation Notice* , 72 FR 38821, 38822. This change in practice is described in *Policy Bulletin 05.1* , available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/* . The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: 28 28 Companies designated with a “^” are wholly foreign owned, “ + ” are located in a market economy, and a “*” are joint-venture companies between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese owned, as explained above in the “SEPARATE RATES” section. Certain Steel Nails From the PRC 28 Exporter Producer Weighted- average margin (percent) Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.^ Paslode Fasteners (Shanghai) Co., Ltd 20.77 Xingya Group:* Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd 44.57 Senco-xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd Senco-xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd. Hong Kong Yu Xi Co., Ltd Wuxi Chengye Metal Products Co., Ltd. Jisco Corporation^ Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd 29.36 Koram Panagene Co., Ltd.^ Qingdao Koram Steel Co., Ltd 29.36 Handuk Industrial Co., Ltd.^ Rizhao Handuk Fasteners Co., Ltd.; Rizhao Changxing Nail-making Co., Ltd 29.36 Kyung Dong Corp.* Rizhao Qingdong Electric Appliance Co., Ltd 29.36 Xi'an Metals & Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd.* Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.* Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Beijing Hongshen Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Huasheng Nailery Co., Ltd 29.36 Chongqing Hybest Tools Group Co., Ltd.* Chongqing Hybest Nailery Co., Ltd 29.36 China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., Ltd.* Maanshan Longer Nail Product Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Qiangye Metalwork Production Co., Ltd 29.36 Beijing Daruixing Global Trading* Beijing Tri-metal Co., Ltd.; Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Kunxin Hardware Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Hewang Nail Making Factory 29.36 Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co.* Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co 29.36 Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd.* Beijing Tri-metal Co., Ltd.; Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Beijing Tri-metal Co., Ltd.* Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Inc., Co., Ltd.^ Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Inc., Co., Ltd. 29.36 China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. ^ ChinaStaple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd 29.36 Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co, Ltd.^ Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co, Ltd 29.36 Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd.^ Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd. 29.36 Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd.^ Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd. 29.36 Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.^ Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd 29.36 Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.* Qingyun Hongyi Hardware Factory 29.36 Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry and Business Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry and Business Co., Ltd 29.36 Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Zhejiang Gem-chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd.^ Zhejiang Gem-chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd 29.36 Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.^ Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., Ltd.^ Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., Ltd 29.36 SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd.^ S-mart Tianjin Technology Development Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd. Tianjin Baisheng Metal Product Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Foreign Trade (Group) Textile & Garment Co., Ltd.; Dagang Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Tianjin Universal Imp & Exp Corporation* Huanghua Shenghua Hardware Manufactory Factory; Tianjin Dagang Dongfu Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nail Factory; Tianjin Dagang Linda Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Yate Nail Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jieli Hengyuan Metallic Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Shishun Metallic Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Yihao Metallic Products Co., Ltd. Tianjin Yongcang Metallic Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Certified Products International Inc.+ Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong Intnl. Industry & Trade Corp. Shangdong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd.; Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Yitian (Nanjing) Hardware Co., Ltd.; Nanjing Da Yu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd.; Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan; Tianjin Chentai International Trading Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Longxing (Group) Huanyu Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Gem-chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Pioneer Handware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Zhitong Metal Products; Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jinghai Country Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd.; Hebei Super Star Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Chengye Metal Producting Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Shenyuan Steel Producting Group Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd 29.36 Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Bosai Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; Beijing Yonghongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Qingyuan County Hongyi Hardware Products Factory; Tianjin Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails Factory 29.36 Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., Ltd.* Dingzhou Ruili Nail Production Co., Ltd.; Haixing Hongda Hardware Production Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Xinda Nail Production Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huachang Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huapeng Metal Company; Tianjin Huasheng Nails Production Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jin Gang Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Kunxin Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Linda Metal Company; Tianjin Xinyaunsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongyi Standard Parts Production Co., Ltd.; Wuqiao Huifeng Hardware Production Co., Ltd. 29.36 Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.* Wuqiao County Huifeng Hardware Products Factory; Wuqiao County Xinchuang Hardware Products Factory; Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Haixin Linhai Hardware Products Factory; Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin City Dagang Area Jinding Metal Products Factory; Tianjin Jishili Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jietong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Ruiji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Baolin Nail-making Machinery Co., Ltd.; Suzhou Xinya Nail Co., Ltd 29.36 Sinochem Tianjin Imp & Exp Shenzhen Corp.* Tianjin Jlhy Metal Products Co., Ltd. 29.36 Qingdao D&L Group Ltd.* Tianjin City Daman Port Area Jinding Metal Products Factory; Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Dong'e Fuqiang Metal Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Tianjin Xiantong Material & Trade Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Xiantong Fucheng Gun Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd 29.36 Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd. + Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd 29.36 Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.* Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd 29.36 Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd.^ Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd 29.36 S-mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd.^ Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Baisheng Metal Product Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nail Factory; Tianjin Shishun Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Xinyuansheng Metal Product Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongchang Metal Product Co., Ltd 29.36 Tianjin Liande Group Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails Manufacture Plant; Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nails Manufacture Plant; Tianjin Dagang Longhua Nails Manufacture Plant; Tianjin Dagang Shenda Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jietong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianin Qichuan Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiagang Longxiang Packing Materials Co., Ltd 29.36 Union Enterprise Co., Ltd.^ Union Enterprise Co., Ltd 29.36 Beijing Hong Sheng Metal Co., Ltd.* Beijing Hong Sheng Metal Co., Ltd 29.36 PT Enterprise Inc.+ Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd.* Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.* Shanxi Pioneer Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd 29.36 Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.* Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd.^ Yitian Nanjinghardware Co., Ltd 29.36 Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp. + Cym (Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd 29.36 Shanghai Seti Enterprise International Co., Ltd.* Suzhou Yaotian Metal Products Co. Ltd 29.36 Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd.^ Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd 29.36 Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.* Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd.^ Xuzhou Cip International Group Co., Ltd 29.36 Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd.* Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd 29.36 Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd.* Wuhu Xin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd 29.36 Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.* Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd 29.36 Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.* Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd.* Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd 29.36 Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Group Co., Ltd.* Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Group Co., Ltd 29.36 Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import and Import Co., Ltd.* Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Import and Import Co., Ltd 29.36 Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product. Co., Ltd.^ Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product. Co., Ltd 29.36 Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.^ Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd 29.36 Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.* Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd 29.36 Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. + Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 29.36 The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd.^ The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd 29.36 Guangdong Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation* Shanghai Nanhui Jinjun Handware Factory 29.36 PRC-wide 118.04 Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of nails from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Paslode and the SR Recipients on or after the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. For Xingya Group and the PRC-wide entity, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of any entries of nails from the PRC as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of our preliminary determination. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of nails, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination. Public Comment Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date of the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs ( *see* 351.309(d)). A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, and if requested, we will hold a public hearing, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing shortly after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on January 3, 2008, Xingya Group requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. At the same time, Xingya Group requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4-month period to a 6-month period. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), because
(1)our preliminary determination is affirmative,
(2)the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and
(3)no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting the request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 15, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-1106 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-815] Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from United States Steel Corporation, petitioner (“U.S. Steel”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“CORE”) from Germany. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007). This administrative review covers the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. We are now rescinding this review due to a request by U.S. Steel to rescind the review. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0195 or
(202)482-3019, respectively. Background The Department published an antidumping duty order on CORE from Germany on August 19, 1993. *See Antidumping Duty Orders and Amendments to Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany* , 58 FR 44170 (August 19, 1993). The Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order for the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007, on August 2, 2007. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 72 FR 42383 (August 2, 2007). U.S. Steel requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales of merchandise covered by the order by ThyssenKrupp Steel AG (“ThyssenKrupp”) on August 31, 2007. In response to the request from U.S. Steel, the Department published the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review on CORE from Germany on September 25, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007). The Department issued a questionnaire to ThyssenKrupp on October 19, 2007. The Department received responses from ThyssenKrupp on December 3, 2007, and December 18, 2007. U.S. Steel withdrew its request for review with respect to ThyssenKrupp on December 26, 2007. Rescission of the Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary decides that it is reasonable to do so. *See* 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). U.S. Steel's request is timely, as 90 days fell on December 24, 2007, which was a holiday. As December 25, 2007, was also a holiday, U.S. Steel could not have submitted a request to rescind the review until the first business day after the holidays, or December 26, 2007. Additionally, no party has objected to the termination of the review. Therefore, the Department determines that the continuation of the administrative review is not necessary. In response to U.S. Steel's withdrawal of its request for administrative reviews pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department hereby rescinds the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CORE from Germany for the period August 1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this rescission of administrative review. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: January 15, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-1101 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review from Artalex Global. SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application for an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification is sought and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five
(5)copies, plus two
(2)copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021-B H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 08-00001.” A summary of the application follows. Summary of the Application *Applicant:* Artalex Global (“ARGLO”), 6632 Meadow Fawn Drive, Converse, Texas 78109. *Contact:* Gregory A. Agho, President/CEO, Telephone:
(210)384-9494. *Application No.:* 08-00001. *Date Deemed Submitted:* January 14, 2008. *Members (in addition to applicant):* None. ARGLO seeks a Certificate to cover the following specific Export Trade, Export Markets, and Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations. Export Trade 1. *Products* All Products. 2. *Services* All Services. 3. *Technology Rights* Technology rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets that relate to Products and Services. 4. *Export Trade Facilitation Services (as they Relate to the Export of Products, Services and Technology Rights)* Export Trade Facilitation Services, including, but not limited to, professional services in the areas of government relations and assistance with state and federal programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; shipping; export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services; and facilitating the formation of shippers' associations. Export Markets The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands). Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation 1. With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights and provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services, ARGLO may: a. Provide and/or arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services; b. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Markets and distribute such information to clients; c. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights to Export Markets; d. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive arrangements with distributors and/or sales representatives in Export Markets; e. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights; f. Allocate export orders among Suppliers; g. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sales and/or licensing in Export Markets; h. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights; and i. Enter into contracts for shipping of Products to Export Markets. 2. ARGLO may exchange information on a one-to-one basis with individual Suppliers regarding that Supplier's inventories and near-term production schedules for the purpose of determining the availability of Products for export and coordinating export with distributors. Dated: January 16, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-1114 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 85-14A18] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an Amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to U.S. Shippers Association. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”) to the U.S. Shippers Association (“USSA”) on January 16, 2008. USSA's application to amend its Certificate was announced in the **Federal Register** on October 25, 2007 (72 FR 60648). The original Certificate No. 85-00018 was issued to USSA on June 3, 1986, and announced in the **Federal Register** on June 9, 1986 (51 FR 20873). The previous amendment (No. 85-13A018) was issued to USSA on November 27, 2007, and announced in the **Federal Register** December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68128). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at
(202)482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at *oetca@ita.doc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (2006). Export Trading Company Affairs is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the **Federal Register** . Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous. Description of Amended Certificate USSA's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to: Add the following company as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Cook Composites and Polymers Co., North Kansas City, Missouri (controlling entity: TOTAL Holdings USA, Inc., Houston Texas). The effective date of the amended certificate is October 18, 2007, the date on which USSA's application to amend was deemed submitted. A copy of the amended Certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4001, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: January 17, 2008. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E8-1122 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; *telephone:*
(202)482-3207. Background On August 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) issued the preliminary results of this administrative review. *See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 53527 (September 19, 2007) (“ *Preliminary Results* ”). The final results are currently due on January 17, 2008. Extension of Time Limits for Final Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), and 19 CFR 351.211(b)(5) require the Department to issue the final results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the final results of an administrative review to 180 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. *See* section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the final results in the administrative review of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam within this time limit. Specifically, the Department needs additional time to consider Respondent East Sea Foods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.'s responses. Additionally, the Department is extending the deadline for the final results to accommodate parties' public hearing requests so parties may address all issues. For the reasons noted above, we are extending the time for the completion of the final results of this review by 60 days to March 17, 2008. This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations. Dated: January 15, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-1107 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-520-802] Certain Steel Nails From the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that certain steel nails (nails) from the United Arab Emirates
(UAE)are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination within 135 days after the date of this preliminary determination. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Kate Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; *telephone:*
(202)482-4136 or
(202)482-4929, respectively. Background Since the initiation of this investigation ( *see Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 72 FR 38816 (July 16, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* )), the following events have occurred. On July 30, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC)preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of nails from the UAE are materially injuring the United States industry. *See* ITC Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1114-1115 (Publication No. 3939). On August 24, 2007, we selected Dubai Wire FZE (DW), the largest producer/exporter of nails from the UAE, as the mandatory respondent in this proceeding. *See* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director Office 2, from David Goldberger and Kate Johnson, Senior International Trade Compliance Analysts, regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates—Selection of Respondents,” dated August 24, 2007. We subsequently issued the antidumping questionnaire to DW and its affiliate Global Fasteners Ltd.
(GFL)on August 27, 2007. DW submitted its Section A and C questionnaire responses on October 9, 2007, and October 18, 2007, respectively. We received a response to Section D of the questionnaire on October 25, 2007. We issued and received responses to our supplemental questionnaires from December 2007 through January 2008. On October 26, 2007, the petitioners 1 filed a targeted dumping allegation against DW under section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The Department requested additional information from the petitioners with respect to their targeted dumping allegation on November 30, 2007. The petitioners responded to this request on December 10, 2007. DW submitted comments to dispute the allegation on December 20, 2007. *See* “Targeted Dumping” section below for further discussion. 1 The petitioners are Mid Continent Nail Corporation, Davis Wire Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (Atlas Steel & Wire Division), Maze Nails (Division of W.H. Maze Company), and Treasure Coast Fasteners, Inc. and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. On November 1, 2007, pursuant to sections 733(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f), the petitioners requested that the Department postpone the preliminary determination due to the complexities of the investigation and the required analysis for it, and because the Department was still involved in gathering initial data from the respondent at that time. *See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations* , 72 FR 63558 (November 9, 2007). On December 20, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments for the Department's consideration in the preliminary determination. Postponement of Final Determination Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or, in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 27, 2007, DW requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the **Federal Register** , and extend the provisional measures to not more than six months. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because
(1)our preliminary determination is affirmative,
(2)the respondent accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and
(3)no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting the respondent's request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)is April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition ( *i.e.* , May 2007). Scope of Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain steel nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by electroplating or hot-dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel nails subject to this proceeding are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75. Excluded from the scope of this proceeding are roofing nails of all lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.10.00. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are certain brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. 2 2 *See* “Scope Comments” section below for further discussion. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Scope Comments In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the *Initiation Notice. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) and *Initiation Notice* at 72 FR 38817. In this investigation, and the concurrent investigation of nails from the People's Republic of China (PRC), we received three scope exclusion requests during the period July 2007 through January 2008. On July 30, 2007, 3 Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (Stanley), an interested party in this proceeding, requested that banded brads and finish nails imported with a “nailer kit” or “combo kit” 4 as a single package be excluded from this investigation as being outside the “class or kind” of merchandise. Stanley conducted a *Diversified Products* 5 analysis in support of its position claiming that banded products imported in the same package as a pneumatic nailer and sold as a “nailer kit” or “combo kit” are not within the class or kind of merchandise covered in the scope of the instant investigation. In addition, Stanley states that, to the best of its information and belief, none of the petitioning companies in this investigation manufacture banded brads or finish nails. 3 This submission was filed on the record of the PRC investigation on July 30, 2007, and on the record of the instant investigation on January 7, 2008. 4 A “nailer kit” consists of a pneumatic nailer, a “starter box” of branded products and a carrying case. A “combo kit” consists of an air compressor, a pneumatic nailer, and a “starter box” of banded products and related accessories, such as an air hose. 5 Prior to being codified in the regulations, these factors were identified by the Court of International Trade in *Diversified Products Corp.* v. *United States* , 572 F. Supp. 883 (CIT 1983), and therefore, they are also referred to as the “ *Diversified Products* factors.” On August 9, 2007, 6 the petitioners objected to this exclusion request, arguing that the scope of this proceeding is comprehensive and, while the scope contains specific exclusions, it does not exclude any nails based on their importation in combination with one or more other articles. The petitioners claimed that it is their intention that the scope of this proceeding include all certain steel nails exhibiting the physical characteristics identified in the written scope description, regardless of how imported. Furthermore, according to the petitioners, a *Diversified Products* analysis requires a determination that collated steel finish nails remain scope merchandise, whether imported on their own or with a nail gun. Finally, the petitioners cite several cases 7 in support of their contention that Department precedent supports their argument that these finish nails are merchandise covered by the scope of investigation. According to the petitioners, these rulings address fundamentally different types of kits or sets of merchandise, in which the subject merchandise at issue is subsumed with a set of goods whose essential character is defined as something other than the merchandise itself. 6 This submission was filed on the record of the PRC investigation on August 9, 2007, and on the record of the instant investigation on January 7, 2008. 7 *See* , *e.g.* , Memorandum from Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Final Scope Ruling—Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China—Request by Fiskars Brands, Inc.* (June 3, 2005); Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Enforcement, To Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, *Final Scope Ruling—Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China—Request by Target Corporation Regarding “Hello Kitty Fashion Totes”* (September 29, 2004). On August 15, 2007, 8 Stanley responded to the petitioners' August 9, 2007, submission claiming that none of the petitioners' arguments supports a conclusion that banded products imported in nailer kits are within the subject class of kind of merchandise. 8 This submission was filed on the record of the PRC investigation on August 15, 2007, and on the record of the instant investigation on January 7, 2008. On December 12, 2007, Stanley revised its July 30, 2007, scope exclusion request arguing that its new request reflects a broader exclusion and is easily administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)because the description of the excluded brads and finish nails is framed solely in terms of their physical characteristics. On December 18, 2007, the petitioners filed a letter stating that they agree with Stanley's December 12, 2007, scope exclusion request. Therefore, based on the scope exclusion request from Stanley, the fact that the petitioners are in agreement with this request, and there appears to be no impediment to enforceability by CBP, 9 we preliminarily determine that the above-described products are not subject to the scope of this investigation. 10 9 *See* Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson, Senior Case Analyst, to The File entitled “Proposed Scope Exclusion,” dated January 15, 2008. 10 On January 8, 2008, Illinois Tool Works Inc., an interested party, opposed the exclusion request filed by Stanley, arguing that it is the only U.S. producer of the products at issue. While the Department notes ITW's objection, it strives to craft a scope that both includes the specific products for which the petitioners have requested relief, and excludes those products which may fall within the general scope definition, but for which the petitioners do not seek relief. (This submission was filed on the record of the PRC investigation on January 8, 2008, and on the record of the instant investigation on January 11, 2008.) In addition, the petitioners requested that the Department modify the scope of these investigations to exclude certain trademarked products in submissions dated October 5, 2007, October 12, 2007, October 24, 2007, and November 1, 2007. 11 However, we found that the proposed scope modification language, which would exclude only specifically registered trademarked products, would provide an improper scope for this investigation because its effect would be to exclude only products of the parties controlling those trademarks, while the same products without the specified trademarks would be included, creating a scope that is neither impartial nor reasonable. Furthermore, the trademark requirement may cause significant administrability problems for CBP should an antidumping duty order be issued. Therefore, on November 15, 2007, we determined it inappropriate to modify the scope of this investigation in accordance with the petitioners' request. *See* Memorandum To David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, AD/CVD Operations regarding “Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”): Scope Modification Request” dated November 15, 2007. 11 Each submission contained a revised version of the proposed scope modification. On January 3, 2008, 12 Hilti, Inc., an interested party in this investigation, requested that fasteners having a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools be excluded from the scope of this investigation. 13 We received this request too late to consider for purposes of the preliminary determination, but will consider it for the final determination. 12 This submission was filed on the record of the PRC investigation on January 3, 2008, and on the record of the instant investigation on January 8, 2008. 13 On January 8, 2008, Illinois Tool Works Inc., an interested party, opposed the exclusion request filed by Hilti, Inc., arguing that it is the only U.S. producer of the products at issue. On January 9, 2008, the petitioners filed a letter stating that they agree with Hilti's January 3, 2008, scope exclusion request. Targeted Dumping Based on our examination of the targeted dumping allegation filed on October 26, 2007, we have preliminarily determined that the petitioners' allegation indicates that there is a pattern of export prices for comparable merchandise that differs significantly, consistent with that accepted by the Department in Coated Free Sheet Paper from South Korea. ( *See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea* , dated October 17, 2007.) Therefore, based on the petitioners' allegation, for purposes of this preliminary determination, we have conducted an analysis to determine whether targeted dumping has occurred. For further discussion of the Department's preliminary targeted dumping analysis, *see* Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates—Preliminary Analysis on Targeting,” dated January 15, 2008. We note, however, that the Department is in the process of re-assessing the framework and standards for both targeted dumping allegations and targeted dumping analyses. Accordingly, we intend to develop a new framework in the context of this proceeding and to apply it in time for parties to have an opportunity to comment before the final determination. In formulating this new methodology the Department requests comments by February 15, 2008, regarding certain principles:
(1)Whether it is appropriate to collapse into one test the assessment of patterns of low prices and of significant price differentials;
(2)if so, whether the test for a pattern of low prices ought to be established on the basis of a simple comparison of the average price to the alleged target with an average non-targeted price; and
(3)whether any test for a significant price difference ought to simply be based on an absolute, bright-line threshold or whether it should account for other aspects of the non-targeted group's data. In preliminarily accepting the allegation of targeted dumping, we find that the price differences cannot be taken into account using the average-to-average comparison methodology for targeted sales because that methodology, by averaging the high prices with the low prices, has the effect of masking the extent of sales at LTFV. *See* section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, we used the average-to-transaction methodology for these sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.414(f)(1). When calculating DW's weighted-average margin, we combined the margin calculated for the targeted sales using the average-to-transaction methodology with the margin calculated for the non-targeted sales using the average-to-average methodology. In combining the margins for the targeted and non-targeted U.S. sales databases, we have not offset any margins found among the targeted U.S. sales. Collapsing of GFL With DW For purposes of the preliminary determination, we have treated DW and GFL, an affiliate of DW that is involved in the production and sale of nails, 14 as one entity for dumping margin calculation purposes, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). DW and GFL are affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102 because both companies are under the common control of one individual, share identical board members, and the common company officers have the ability to exercise control over the companies (19 CFR 351.401(f)(1)). Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2), DW and GFL have production facilities for substantially similar products at the same location that would not require substantial retooling of either facility to restructure manufacturing priorities, and there is significant potential for the manipulation of price or production if the two companies do not receive the same antidumping duty rate based on the level of common ownership and management, and intertwined operations. *See* Memorandum For Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, From The Team, regarding “Whether or Not to Collapse Dubai Wire FZE and Global Fasteners Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates,” dated January 15, 2008. 14 GFL manufactures screws (non-subject merchandise) at the same location where DW is located and performs wire drawing (one of the manufacturing processes in nail making) and heat treatment (for heat treated nails) for DW. The equipment used by GFL for wire drawing and heat treatment is owned by DW and located at GFL's facility. During the POI, DW produced a very small quantity of nails for GFL. GFL then heat treated and phosphate coated these nails, packed the nails and sold them to home market and third-country customers. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of nails from the UAE were made at LTFV, we compared the export price
(EP)to the normal value (NV), as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, for the non-targeted sales, we compared POI weighted-average EPs to NVs. For targeted sales, we used the average-to-transaction methodology in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.414(f)(1). *See* “Targeted Dumping” section above for further discussion. As discussed below under the “Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection” section, we determined that DW/GFL did not have a viable home or third country market during the POI. Therefore, as the basis for NV, we used constructed value
(CV)when making comparisons in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. Export Price For DW's sales to the United States we used EP price methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States. We based EP on the packed C&F (cost and freight), CIF (cost, insurance and freight) or DDP (delivered, duty paid) prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments and rebates. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. DW reported invoice as the date of sale. However, our review of the sales data indicates that, in some cases, the reported shipment date precedes the reported invoice date. In such circumstances, the Department normally uses the earlier of invoice date or shipment date as the date of sale. *See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 18074, 18079-80 (April 10, 2006), remaining unchanged in *Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part,* 72 FR 4486 (January 31, 2007). Accordingly, we used the earlier of the reported shipment date or reported sale date ( *i.e.* , invoice date) for determining the date of sale. 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.* , 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 DW's/GFL'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. We determined that DW's/GFL's aggregate volume of home market and third country sales of the foreign like product were insufficient to permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we used CV as the basis for calculating NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. B. 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. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine 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 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 an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,* 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997). In the United States, DW made EP sales to original equipment manufacturers and other distributors through the same channel of distribution, performing the identical selling functions. Therefore, we determine that there is only one LOT for EP sales. DW/GFL had no viable home or third country market during the POI. Therefore, we based NV on CV. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile,* 63 FR 2664 (January 16, 1998). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.412(d), the Department will make its LOT determination under paragraph (d)(1) of this section on the basis of sales of the foreign like product by the producer or exporter. Because we based the selling expenses and profit for DW/GFL on GFL's home market sales of nails and screws, we could not determine the LOT of the sales from which we derived selling expenses and profit for CV, nor is there sufficient information on the record to determine whether an LOT adjustment is warranted. ( *See* “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value” section below for further discussion on the derivation of CV selling expenses and profit.). Therefore, we made no LOT adjustment to NV. C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We relied on the respondent's submitted materials and fabrication costs, G&A expenses and U.S. packing costs. We made the following adjustments to the reported CV information: 1. We revised the scrap offset to the total cost of manufacturing to reflect the value of the scrap quantities generated rather than the scrap quantities sold. 2. Because we collapsed DW and GFL for purposes of this investigation, we revised the total cost of manufacturing to reflect the actual cost of services provided by GFL, rather than using the transfer price paid by DW to GFL. 3. Because DW's 2007 fiscal year more closely correlates to the POI, we revised the company's reported G&A and financial expense rates by using the company's 2007 audited financial statements, rather than the 2006 financial statements. 4. We revised DW's financial expense rate to exclude the long-term interest income reported as an offset to financial expenses. We calculated selling expenses and profit, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, as detailed in the Memorandum to Neal Halper from Heidi Schriefer, regarding “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,” dated January 15, 2008 ( *Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo* ). Because the Department has determined for purposes of this preliminary determination that DW/GFL does not have a viable comparison market, we could not determine selling expenses and profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we relied on section 773(d)(2)(B) of the Act to determine these selling expenses and profit. Specifically, we used the selling expense and profit rates derived from GFL's home market sales of nails and screws, merchandise that is within the same general category of products as the subject merchandise. *See Preliminary Determination Cost Calculation Memo.* The statute does not establish a hierarchy for selecting among the alternative methodologies provided in section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act for determining selling expenses and profit. *See* Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 840 (1994). Alternative
(i)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act specifies that selling expenses and profit may be calculated based on “actual amounts incurred by the specific exporter or producer * * * on merchandise in the same general category” as the subject merchandise. DW and GFL, an affiliated screw producer, were collapsed into a single entity for purposes of this investigation. Therefore, we calculated DW's/GFL's selling expenses and profit based on alternative
(i)of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act, which is to use the respondent's expenses on sales of merchandise in the same general category, *i.e.* , GFL's home market sales of nails and screws. We computed the selling expense and profit ratios based on GFL's home market sales of nails and screws, and applied the selling expense ratio to the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication to determine CV selling expenses, and applied the profit ratio to the sum of the cost of materials, fabrication, and general expenses to calculate an amount for profit. D. Price-to-CV Comparisons GFL's selling expenses related to its sales of nails and screws do not include direct selling expenses. 15 Accordingly, for comparisons to EP, we added DW's U.S. direct selling expenses without also deducting direct selling expenses derived from GFL's home market sales of nails and screws. 15 The direct selling expenses reported by the respondent in its January 3, 2008, submission are, in fact, movement and packing expenses. Currency Conversion The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the Federal Reserve Bank. *See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France,* 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003), remaining unchanged in *Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France,* 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for the UAE dirham. Therefore, we made currency conversions from UAE dirhams to U.S. dollars based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service. Factiva publishes exchange rates for Monday through Friday only. We used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday for conversion dates involving Saturday through Sunday, where necessary. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all information relied upon in making our final determination. Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of nails from the UAE that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the ** Federal Register ** . We are also instructing CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margins, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted- average margin percentage Margin percentage Dubai Wire FZE/Global Fasteners Ltd 4.47 All Others 4.47 ITC Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of the final verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. *Requests should contain:*
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 15, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-1109 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of 229 Boundary Revision for the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice of 229 Boundary Revision for the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Energy, pursuant to Section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as implemented by 10 CFR part 860 published in the **Federal Register** on August 26, 1963 (28 FR 8400), prohibits the unauthorized entry, as provided in 10 CFR 860.3 and the unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials, as provided in 10 CFR 860.4, into or upon the following described facilities of the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant of the United States Department of Energy. The following amendments are made: Deletions From Inclusion Within the Existing 299 Boundary Raw Water Pumping Station—K-901 The K-901 raw water pumping station, including two outside water intake pumps enclosed by a 7-foot chain link fence topped with three strands of barbed wire, and a one-story building of transite construction approximately 22 feet by 25 feet in size, located in the Second Civil District, Roane County, Tenn., within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge, on the east bank of the Clinch River at approximately river mile 11.5. Raw Water Pumping Station—K-1513 The K-1513 raw water pumping station including a one-story brick building approximately 26 x 18 feet in size and outside electric transformers, located in the Second Civil District, Roane County, Tenn., within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge on the E. bank of the Clinch river at approximately river mile 14.5. Water Purification Plant—K-1515 The K-1515 Water Purification Plant including a steel water tank approximately 39 feet in diameter and 23 feet high, located in the Second Civil District, Roane County, Tenn., within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge, on the N. side of Bear Creek Road approximately 0.2 mile E. of the W. end of Bear Creek Road. Pine Ridge Antenna Facility—K-805 The Pine Ridge Antenna Facility consisting of two wooden radio antenna poles approximately 87 feet in height and a one-story concrete block building approximately 11 feet by 10 feet in size, located on Pine Ridge in the Second Civil District of Roane County, Tenn., within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge, on an access road approximately 0.7 miles E. of the intersection of the access road and road running between Bear Creek Road and the Oak Ridge Turnpike, said intersection being 0.6 mile N. of Bear Creek Road. Water Storage Tanks K-1529 and K-1530 Two concrete water storage tanks located on Pine Ridge in the Second Civil District of Roane County, Tenn., within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge, on an access road approximately 0.4 mile N. of the intersection of the access road and Bear Creek Road, said intersection being approximately 0.6 mile E. of the clinch River. Area Changes From the Existing 229 Boundary Building K-33 Area The installation known as Building K-33 at the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant located in the Second Civil District, Roane County, Tenn., within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge County, Tennessee, within the Corporate limits of the City of Oak Ridge, on the N. side of the Oak Ridge Turnpike approximately 1 mile E. of Gallaher Bridge spanning the Clinch River. The revised 229 Boundary around the K-33 Building is the outline perimeter of the main exterior walls of the structure. The 229 Boundary for this facility starts at the northwest building corner and encompasses 1456′ of the northern side, 970′ of the eastern side, 1456′ of the southern side, and 970′ of the western side. This area encompasses approximately 33 acres. Main Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant Areas The Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant Area is located in the Second Civil District of Roane County, Tennessee, within the corporate limits of the City of Oak Ridge on the N. side of the Oak Ridge Turnpike approximately 1 mile E. of Gallaher Bridge spanning the Clinch River. Said installation covers approximately 376 acres. The area is bounded at the northwest by Popular Creek, on the northeast and east by government land enclosed by a 7-foot chain link fence topped with three strands of barbed wire, on the south side by 5th St. East/Avenue D/10th St./Avenue J/7th St./5th St./Avenue L/7th St./Avenue M/5th St., and on the west side by Avenue S and Popular Creek. Justification for Deletions Raw Water Pumping Station K-901 Delete as it is a non-operational facility. Raw Water Pumping Station—K-1513; Water Purification Plant—K-1515; Water Storage Tanks—K-1529 and K-1530 Delete as these facilities will be transferred to the City of Oak Ridge. Pine Ridge Antenna Facility—K-805 Facility is currently leased to the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cindy B. Hunter, Certified Realty Specialist, DOE Oak Ridge Office, Post Office Box 2001, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, *Telephone:*
(865)576-4431 *, Facsimile* :
(865)576-9204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This security boundary is designated pursuant to Section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This revised Boundary supersedes and/or re-describes the entire previously contained in the **Federal Register** notice published October 19, 1965 at 30 FR 13285; amended on March 30, 1967 at 32 FR 5384; and April 21, 1983 at 48 FR 17134. Issued in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on January 9, 2008. Cindy B. Hunter, DOE ORO Realty Officer. [FR Doc. 08-237 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 24
Traces to 24 documents
CFR
- New shipper reviews under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act; expedited reviews in countervailing duty proceedings.§ 351.214
- In general.§ 351.401
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Assessment of antidumping and countervailing duties; provisional measures deposit cap; interest on certain overpayments and underpayments.§ 351.212
- Calculation of export price and constructed export price; reimbursement of antidumping and countervailing duties.§ 351.402
- Preliminary determination.§ 351.205
- Final determination.§ 351.210
- Period of investigation; requests for exclusions from countervailing duty orders based on investigations conducted on an aggregate basis.§ 351.204
- Time limits for submission of factual information.§ 351.301
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Critical circumstances.§ 351.206
- Comparison of normal value with export price (constructed export price).§ 351.414
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Administrative review of orders and suspension agreements under section 751(a)(1) of the Act.§ 351.213
- Access to business proprietary information.§ 351.305
- Publishing notices in the Federal Register.§ 325.6
- Judicial review.§ 325.11
- Definitions.§ 325.2
- Antidumping order and countervailing duty order.§ 351.211
- Definitions.§ 351.102
- Levels of trade; adjustment for difference in level of trade; constructed export price offset.§ 351.412
- Trespass.§ 860.3
- Unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials.§ 860.4
9 references not yet in our index
- 572 F. Supp. 883
- 19 CFR 401(f)
- 19 CFR 401(f)(2)
- 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087
- 132 F. Supp. 2
- 117 F.3d 1401
- 15 USC 4001-21
- 15 CFR 325
- 10 CFR 860
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of availability of proposed changes in the NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices for public review and comment
Cites 33 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources