Title: USDA eAuthentication Service Customer Registration.

OMB Control Number: 0503-0014.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The USDA OCIO has developed the eAuthentication Service as a management and technical process that addresses user authentication and authorization prerequisites for providing services electronically. The process requires a one-time electronic self-registration to obtain an eAuthentication account for each USDA customer desiring access to online services or applications that require user authentication. USDA customers can self-register for a Level 1 or Level 2 Access account. A Level 1 Access account provides users with limited access to USDA Web site portals and applications that have minimal security requirements. A Level 2 Access account enables users to conduct official electronic business transactions via the Internet, enter into a contract with the USDA, and submit forms electronically via the Internet to USDA Agencies. Due to the increased customer access associated with a Level 2 Access account, customers must be authenticated in person at a USDA Service Center by a local registration authority, in addition to an electronic self-registration. Once an account is activated, customers may use the associated user ID and password that they created to access USDA resources that are protected by eAuthentication. It is estimated to take 8 minutes to complete the self-registration process for a Level 1 Access account. A Level 2 Access account registration is estimated to be completed in 1 hour 10 minutes due to the travel time to the USDA Service Center.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 8 minutes for a Level 1 Access account and 1 hour 10 minutes for a Level 2 Access account per customer.

Respondents: Individual USDA Customers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 38,604.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 18,909.

Proposed topics for comment include: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; or (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on those who respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or Fax (202) 395-5806, and to Owen Unangst, Program Manager, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS Information Technology Center, 2150 Centre Avenue Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526-1891, e-mail owen.unangst@ftc.usda.gov. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address. Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Mr. Unangst at the address above. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

This Organic Certification Cost-Share Program is part of the Agricultural Management Assistance Program authorized under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA), as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1524). Under the applicable FCIA provisions, the Department is authorized to provide cost share assistance to producers in the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. This organic certification cost share program provides financial assistance to organic producers certified to the National Organic Program authorized under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq. )

To participate in the program, eligible States must complete a Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, and enter into a written cooperative agreement with AMS. The program will provide cost-share assistance, through participating States, to organic crop and livestock producers receiving certification or update of certification by a USDA accredited certifying agent from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. The Department has determined that payments will be limited to 75 percent of an individual producer's certification costs up to a maximum of $500.00.

The eighth meeting of the AC21 has been scheduled for February 7-8, 2004. The AC21 consists of 18 members representing the biotechnology industry, the seed industry, international plant genetics research, farmers, food manufacturers, commodity processors and shippers, environmental and consumer groups, and academic researchers. In addition, representatives from the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, and State, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative serve as “ex officio” members.

At this meeting, new members will be introduced and the Committee will be provided updates on reports already completed. The Committee will then consider how best to complete, in a timely fashion, ongoing examining the impacts of agricultural biotechnology on American agriculture and USDA over the next 5 to 10 years. In particular, the AC21 will review the status of current sections of text and discuss how best to modify and finalize them to provide a coherent report to USDA. A work plan for completion of ongoing work will be developed. In addition, there will be preliminary discussions of potential future work topics of the Committee.

Background information regarding the work of the AC21 will be available on the USDA Web site at http://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/ac21.html. On August 9, 2005, if time permits, reasonable provision will be made for oral presentations of no more than five minutes each in duration.

The meeting will be open to the public, but space is limited. If you would like to attend the meetings, you must register by contacting Ms. Dianne Harmon at (202) 720-4074, by fax at (202) 720-3191 or by e-mail at dharmon@ars.usda.gov at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Please provide your name, title, business affiliation, address, and telephone and fax numbers when you register. If you require a sign language interpreter or other special accommodation due to disability, please indicate those needs at the time of registration.

Further information about the proposal can be found in the original notice of intent published in the Federal Register , Vol. 70, No. 39, pp. 9914-9916, on March 1, 2005.

The responsible official for this project is Craig Bobzien, Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest, 25041 North Highway 16, Custer, SD 57730-7239.

The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action or alternatives at this time and whether to amend the Forest Plan to allow for implementation of this project.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's positions and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1985) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

The meeting is open to the public. Persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff by July 13, 2005. Public comment will have the opportunity to address the committee at the meeting.

Pursuant to Title 13 U.S.C, Section 141, the U.S. Census Bureau has conducted the 2000 Census. The amendment updates administrative information concerning the locations of the system files, the categories of individuals covered by the system, the categories of records in the system, the purpose of the system of records, retrievability, safeguards, and the disposal of the records in the system in addition to other minor administrative updates. Accordingly, the Population and Housing Census Records of the 1960 and Subsequent Censuses system notice originally published at 45 FR 82105, December 12, 1980, is amended by the addition of the following updates.

The Department of Commerce finds no probable or potential effect of the proposal on the privacy of individuals. Respondent data including personally identifying data are captured as images suitable for computer processing. Images are scheduled for permanent retention. Original data sources are destroyed, according to the disposal procedures for Title 13 (“census confidential”) records, after confirmation of successful data capture and data transmission to headquarters. The Individual Census Record File (ICRF) represents a unified record of individual responses, including all names and other written entries provided by the respondent, and all associated address and geographic information for each housing unit or person living in group quarters. The ICRF is scheduled for permanent retention. This notice is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. Section 553(a)(2). This notice is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine , 67 FR 65945, (October 29, 2002).

On October 27, 2004, Ispat Indo requested that we conduct an administrative review of its sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. On November 19, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rod from Indonesia for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 69 FR 67701 (November 19, 2004).

On December 3, 2004, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Ispat Indo. Ispat Indo submitted its response to Section A of the questionnaire (Section A Response) on January 18, 2005, and its response to Sections B and C (Sections B and C Response) on February 15, 2005. Ispat Indo submitted its response to Section D of the questionnaire on February 8, 2005. On February 15, 2005, the Department received comments from petitioners regarding the February 8, 2005, Section D response. On March 1, 2005, the Department issued a request to revise Ispat Indo's Section D submission to report control number specific weight-average cost of production and constructed value information for the full POR. In addition, the Department issued Ispat Indo a supplemental questionnaire for Sections A-C on March 1, 2005. The Department received Ispat Indo's first supplemental questionnaire response on March 22, 2005. On April 1, 2005, the Department received comments from petitioners, and issued a Section D supplemental questionnaire. On April 4, 2005, petitioners submitted comments regarding the March 22, 2005, Section A, B, and C supplemental questionnaire response, and the revised Section D response. On April 14, 2005, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Ispat Indo. We received Ispat Indo's Section D supplemental questionnaire response on April 15, 2005. Ispat Indo submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response on April 27, 2005. On April 29, 2005, Ispat Indo submitted its complete package of documents and reconciliation worksheets pursuant to the Department's Section A questionnaire and Ispat Indo's January 18, 2005 response to question 1.h. On May 25, 2005, the Department issued its second supplemental Section D questionnaire. We received Ispat Indo's response on June 1, 2005. On June 10, 2005, we issued a third supplemental Section D questionnaire, and received a partial response from Ispat Indo on June 17, 2005. On June 24, 2005, Ispat Indo completed its response to the June 10, 2005, third supplemental Section D questionnaire. In addition, Ispat Indo submitted a response to the Department's verbal request to clarify its home market database, see , “Request for Clarification of Ispat Indo's Relationship with Certain Home Market Customers”, (Department's Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouradia from Angelica Mendoza and Judy Lao), dated June 23, 2005.

The period of review (POR) is October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.

The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.

Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the HTSUS definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products ( i.e. , products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).

Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.

This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).

For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003.

The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.

All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

The products under the scope are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. 1

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we considered all products covered by the “Scope of the Order” section above, which were produced and sold by Ispat Indo in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to Ispat Indo's U.S. sales of steel wire rod.

We relied on the following eight product characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to sales in Indonesia of the foreign like product (listed in order of preference): grade, carbon content, surface quality, deoxidization, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter, and coating. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. See Appendix V of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to Ispat Indo dated December 3, 2004.

To determine whether Ispat Indo made sales of steel wire rod to the United States at less than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs.

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act.

In the instant review, Ispat Indo sold subject merchandise to the United States through an affiliated company in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and this Dubai-based trading company sold the subject merchandise to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. Ispat Indo reported all of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise as EP transactions. After reviewing the evidence on the record of this review, we have preliminarily determined that Ispat Indo's transactions are classified properly as EP sales because these sales were first sold before the date of importation by Ispat Indo's affiliated Dubai-based trading company to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States.

Such a determination is consistent with section 772(a) of the Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (Court of Appeals') decision in AK Steel Corp. et al. v. United States , 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( AK Steel ). In AK Steel , the Court of Appeals examined the definitions of EP and constructed export price (CEP), noting “the plain meaning of the language enacted by Congress in 1994, focuses on where the sale takes place and whether the foreign producer or exporter and the U.S. importer are affiliated, making these two factors dispositive of the choice between the two classifications.” AK Steel , at 226 F.3d at 1369. The Court of Appeals declared, “ the critical differences between EP and CEP sales are whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or outside the United States and whether it is made by an affiliate,” and noted that the phrase “outside the United States” had been added to the 1994 statutory definition of EP. AK Steel , at 226 F.3d at 1368-70. Thus, the classification of a sale as either EP or CEP depends upon where the contract for sale was concluded ( i.e. , in or outside the United States) and whether the foreign producer or exporter is affiliated with the U.S. importer.

For these EP sales transactions, we calculated price in conformity with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on the packed, delivered duty-paid prices to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We also made deductions from the EP starting price, where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight from the plant/warehouse to the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties.

A. Home Market Viability

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 Ispat Indo's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 351.404(b) of the Department's regulations, because Ispat Indo's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determine that sales in the home market provide a viable basis for calculating NV. See Ispat Indo's Section A Response at Exhibit A-1. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record supporting a particular market situation in the exporting company's country that would not permit a proper comparison of home market and U.S. prices. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

As such, we used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Indonesia, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP sales, as appropriate.

B. Arm's-Length Test

Ispat Indo reported that during the POR, it made sales in the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). If any sales to affiliated customers in the home market were not made at arm's-length prices, we excluded them from our analysis as we consider such sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b). To test whether sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all discounts and rebates, movement expenses, direct selling expenses, and home market packing. In accordance with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002) ( Modification to Affiliated Party Sales ). However, all of Ispat Indo's home market sales to affiliated customers passed the arm's-length test.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

In the most recently completed segment, the Department determined that Ispat Indo made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of production (COP) and, therefore, excluded such sales from its calculation of NV. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Indonesia , 67 FR 17374, (April 10, 2002).

The Department's affirmative findings of sales-below-cost in the preliminary determination of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) did not change in the final determination. 2 Therefore, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that Ispat Indo made sales in the home market at prices below the COP for this POR. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether Ispat Indo's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP.

1. Calculation of COP

We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market with POR model-specific COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in packed condition and ready for shipment. In our sales-below-cost analysis, we relied on home market sales and COP information provided by Ispat Indo in its questionnaire responses, except where noted below:

a. Ispat Indo purchased a portion of its raw materials from an affiliated supplier. In accordance with Section 773(f)(2), we compared the transfer prices between the affiliated supplier and Ispat Indo to market prices and noted that the transfer prices were higher than the market prices. However, we noted that the total direct material costs reported by Ispat Indo to the Department was based on the transfer prices less the markup charged by its affiliate. Therefore, we increased the reported direct material costs to reflect the cost of raw materials as valued by the full transfer price between Ispat Indo and its affiliated supplier, including the affiliate's markup as recorded in Ispat's normal books and records.

b. We revised the G&A expense ratio to exclude amounts reimbursed by Ispat Indo's insurance company related to losses due to a shipwreck and a fire.

2. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared Ispat Indo's weighted-average COPs to its home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices net of any applicable discounts or rebates and movement charges.

In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made in (1) substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.

3. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard those sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.

In the case of Ispat Indo, we did not find an instance where more than 20 percent of a given home market product's sales were at prices less than COP. Therefore, we did not exclude any sales in determining NV.

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons

We based NV on home market prices to unaffiliated and affiliated customers. Home market starting prices were based on packed prices, net of rebates, to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. In Ispat Indo's initial questionnaire response, it stated that home market customers received quantity discounts. After reviewing Ispat Indo's responses to supplemental questionnaires, we preliminary find that the adjustments previously classified as quantity discounts were in fact rebates, as defined in the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we have preliminarily treated these adjustments as rebates rather than discounts. We made deductions, where appropriate, for inland freight and insurance pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department's regulations. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 351.410 of our regulations, we adjusted home market starting prices for differences in circumstances of sale, i.e. , imputed credit expenses and direct bank charges. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. See also section 351.412 of the Department's regulations. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profits. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. See section 351.412(c)(1) of the Department's regulations. As noted in the “Export Price” section above, we preliminarily find that all of Ispat Indo's direct U.S. sales to unrelated customers are properly classified as EP sales.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP 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 than EP sales, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000).

In determining whether separate LOTs existed in the home market for the respondent, we examine whether the respondent's sales involved different marketing stages (or their equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories, and selling functions (or services offered) to each customer or customer category, in both markets.

In this review, Ispat Indo stated that it made sales in the home market directly to end users through one channel of distribution. The channel consists of Ispat Indo selling directly to both unaffiliated and affiliated end-users ( i.e. , OEMs) in the home market. For the home market channel of distribution, Ispat Indo stated that it provided a high degree of assistance for sales forecasting, strategic economic planning, order/input processing, direct sales personnel support, sales/marketing support, market research, and technical assistance. Also, Ispat Indo provided a medium degree of assistance for personnel training/exchange, packing, and inventory maintenance; and a low degree of assistance for rebates. We preliminarily find there to be one LOT for home market sales.In the U.S. market, Ispat Indo also stated that it had one channel of distribution where the respondent sold to end-users (via its foreign-based affiliate) in the U.S. Within the U.S. channel of distribution, Ispat Indo stated that it provided a high degree of assistance for packing, order input/processing, direct sales personnel, sales/marketing support, after-sales services, freight and delivery, and technical assistance. Also, Ispat Indo stated that it has a medium degree of assistance for market research. We preliminarily find there to be one LOT for U.S. sales.

In analyzing Ispat Indo's selling activities for its home market and U.S. market, we determined that essentially the same level of services were provided for both markets. Specifically, for home market sales, the customer directly contacts Ispat Indo and negotiates the material terms of sale. Subsequently, Ispat Indo issues a sales contract to the Indonesian customer, and begins production. Upon shipment of the merchandise to the customer, Ispat Indo issues the invoice to the customer. See Ispat Indo's Section A Response at Exhibit A-5. The selling methods in the U.S. market are virtually the same, with the exception that all export sales, including the U.S. sales subject to this review, were made through its foreign-based affiliate. See Ispat Indo's Section A Response at A-20. Ispat Indo explained that its foreign-based affiliate handles processing of sales documentation and receipt of payment from the U.S. customer. However, Ispat Indo has direct contact with the U.S. customer, handles all sales negotiations, and direct ships the merchandise from the port of exportation in Indonesia to the U.S. customer. These negotiations are then confirmed by Ispat Indo's foreign-based affiliate via issuance of a sales contract to the U.S. customer. Once a sales contract has been issued to the U.S. customer, Ispat Indo will begin production of the ordered material. See Ispat Indo's Section A Response at A-16. Subsequent to shipment of the merchandise, Ispat Indo invoices its foreign-based affiliate, who then in turn issues an invoice to the U.S. customer. The U.S. customer remits payment to the foreign-based affiliate, who then in turn remits payment to Ispat Indo. In light of all the above, we do not consider the selling methods for both markets to represent different LOTs.

Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the LOT for all EP sales is the same as the LOT for all sales in the home market. Based on our analysis of selling functions and because we find home market and U.S. sales at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is warranted for Ispat Indo.

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, and section 351.415 of the Department's regulations, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by Dow Jones Reuter Business Interactive, LLC (trading as Factiva).

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margin for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004, to be as follows:

The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within 5 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal comments and briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, and may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Unless otherwise specified, the hearing, if requested, will be held 2 days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case and rebuttal briefs and comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific ad valorem rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates ( ad valorem ) against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries during the review period.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or de minims, i.e. , less than 0.50 percent); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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 subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 4.06 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Indonesia , 67 FR 55798 (August 30, 2002). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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.

These preliminary results are issued and in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On June 27, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain FMTCs from the PRC (67 FR 43277). On June 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order (69 FR 30873). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the following requests were made: (1) on June 28, 2004, Cosco Home and Office Products (Cosco), a domestic interested party, requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Feili Furniture Development Ltd. Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (collectively Feili), and New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (New-Tec); (2) on June 28, 2004, Wok and Pan Industry Inc. (Wok and Pan), a Chinese producer and exporter of the merchandise under review, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Wok and Pan; (3) on June 29, 2004, Feili requested an administrative review of itself; (4) on June, 30, 2004, Meco Corporation (Meco), a domestic interested party, requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Feili, New-Tec, and Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Ltd. (also known as Dongguang Shichang Metals Factory Co., Maxchief Investments Ltd.) (collectively Dongguan (Shichang)); (5) on June 30, 2004, Shichang and Lifetime, a Chinese exporter of the merchandise under review, requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Lifetime Hong Kong Ltd., and Lifetime (Xiamen) Plastic Producers Ltd. (collectively Lifetime), and Dongguan (Shichang).

On July 28, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review (69 FR 45010) for Feili, New-Tec, Wok and Pan, Dongguan (Shichang), and Lifetime. On September 2, 2004, Lifetime withdrew its request for an administrative review, on September 7, 2004, Meco withdrew its request for an administrative review of Dongguan (Shichang), and on September 8, 2004, Dongguan (Shichang) withdrew its request for an administrative review. On February 15, 2005, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results of this review to June 30, 2005 (70 FR 7718). On March 22, 2005, the Department published a notice rescinding the review with regard to Lifetime and Dongguan (Shichang) (70 FR 14444) . While Feili submitted timely responses to all of the Department's requests for information in this review, Wok and Pan and New-Tec did not. See “Adverse Facts Available” section, below.

1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following:

a. Lawn furniture;

b. Trays commonly referred to as “TV trays”;

c. Side tables;

d. Child-sized tables;

e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36'' high and matching stools; and

f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28'' to 36'' wide by 48'' to 96'' long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set.

2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:

a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both;

b. Lawn furniture;

c. Stools;

d. Chairs with arms; and

e. Child-sized chairs.

The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0010, 9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. See , e.g. , Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( Sparklers ); and 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 ). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence of government control over exports is based on four factors: 1) whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of losses; 3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers , 56 FR at 20589.

Based on a review of the responses, we have concluded that both Feili Group (Fujian) and Feili Furniture are owned by Hong Kong corporations and are registered and organized under the corporation and taxation laws of Hong Kong. Both companies operate freely in the PRC as foreign wholly-owned enterprises and, therefore, operate independently of control from central, provincial or local governments in the PRC. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for Feili.

With regard to de facto control, Feili reported the following: (1) it sets prices to the United States through negotiations with customers and these prices are not subject to review by any government organization; (2) it does not coordinate with other exporters or producers to set the price or determine to which market companies sell subject merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of Commerce does not coordinate the export activities of Feili; (4) Feili's general manager has the authority to contractually bind the company to sell subject merchandise; (5) the board of directors appoints the general manager; (6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; (7) Feili's shareholders ultimately determine the disposition of profits and Feili has not had a loss in the last two years; and (8) none of the board members or managers is a government official. Additionally, Feili's questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of Feili's questionnaire responses reveals no other information indicating government control of export activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de facto government control over Feili's export functions and that Feili has met the criteria for the application of separate rates.

Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, inter alia , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(I) of the Act.

Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department “shall not decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements established by the administering authority” if the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so without undue difficulties.

Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (AFA) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869.

For the reasons discussed below, we determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2), 776(b) and 782(d) of the Act, the use of AFA is appropriate for the preliminary results for New-Tec, Wok and Pan, and the PRC-wide entity.

1. Background

The Department made several requests of New-Tec, asking for information on the samples that it gives to its customers. On August 9, 2004, the Department issued an NME questionnaire to New-Tec. In section C (II), New-Tec was instructed to “. . . prepare a separate computer data file containing each sale made during the POR of the subject merchandise, including sales of further manufactured merchandise.” On December 9, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting (question 45) New-Tec to further explain what its product codes represent. In response New-Tec stated that “{n}ormally, New-Tec's customer designs a new product and sends the drawings to New-Tec for producing a sample. After making a sample, New-Tec delivers such sample to its customer for confirmation.”

On May 19, 2005, the Department issued a fourth supplemental 1 questionnaire to New-Tec, instructing New-Tec, at question two, to describe how it had accounted for its sample sales ( i.e. , the samples of subject merchandise New-Tec sent to its customer) in both the U.S. sales and factors-of-production (FOP) databases. The Department also asked New-Tec to “. . . please provide all documentation related to your POR sample sales and explain, in detail, how the documentation demonstrates that the sales were of samples.”

In its June 7, 2005, response New-Tec stated that it did not report its samples in the U.S. sales file because it pays for all expenses related to the samples and the “delivery of samples is not recorded as sales as New-Tec does not invoice its customer” and that it recorded the expenses related to its samples as selling expenses. It also reported that the material, labor, and energy costs related to the samples were captured in the FOP database. However, New-Tec failed to provide any documentation on these samples, as explicitly requested by the Department.

Despite New-Tec's claims that these samples were free and not recorded as “sales,” New-Tec provided no evidence to support this assertion. Therefore, on June 15, 2005, the Department issued a sixth supplemental. 2 Questions one and two again requested specific information about New-Tec's purported samples. The Department instructed New-Tec to provide the total quantity of its POR sample sales by product code and for New-Tec to:

. . . please provide all documentation related to your POR sample sales and explain, in detail, how the documentation demonstrates that the sales were of samples. This would include, but is not limited {to} , general ledger entries, Chinese export forms, U.S. customs forms, and related invoices. Additionally, please state the disposition of the samples ( e.g. , whether they were returned, destroyed, resold, tested etc.)

In response to the Department's second question requesting documentation for the purported samples, New-Tec again failed to provide any of the requested documentation. Instead, New-Tec reiterated part of its answer to the first question, stating that the samples were treated as selling expenses. New-Tec also stated that it was unaware of the disposition of the samples but did not think that they were resold. Moreover, New-Tec claimed that the shipments were made by its “shipper” and that it was unaware of any Chinese export forms or U.S. customs forms associated with these shipments notwithstanding its March 25, 2005, response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire, where New-Tec demonstrated specific knowledge of the documents required for export. In that response New-Tec stated, at page seven, that it was “required to use Xiamen Municipal Invoice for export declaration purpose pursuant to local customs authority regulations.” New-Tec has not demonstrated that it is unable to provide, for the shipment of the samples, the same documentation that it was able to provide for its sales for remuneration.

2. Application of Facts Available

As described above, New-Tec failed to respond to the Department's requests for information by the deadlines established or in the form required. The absence of this information has significantly impeded this review because the Department has been unable to determine how many sample sales were made (much less what the details of these sample sales were). New-Tec failed to properly respond to the Department's requests, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, when it refused to provide documentation related to its purported samples and failed to provide data on the quantity of its samples within the deadlines established in the questionnaires. New- Tec's failure to provide the requested information prevented the Department from conducting the analysis necessary to determine the nature of these transactions and whether they should be excluded from the margin calculation.

It is the Department, not the respondents, that makes the legal determination as to whether these transactions should be excluded from the database as samples. In order to do so, the Department must review the documentation pertaining to the samples, including documentation with respect to the quantities and values of the products classified as samples. Because New-Tec failed to provide any of this documentation, the Department has no reliable basis for reaching a decision as to the true transactional nature of the claimed samples. Typically, where the Department has found that there is insufficient evidence to prove that a transaction was a sample, it will include that sale in the sales database. See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof, From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews , 69 FR 55574, Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 18 (September 15, 2004). However, by failing to provide even the quantity of its POR samples, New-Tec has given the Department no way to determine the volume of the purported sample transactions and their relevance to any margin calculations. As a result, New-Tec's entire U.S. sales database is unuseable for purposes of these preliminary results. Moreover, because there is no acceptable U.S. sales database to which we can compare New-Tec's FOP information, we are also unable to use that information. Therefore pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department must disregard all of New-Tec's U.S. sales and FOP data. Because we are basing New-Tec's margin on total facts available, we have also rejected New-Tec's information regarding separate rates, for purposes of the preliminary results, and thus we preliminarily find that separate rates treatment is not warranted.

Finally, we find that the application of section 782(e) of the Act does not overcome New-Tec's failure to respond. See sections 782(e)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. Because the information that New-Tec failed to report is critical for purposes of the preliminary dumping calculations, the Department must resort to total facts otherwise available in determining the margin in its preliminary results, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act.

3. Use of Adverse Inferences

We also find that the application of an adverse inference in this review is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As discussed above, by refusing to provide any specific information about its purported samples, New-Tec has not acted to the best of its ability. Also, on June 7, 2005, New-Tec stated that it “recorded” expenses related to its samples as selling expenses. However, despite stating that such “records” exist, New-Tec did not provide them to the Department. Thus, New-Tec has failed to cooperate with the Department by not acting to the best of its ability to provide the requested information, and has hampered the Department's ability to evaluate whether or not the alleged sample transactions should be included in New-Tec's U.S. sales database, and if so what the corresponding data should be. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted under section 776(b) of the Act. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Germany , 64 FR 30710 (June 8, 1999), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; see also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 6682 (February13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 24. Because New-Tec failed to act to the best of its ability, we have made the adverse inference that New-Tec is part of the PRC-wide entity.

4. Request for Substantiating Documentation

It is the Department's practice to review all transactions in which samples are provided to U.S. customers. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 60980 (Oct. 14, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; and Honey From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 25060 (May 5, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Although the NME questionnaire indicated that parties were to report all sales, implying that the provisions of samples should also be included, it did not explicitly reference the reporting of samples. Therefore, the Department sent New-Tec two additional supplemental questionnaires specifically requesting information on New-Tec's sample sales. New-Tec continued to deny the existence of sample “sales,” arguing that its purported samples transactions were at zero value and, therefore, do not constitute sales.

Further, the Department recognizes that the reference to “sample sales” in our supplemental questionnaires in this case may have been a potential source of confusion because parties may have understood the term “sales” to refer only to transactions involving remuneration. Therefore, the Department will be amending its NME questionnaire to address this issue. In the future, the questionnaire will specifically request information on “sample transactions” to clarify that the Department requires information on any sample product provided to U.S. customers, regardless of whether the U.S. customer paid for that sample.

Because New-Tec has responded to the rest of the Department's requests for information, and in view of the Department's concern regarding potential for confusion based on the terminology used in our questionnaires, the Department is providing New-Tec with a final opportunity to substantiate its claim that these are in fact sample transactions at zero value by: 1) providing the total POR quantity of samples transactions for each product code and; 2) providing all documentation related to its POR sample transactions. Such documentation would include, but is not limited to , general ledger entries, records from the workshop providing the samples, Chinese export forms, U.S. customs forms, and related invoices. In addition, New-Tec must explain, in detail, how the documentation demonstrates that the transactions involved samples for which no payment was required, not sales transactions, and why they should not be included in the sales database. Finally, the Department is asking New-Tec to explain why it was able to provide the Xiamen Municipal Invoice for export declaration purposes for its reported sales, but has claimed it is unable to do so for its sample transactions. Due to the unique circumstances of this case, the Department is allowing New-Tec to provide this information to the Department no later than 14 days after receipt of our questionnaire, and will consider New-Tec's response in reaching the final determination.

1. Background

Wok and Pan failed to respond to any of the following: the initial questionnaire (August 9, 2004); a letter from the Department to Wok and Pan, specifically requesting a response to the Department's questionnaire (September, 15, 2004); and the Department's request for information to be considered when valuing the FOPs (September, 30, 2004).

2. Application of Facts Available

After requesting a review, Wok and Pan failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Because Wok and Pan has not responded to any of our requests for information, including information regarding separate rates, we preliminarily find that separate rates treatment is not warranted. Consequently, consistent with the statement in our notice of initiation, we find that, because Wok and Pan does not qualify for a separate rate, it is deemed to be part of the PRC-wide entity.

1. Application of Facts Available

Because some companies which are part of the PRC-wide entity were reviewed in this segment of the proceeding, the Department determines that the PRC-wide entity has also been reviewed with respect to this POR. Because some companies which are part of the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to one or more of our requests for information, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan).

2. Use of Adverse Inferences

In addition, because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information, it is appropriate, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan) will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review.

The Department has assigned the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding as total AFA because the PRC-wide entity (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan) failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. This is in accord with the Department's practice where respondents refuse to cooperate to the best of their ability. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 29923, 29924 (May 26, 2004).

In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of (a) the 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 Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium , 58 FR 37083 (July 9, 1992).

The Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States , 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); See also NSK Ltd. v. United States , 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)(upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation); See also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States , 24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States , 2005 Ct. Int'l. Trade 23 *23; Slip Op. 05-22 (February 17, 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review).

The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse “as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.” See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value , 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures “that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See SAA at 890. See also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil , 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); See also D&L Supply Co. v. United States , 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the respondents prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior margin “reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin to be less.” Rhone Poulenc , 899 F. 2d at 1190.

Where we must base the entire dumping margin for a respondent in an administrative review on facts available because that respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the use of inferences adverse to the interests of that respondent in choosing facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. Due to New-Tec's and Wok and Pan's failure to cooperate, we have preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide entity, of which they are deemed to be a part, an AFA rate of 70.71 percent, the PRC-wide rate calculated in the investigation. See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the PRC, (FMTC Investigation) 67 FR 34898, (May 16, 2002).

The Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate, from the available sources, to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department's reliance on secondary information to determine an AFA rate is subject to the requirement to corroborate. See section 776(c) of the Act and the “Corroboration of Secondary Information” section below.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. The Department has determined that to have probative value information must be reliable and relevant. 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 (Nov. 6, 1996). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and, Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005).

The reliability of the AFA rate was determined in the first administrative review of this case. See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 75913, (December 20, 2004). The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. See e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 41304, 41307-41308 (July 11, 2003). No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the information contained in the LTFV investigation is reliable.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States , 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997), which ruled that the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated.

To assess the relevancy of the rate used, the Department compared the margin calculations of Feili in this administrative review with PRC-wide entity margin from the LTFV investigation and used in the first administrative review of this case. The Department found that the margin of 70.71 percent was within the range of the highest margins calculated on the record of this administrative review. See memorandum to the file from Marin Weaver and Cathy Feig, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through Charles Riggle, Program Manager, Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the PRC: Corroboration of the PRC-wide Adverse Facts-Available Rate, dated June 30, 2005. Because the record of this administrative review contains margins within the range of 70.71 percent, we determine that the rate from LTFV investigation continues to be relevant for use in this administrative review.

As the LTFV investigation margin is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the LTFV investigation margin is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide entity (including New-Tec and Wok and Pan), as AFA. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, 70.71 percent, meets the corroboration criteria established in section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information have probative value.

Because these are the preliminary results of review, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final results of review for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin for the PRC-wide entity. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation , 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000).

Because Feili sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States (or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States) and use of a constructed-export-price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we have used export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.

We calculated export price based on the FOB price to unaffiliated purchasers for Feili. From this price, we deducted amounts for foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We valued these deductions using surrogate values. We selected India as the primary surrogate country for the reasons explained in the “Normal Value” section of this notice.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine normal value (NV) using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Because information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).

Because we are using surrogate country FOP prices to determine NV, section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department use values from a market-economy (surrogate) country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We have determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are market-economy countries at a comparable level of economic development to that of the PRC. (For a further discussion of our surrogate selection, see the September 28, 2004, memorandum entitled Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, which is available in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU), room B099 of the main Commerce building). In addition, looking at United Nations export statistics, we found that India exported 4,551,694 kilograms of comparable merchandise ( i.e. , FMTCs based on HTS numbers 9401.71, 9401.79, 9403.20, 9403.70) valued at USD 6,731,202. See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade . Therefore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Additionally, we are able to access Indian data that are contemporaneous with this POR. As in the investigation and the previous review of this order, we have chosen India as the primary surrogate country and are using Indian prices to value the FOP.

We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India that were average non-export values, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Also, where we have relied upon import values, we have excluded imports from NME countries as well as from South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. The Department has found that South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. The existence of these subsidies provides sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices from these countries may be subsidized. 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 (Feb. 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Our practice of excluding subsidized prices has been upheld in China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. United States , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1136 (CIT 2003).

• To value hydrochloric acid used in the production of FMTCs, we used per-kilogram import values obtained from Chemical Weekly . We adjusted this value for taxes and to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and each respondent, respectively.

• Where Feili had usable market-economy purchases that represented a meaningful portion of total purchases of each respective input ( e.g. , cold-rolled steel, polypropylene plastic resin, powder coating, and cartons), we valued these inputs with their respective per-kilogram purchase prices. Where applicable we also adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent.

• To value all other material inputs and carbon dioxide used in the production of FMTCs, we used per-kilogram import values obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI), as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and available from World Trade Atlas (WTA). 3 We also adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent.

• To value diesel oil, we used a per-kilogram value obtained from Bharat Petroleum for December 2003. See Memorandum to File: Factor Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the 2003-2004 Administrative Review” (Factors Memorandum) (June 30, 2005). We also made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and respondent.

• To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly Statistics (First Quarter 2003) , available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html.

• To value water, we used the Revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) water rates for June 1, 2003, available at http://www.midcindia.com/water_supply.

• For labor, we used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC in “Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,” available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html .

• For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit values, we used information from Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (2003-2004). From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( i.e. , cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A.

• For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from the MSFTI and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and respondent.

• To value foreign brokerage and handling, we used information reported in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India , 67 FR 50406 (Oct. 3, 2001).

• To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at http://www.infreight.com.

Where necessary, we adjusted the surrogate values to reflect inflation/deflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published on the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) website, available at www.rbi.org.in. For a complete description of the factor values we used, see the Factors Memorandum, a public version of which is available in the Public File of the CRU.

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs 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 a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide 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.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Upon completion of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise. We have calculated each importer's duty-assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis , the importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR.

The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results for all shipments of FMTCs from the PRC 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) for Feili, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of the review; (2) the cash deposit rates for any other companies, that have separate rates established in the investigation or first administrative review of this case, but were not reviewed in this proceeding, will not change; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC rate, 70.71 percent, which is the “All Other PRC Manufacturers, Producers and Exporters” rate from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 20090 (Apr. 24, 2002); and (4) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC was published on November 16, 1994. On May 17, May 26, and May 31, 2005, we received requests for new shipper reviews from Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce Trading Company, Ltd. (“Shandong Chengshun”); Xi'an XiongLi Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Xian XiongLi”); and Shenzhen Fanhui Import and Export Co., Ltd. (“Fanhui”), respectively.

Fanhui certified that it grew and exported the garlic on which it based its request for a new shipper review. Shandong Chengshun and Xian XiongLi certified that they exported, but did not grow, the fresh garlic on which they based their requests for a new shipper review. Specifically, Shandong Chengshun certified that Jinxiang Chengsen Agricultural Trade Company, Ltd. (“CATC”) grew the fresh garlic it exported and Xian XiongLi certified that Jinxiang Tianshan Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“JTFC”) grew the fresh garlic it exported.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Shandong Chengshun, Fanhui, and Xian XiongLi certified that they did not export fresh garlic to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B), CATC and JTFC, the growers of the garlic exported by Shandong Chengshun and Xian XiongLi, respectively, provided certification that they did not export fresh garlic to the United States during the POI. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), each of the three exporters, Shandong Chengshun, Fanhui, and Xian XiongLi, certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any exporter or grower who exported fresh garlic to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), each of the above-mentioned companies also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC.

In addition to the certifications described above, the exporters submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) the date on which they first shipped fresh garlic for export to the United States and the date on which the fresh garlic was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of their first shipment and the volume of subsequent shipments; and (3) the date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating three new shipper reviews for shipments of fresh garlic from the PRC:

1) grown by CATC and exported by Shandong Chengshun;

2) grown and exported by Fanhui; and

3) grown by JTFC and exported by Xian XiongLi.

The POR is November 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). We intend to issue preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

Because Fanhui has certified that it grew and exported the fresh garlic on which it based its request for a new shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of fresh garlic both grown and exported by Fanhui until the completion of the new shipper reviews, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. With respect to Shandong Chengshun and Xian XiongLi, they have certified that they exported, but did not grow, the fresh garlic on which they based their requests for new shipper reviews. Therefore, until completion of the new shipper reviews, we will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of fresh garlic grown by CATC and exported by Shandong Chengshun or fresh garlic grown by JTFC and exported by Xian XiongLi.

Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received timely requests for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand, with respect to Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited (“SSI”) on November 30, 2004 from both SSI and domestic producer Nucor Corporation. Also on November 30, 2004, the Department received a request for administrative review of the same order for SSI, Nakornthai Strip Mill Public Co., Ltd., and G Steel Public Company Limited (formerly Siam Strip Mill Public Co., Ltd.) from United States Steel Corporation. On December 27, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review for the period of November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 69 FR 77181 (December 27, 2004).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.

In light of the complexity of analyzing SSI's sales data of its multiple affiliates, its cost calculations and the control number reporting methodology for various products, it is not practicable to complete this review by the current deadline of August 2, 2005. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results until November 30, 2005, which is 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results, in accordance with section 351.213 (h) of the Department's regulations.

This notice is issued and published in accordance to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

The final determinations in these investigations were published on May 17, 2005. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland , 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Mexico , 70 FR 28280 (May 17, 2005); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherlands , 70 FR 28275 (May 17, 2005); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Sweden , 70 FR 28278 (May 17, 2005).

On June 16, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings from Taiwan , 58 FR 33250 (June 16, 1993). On June 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan for the period June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 69 FR 30873 (June 1, 2004).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on June 2, 2004, Ta Chen requested that we conduct an administrative review of its sales of the subject merchandise. On June 22, 2004, petitioners requested an antidumping duty administrative review for the following companies: Ta Chen, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, and PFP (collectively, respondents). On July 28, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 69 FR 45010 (July 28, 2004).

On August 4, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to respondents. On August 23, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(j)(1), petitioners asked that the Department conduct a duty absorption inquiry in this review. On September 9, 2004, three of the respondents, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, and PFP, requested exclusion from answering the Department's questionnaire, certifying that they had no sales, entries or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Also, on September 9, 2004, Ta Chen submitted its response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On September 30, 2004, Ta Chen submitted its responses to sections B, C and D under the one-day lag rule. On October 1, 2004, Ta Chen submitted a final version of its sections B, C, and D response, noting that certain changes had been made to section C. Since the one-day lag rule only allows for changes to bracketing information, the new section C information was considered untimely. As a result, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(d), the Department rejected Ta Chen's section B, C, and D responses, and requested that Ta Chen resubmit its submission without the new information in section C. Ta Chen resubmitted its section B, C and D responses on October 7, 2004. The Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire on October 8, 2004, a supplemental section D questionnaire on January 25, 2005, a supplemental A, B and C questionnaire on February 2, 2005, and a supplemental A through D questionnaire on April 13, 2005. Ta Chen submitted its responses to these questionnaires on October 26, 2004, February 22, 2005, March 1, 2005, and April 27, 2005. Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Ta Chen's section A response on September 22, 2004, its section B through D response on October 15, 2004, and its supplemental section A response on December 21, 2004, and on June 1, 2005.

On May 31, 2005, the Department sent out a duty absorption questionnaire to both Ta Chen and Tru-Flow. On June 10, 2005, Ta Chen submitted its response and separate comments in response to petitioners' June 1, 2005, letter on affiliation. The Department did not receive a response from Tru-Flow.

Information received from CBP indicated that there were entries of subject merchandise during the POR that were manufactured by Tru-Flow. Therefore, the Department issued a letter to Tru-Flow on February 24, 2005, asking the company to answer questions regarding its claim of no sales, entries or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On March 7, 2005, Tru-Flow submitted its response to the Department's questions and on March 14, 2005, petitioners submitted comments regarding Tru-Flow's response. On March 16, 2005, the Department asked Tru-Flow for additional information, and on March 23, 2005, Tru-Flow submitted its response. Upon the Department's request, on March 30, 2005, Tru-Flow submitted revised versions of both its March 7 and March 23, 2005, responses to remove improper designations of public information as proprietary. On March 24, 2005, the Department informed Tru-Flow that the company would be required to submit a full response to section A of the Department's antidumping questionnaire by April 14, 2005. On April 1, 2005, petitioners submitted further comments regarding Tru-Flow's responses to the Department's questions. Tru-Flow neither responded to the section A questionnaire nor requested an extension of time for filing its response. On June 6, 2005, the Department telephoned counsel for Tru-Flow and requested that they contact their client and place a statement on the record regarding their intention to respond. No reply was received. See Memorandum to the File: Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan - Phone Conversations with Tru-Flow and U.S. importer (June 7, 2005). Accordingly, for these preliminary results, we are basing Tru-Flow's margin on facts available with an adverse inference, pursuant to section 776(b) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Further discussion on this issue is provided below in the “Facts Available” section.

On May 12, 2005, the Department sent a letter to the U.S. importer of the merchandise produced by Tru-Flow. The importer responded on May 16, 2005. The Department sent a letter with supplemental questions on May 26, 2005, and received the importer's reply on May 31, 2005. On June 7, 2005, the Department spoke with a representative for the importer, asking the company to resubmit its responses with proper bracketing. On June 8, 2005, the correctly bracketed information was submitted to the Department. Further discussion of the importer's responses is provided below in the “Reimbursement of Antidumping Duties” section.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for conducting an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit of 245 days. On February 24, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review by 120 days, to not later than June 30, 2005. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan , 70 FR 9045 (Feb. 24, 2005).

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. See e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 67 FR 5789, 5790 (Feb. 7, 2002) and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 18610 (Apr. 10, 2001).

On September 9, 2004, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, and PFP each submitted letters on the record stating that they had no U.S. sales or shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR. To confirm their statements, on January 12, 2005, the Department conducted a CBP data inquiry and determined that there were no entries of subject merchandise during the POR manufactured by Liang Feng or PFP. Therefore, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily intends to rescind this review as to Liang Feng and PFP. Conversely, the Department's inquiry revealed that subject merchandise manufactured by Tru-Flow entered into the United States during the POR. Because of this evidence and Tru-Flow's refusal to respond to the section A questionnaire, the Department is preliminarily rejecting Tru-Flow's request for exclusion from this administrative review.

The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004.

The products covered by the order are certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise is used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system: (1) corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used; (2) contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented; (3) high temperatures are present; (4) extreme low temperatures are present; and (5) high pressures are contained within the system.

Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, with the following five shapes the most basic: elbows, tees, reducers, stub ends, and caps. The edges of finished pipe fittings are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from the order. The pipe fittings subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Pipe fittings manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of this order.

On August 23, 2004, petitioners asked that the Department conduct a duty absorption inquiry in this review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(j)(1). The Department's regulation provides that “during any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under § 351.211, or determination under § 351.218(d) (sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer.” As part of the period covered by this administrative review falls between the third and fourth anniversary of the sunset review determination published on January 28, 2000, the Department sent duty absorption questionnaires to Ta Chen and Tru-Flow. These questionnaires requested evidence demonstrating that their unaffiliated U.S. purchasers will pay any antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries during this POR. In its June 10, 2005, response to the Department's questionnaire, Ta Chen stated that “the unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the anti-dumping duties assessed on entries.” However, the only evidence it provided as support for this claim was the gross profit margin on its U.S. sales. Tru-Flow did not respond to the Department's request for duty absorption information.

In determining whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a respondent during the POR, we presume that the duties will be absorbed for those sales that have been made at less than NV. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence ( e.g. , an enforceable agreement between the affiliated importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 48212, 48216 (August 9, 2004); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 47892, 47899 (August 6, 2004). Ta Chen did not provide any evidence on the record, such as an enforceable agreement with an unaffiliated customer, showing that unaffiliated purchasers will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. Because Ta Chen failed to provide us with objective evidence that duty absorption did not occur, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Ta Chen on U.S. sales made through its affiliated importer, TCI. Tru-Flow did not respond to our inquiry, even though we advised in our letter that failure to respond might result in the application of facts available. We, therefore, preliminarily find as facts available with an adverse inference that Tru-Flow has absorbed antidumping duties.

On September 22, 2004, petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Ta Chen's section A response, claiming that Ta Chen had not reported all of its affiliations. On December 21, 2004, petitioners filed deficiency comments on Ta Chen's supplemental section A response, and placed on the record of this proceeding information from the previous administrative review relating to Ta Chen's alleged affiliations. Petitioners allege that Ta Chen was affiliated during the POR with numerous U.S. companies and one multinational company (PFP) involved in the trading, distribution, and/or production of specialty steel products. Petitioners claim that Ta Chen has been an uncooperative respondent because petitioners believe that Ta Chen should have provided more information about these alleged affiliates. Therefore, petitioners request that the Department assign an antidumping margin of 76.20 percent to Ta Chen as adverse facts available (AFA). See Petitioners' Deficiency Comments, at 45 (Dec. 21, 2004); see also Petitioners' Comments, at 11 (June 1, 2005).

Ta Chen denies that it is currently affiliated with these entities, and that they had any involvement with the subject merchandise or foreign like product during the POR. In addition, the Department's analysis of Ta Chen's sales information did not reveal any sales of subject merchandise to any of these entities, nor did any of them supply Ta Chen with major inputs for manufacturing subject merchandise during the POR. In response to petitioners' June 1, 2005 submission, Ta Chen stated that it had “actively and cooperatively responded to all Department questionnaires with detailed information and has even provided detailed responses to petitioner allegations, however baseless, unsupported, redundant, or sensational.” Ta Chen's Response to Petitioners' June 1 Comments, at 2 (June 10, 2005).

The Department thoroughly analyzed petitioners' affiliation allegations during the previous administrative review. See Memorandum for Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant Secretary, from Joseph Welton, Analyst, Ta Chen Affiliations Memorandum: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan 2002-2003 Review (June 29, 2004), placed on the record in this review by petitioners. Despite having previously examined this issue, the Department has reexamined the issue of affiliations based on current public information, including state corporate records, and proprietary and public information placed by the parties on the record of this review. See Memorandum for Richard O. Weible, Director, from Helen M. Kramer, Team Leader, and Kristin A. Najdi, Case Analyst, Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Ta Chen Affiliations (June 30, 2005). Our findings indicate that the companies alleged to be affiliated to Ta Chen are either defunct, commercially inactive, or clearly not affiliated to Ta Chen. Although it may be argued that one company may have been subject to Ta Chen's control, there is no evidence that any of these alleged affiliates were either purchasers of subject merchandise or suppliers of major inputs for its production during the current POR. There is also no record information that any of these alleged affiliates could have had any effect on Ta Chen's production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise or foreign like product. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.102(b) of the Department's regulations, we preliminarily find that Ta Chen did not control these companies during the POR, and therefore is not affiliated with them.

Furthermore, the record does not support petitioners' contention that Ta Chen has been uncooperative in this review by not fully responding to the Department's questions related to affiliation. We note that Ta Chen timely responded to the Department's requests for supplemental information regarding the affiliation issues raised by petitioners. Ta Chen provided detailed information about the companies that the Department had analyzed in the previous administrative review. Ta Chen also declined to provide information about certain other companies that the Department concluded in the previous administrative review had no connection to the subject merchandise or foreign like product, and which Ta Chen denies are otherwise affiliated.

On February 24, 2005, the Department asked Tru-Flow to comment on customs entry documents obtained from CBP that indicate Tru-Flow had prior knowledge that certain subject merchandise produced by Tru-Flow was destined for the United States. Among the documents was a mill certificate prepared by Tru-Flow, indicating the merchandise would be sold to a U.S. customer. On March 7, 2005, Tru-Flow submitted documentation pertaining to additional U.S. sales that Tru-Flow claimed were made without its knowledge by its sales agent, Censor International Corporation (Censor). On March 14, 2005, petitioners submitted comments in response to Tru-Flow's March 7, 2005, submission, alleging that Tru-Flow and Censor are affiliated parties based on public marketing materials obtained from Internet websites and the description of Censor as Tru-Flow's “office” on the back cover of Tru-Flow's products catalog. In its March 23, 2005, submission, Tru-Flow claims that third-party Internet websites incorrectly identified Tru-Flow and Censor as having the same President and that the description of Censor as Tru-Flow's “office” on Tru-Flow's product catalog is an incorrect translation of “agent” from Mandarin Chinese.

In order to further examine this issue, on March 24, 2005, the Department requested that Tru-Flow submit a full response to section A of the Department's questionnaire by April 14, 2005. On March 30, 2005, at the Department's request, Tru-Flow resubmitted its March 7 and March 23, 2005, submissions in order to correct improper bracketing of public information. However, Tru-Flow did not file a response to Section A or to the Department's duty absorption inquiry.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide such information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information which cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act do not apply in this case because Tru-Flow failed to respond to the Department's request for information. Since Tru-Flow did not provide the Department with any information pertaining to its affiliations, by not responding to section A of the questionnaire, we are using facts otherwise available to find that Tru-Flow and Censor are affiliated. In addition, we are basing Tru-Flow's dumping margin on facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.

In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. See , e.g. , Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 1870 (Jan. 11, 2005), and Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at cmt. 1 (“ Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan Final Results ”); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil , 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand , 69 FR 34122, 34123-24 (June 18, 2004). Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” See Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (SAA). Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

Tru-Flow failed to respond to section A of the questionnaire and to the Department's duty absorption inquiry. The Department's questionnaire guidelines provided Tru-Flow with information regarding the consequences of failure to respond adequately to the questionnaire. The Department also contacted Tru-Flow's counsel on June 6, 2005, asking Tru-Flow to place a statement on the record clarifying whether or not it intended to submit a response. See Memorandum to The File, from Kristin Najdi, Analyst, Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Phone Conversations with Tru-Flow and U.S. Importer (June 7, 2005). Despite these attempts to notify Tru-Flow of its responsibility to respond to the questionnaire, Tru-Flow has not complied. This constitutes a failure on the part of Tru-Flow to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information by the Department, within the meaning of section 776 of the Act. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. See , e.g. , Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan , 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total AFA where a respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaires).

An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition. Because Tru-Flow did not respond to our requests for information, we are applying AFA to find that Tru-Flow and Censor are affiliated parties, based upon information provided by petitioners and upon documentation from CBP indicating that Tru-Flow had knowledge that its subject merchandise was destined for the United States. Specifically, CBP had provided sales documentation that clearly contradicts Tru-Flow's claim of no knowledge of the U.S. sales, including a mill certificate prepared by Tru-Flow indicating the name of the U.S. customer. Also, as AFA, we are basing Tru-Flow's margin on the highest rate in the petition, 76.20 percent, the same rate assigned to Tru-Flow since the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. This rate was based on a Taiwanese producer's price quote for one product delivered c.i.f. to a U.S. main port, adjusted for movement expenses, compared to the constructed value (CV) of that product. This was determined by using petitioners' proprietary data on factor of production usage and input costs in Taiwan derived from a separate investigation.

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate secondary information to the extent practicable from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. In order to corroborate the U. S. price used in the petition, the Department compared it with Ta Chen's reported prices for the identical product net of foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance and brokerage charges. We found that the petition net U.S. price fell within the range of Ta Chen's U.S. prices net of movement expenses to a U.S. port during the POR, and was slightly higher than the average. Therefore, we consider petitioners' U.S. price to be corroborated. See Memorandum to The File, Through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, from Helen M. Kramer, Team Leader, and Kristin A. Najdi, Analyst, Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Corroboration of the Adverse Facts Available Margin (June 30, 2005). As the data used in the petition to determine NV were based on proprietary information not on the record in this review, information to corroborate the NV calculation was not reasonably available. However, the Department corroborated this information prior to initiating the LTFV investigation. See Concurrence Memorandum: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (June 4, 1992).

Petitioners allege that Tru-Flow paid the antidumping duties for its U.S. sales on behalf of its U.S. customers, and ask the Department to double the total AFA rate for Tru-Flow's subject merchandise to 152.40 percent. See Petitioners' Comments (Apr. 1, 2005) at 2, 25-27; Petitioners' Comments (Apr. 26, 2005) at 1, 5; and Petitioners' Comments (June 1, 2005) at 1, 22-25. In addition, petitioners ask that the Department also apply this rate to Ta Chen's U.S. sales of merchandise that was tolled by Tru-Flow during the POR.

For at least one sale during the period, Censor sold Tru-Flow's merchandise to an unaffiliated exporter, who then sold this merchandise to an unaffiliated U.S. importer. As discussed above in the “Facts Available” section, the Department has determined that Tru-Flow is affiliated with Censor and they had knowledge that this merchandise would be sold to the United States. Therefore, this is considered to be Tru-Flow's sale.

Tru-Flow provided substantial evidence on the record to demonstrate that Censor reimbursed the antidumping duties. Tru-Flow provided a written statement from its General Manager explaining that Censor, “paid the adverse inference dumping rate requested by the US Customs Service.” Tru-Flow Quest. Resp., at 60 (Mar. 30, 2005). As supporting evidence for this statement, Tru-Flow provided the CBP bill issued to the U.S. importer for duties owed on this shipment of Tru-Flow's merchandise. Id. at 62. Tru-Flow also provided documentation of the wire transfer for Censor's payment to the unaffiliated exporter of the exact amount of the antidumping duties billed by CBP for this sale. Id. at 59.

The Department then contacted the U.S. importer, on May 12, 2005, and requested documentation pertaining to the sale in question. The Department asked the U.S. importer to provide the sales documentation and proof of payment to the unaffiliated exporter for this sale, as well as proof of payment to CBP for the antidumping duties. Finally, the Department asked the U.S. importer to provide the date that it had received a reimbursement for payment of these antidumping duties from Censor or the unaffiliated exporter and to provide the corresponding documentation for this payment. The U.S. importer responded to the Department's first two questions, but failed to respond to the third question regarding its receipt of the reimbursement of the antidumping duties. The importer provided the proof of payment to the unaffiliated exporter for this shipment and proof of payment to CBP for the antidumping duties owed on the shipment. The importer also provided the requested sales documents and provided the certification of non-reimbursement, pursuant to 19 C.F.R 351.402(f)(2), that it had submitted when the entry in question was made. This certification stated that the importer did not enter into any agreement or understanding for the payment or refund of all or any part of the antidumping duties assessed upon the subject merchandise.

The Department has explained that it will interpret the reimbursement regulation to take “into account situations in which reimbursement occurs indirectly, i.e. , through someone acting on behalf of the exporter, because such an interpretation more effectively accomplishes the purposes of the regulation.” See , Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 26934, 26936-37 (May 18, 1999). The Department went on to explain that a “more literal and restrictive interpretation could seriously undermine the effectiveness of the regulation by making it possible to avoid its application merely by acting through third parties.” Id . Based on this understanding of the regulation's application and the Department's determination that Censor is Tru-Flow's affiliated sales agent, the Department finds that the U.S. importer was reimbursed for antidumping duties by the exporter or producer pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(1)(i)(B).

Tru-Flow, the producer, stated that Censor, its affiliated sales agent, paid the antidumping duties, and provided documentation showing payment by Censor in an amount identical to the duties paid to an unaffiliated third party who exported the merchandise to the United States. While the U.S. customer was the party that actually made the payment to CBP, the Department concludes from Tru-Flow's statement and documentation of Censor's payment that the U.S. importer was reimbursed by Tru-Flow/Censor through the unaffiliated exporter. Because the exact amount owed for the antidumping duties was remitted to the unaffiliated exporter, the Department infers that the payment was then provided by the unaffiliated exporter to the U.S. importer. Finally, because Censor is Tru-Flow's affiliated sales agent, we find that Censor acted on behalf of Tru-Flow, such that the reimbursement may be attributed to Tru-Flow. Id.

The U.S. importer's certification of non-reimbursement is outweighed by Tru-Flow's statements and the payment by Censor. In addition, the Department notes that the U.S. importer's certification was filed when the entry occurred, which was a year prior to when Censor “paid the adverse inference dumping rate requested by the US Customs Service.” Tru-Flow Quest. Resp., at 60 (Mar. 30, 2005). In addition, the U.S. importer failed to respond to the Department's request for information regarding the reimbursement, neither denying nor admitting to the reimbursement. See Importer's Resp. (May 16, 2005). Because Tru-Flow stopped responding to the Department's requests for information, we are unable to obtain the additional documentation showing the payment from the unaffiliated U.S. exporter to the U.S. importer. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Tru-Flow reimbursed the U.S. importer for the antidumping duties.

19 CFR 351.402(f)(1)(i)(B) states that the Department will deduct the amount of any antidumping duty that the exporter or producer “reimbursed to the importer” from the export price (EP) or the CEP. See Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 61 FR 48465, 48470-71 (Sept. 13, 1996); upheld by Hoogovens Staal BV v. United States , 24 CIT 242, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (Apr. 12, 2000). However, since the Department is unable to calculate a margin for Tru-Flow due to the company's unresponsiveness, and is instead applying facts available with an adverse inference, we are doubling the AFA rate. See 19 CFR 351.402(f); see also Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 26934, 26944 (May 18, 1999).

The Department declines to apply the reimbursement provision to Ta Chen's sales that were tolled by Tru-Flow. As is explained in further detail below in the “Product Comparisons” section, we deemed these tolled sales to be Ta Chen's sales and not Tru-Flow's sales.

For the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to pipe fittings sold in the United States, we considered all pipe fittings covered by the scope that were sold by Ta Chen in the home market during the POR to be “foreign like products,” in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act. Where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the physical characteristics reported by Ta Chen, as follows: specification, seam, grade, size and schedule.

The record shows that Ta Chen both purchased from, and entered into tolling arrangements with, unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers of subject merchandise, including Tru-Flow. The record does not indicate that these manufacturers had knowledge that the subject merchandise would be exported to the United States. Moreover, all subcontracted or purchased fittings are marked with Ta Chen's brand name, and Ta Chen labels itself as the producer. See Ta Chen's Section A Resp., at 1-2, 18-19, and Exh. 24-25 (Sept. 9, 2004); Ta Chen's Supp. Section A Resp., at 6, and Exh. 9-A and 9-B (Oct. 26, 2004); and Ta Chen's Supp. Sections A-D Resp., at 2 and Exh. A-D (Apr. 27, 2005).

We have preliminarily determined that Ta Chen is the sole exporter of the subject merchandise under review. It is inappropriate to exclude sales of subject merchandise produced by unaffiliated manufacturers from Ta Chen's U.S. sales database because record evidence shows that those unaffiliated manufacturers had no knowledge that the subject merchandise would be sold to the United States. See also 19 CFR 351.401(h).

However, section 771(16)(A) of the Act defines “foreign like product” to be “[t]he subject merchandise and other merchandise which is identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the same country by the same person as, that merchandise.” Thus, consistent with the Department's past practice in reviews under this order, for products that Ta Chen has identified with certainty that it purchased from a particular unaffiliated producer and resold in the U.S. market, we have restricted the matching of products to identical products purchased by Ta Chen from the same unaffiliated producer and resold in the home market.

The Department's regulations state that the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the Department can establish “a different date [that] better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale,” the Department may choose a different date. Id .

In the present review, Ta Chen claimed that invoice date should be used as the date of sale in both the home market and the U.S. market. See Ta Chen's Section A Resp., at 12 (Sept. 9, 2004); and Ta Chen's Sections B and C Resp., at B-10 and C-9 (Oct. 7, 2004). Moreover, Ta Chen did not indicate any industry practice which would warrant the use of a date other than invoice date in determining date of sale.

Accordingly, as we have no information demonstrating that another date is more appropriate, we preliminarily based the date of sale on the invoice date recorded in the ordinary course of business, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i). For constructed export price (CEP) sales, we used the invoice date for sales to the first unaffiliated buyer.

To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by Ta Chen to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared, where appropriate, CEP to NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average NV of the foreign like product.

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as “the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. . . .” Consistent with recent past reviews, pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated the price of Ta Chen's sales based on CEP because the sale to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer was made by Ta Chen's U.S. affiliate, Ta Chen International (CA) Corp. (TCI). See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (June 30, 2005) (Analysis Memo). Ta Chen has two channels of distribution for U.S. sales: 1) Ta Chen ships the merchandise to TCI for inventory in warehouses and subsequent resale to unaffiliated buyers (stock sales), and 2) Ta Chen ships the merchandise directly to TCI's U.S. customer (“indent” sales). The Department finds that both stock and indent sales qualify as CEP sales because the original sales contract is between TCI and the U.S. customer. In addition, TCI handles all communication with the U.S. customer, from customer order to receipt of payment, and incurs the risk of non-payment. In addition, TCI handles customer complaints concerning issues such as product quality, specifications, delivery, and product returns. TCI is also responsible for the ocean freight for all U.S. sales and all selling efforts to the U.S. customer. See Ta Chen's Section A Resp., at 8-9 (Sept. 9, 2004).

We calculated CEP based on ex-warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States and, where appropriate, we deducted discounts. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted direct and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs incurred by TCI for stock sales, related to commercial activity in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses, which include foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, containerization expense, Taiwan harbor construction tax, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. Finally, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP profit.

To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Ta Chen'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)(B) of the Act. Because Ta Chen's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. See Ta Chen's Section A Resp., at 2 (Sept. 9, 2004).

Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) in the prior administrative review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Ta Chen in its home market were made at prices below the COP, pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 1870, 1871 (Jan. 11, 2005). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis of home market sales by Ta Chen.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of Ta Chen's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus indirect selling expenses and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by Ta Chen in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses.

For these preliminary results, the Department adjusted Ta Chen's net financial expense by calculating a revised financial expense ratio and multiplying the revised ratio by the total cost of manufacture for each control number (CONNUM) provided in the Section D database. See Memorandum To Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, from Joseph Welton, Case Accountant, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination - Ta Chen ,” (June 30, 2005). We made no other adjustments to Ta Chen's submitted costs.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We compared the weighted-average COP to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and were not at prices that permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. We compared the COP to home market prices on a product-specific basis. There were no deductions from price, as Ta Chen did not grant any discounts or rebates, and did not incur movement expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of Ta Chen's sales of a given product (CONNUM) 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, as defined by section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. When 20 percent or more of Ta Chen's sales of a given product (CONNUM) during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that such sales have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we appropriately disregarded below-cost sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

As there were sales at prices above the COP for all product comparisons, we based NV on prices to home market customers. We deducted credit expenses and added interest revenue. In addition, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

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 CEP transaction. 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 SG&A expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine 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, where possible, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales for which we are unable to quantify an LOT adjustment, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP sales affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See e.g. , Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa , 62 FR 61731, 61732-61733 (Nov. 19, 1997).

Ta Chen reported that its two channels of distribution in the home market, to trading companies and to end-users, comprised one LOT. We examined the selling functions and related expenses, and found that Ta Chen's level of selling functions to its home market customers for inventory maintenance, technical services, packing, after-sales services, freight and delivery arrangements, sales processes, some research and development (R&D), and customer service, did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. See Ta Chen's Section A Resp., at 7 (Sept. 9, 2004); see also Ta Chen's Section A Supp. Resp., at 1-2 (Oct. 26, 2004). Therefore, we preliminarily conclude that the selling functions for the reported channels of distribution constitute one LOT in the comparison market.

For CEP sales, the LOT is determined by the selling functions the seller performs for sales to its U.S. affiliate. Because Ta Chen reported that all of its sales to the United States are CEP sales made through TCI, i.e. , through one channel of distribution, Ta Chen is claiming that there is only one LOT in the U.S. market for its sales. We examined the selling functions and related expenses, and found that Ta Chen's selling functions for sales to TCI consist of accepting orders from TCI, packing for shipment to the United States, and incurring expenses for inland freight to the port of embarcation, containerization, brokerage and handling, marine insurance, and harbor improvement tax. Ta Chen performs these functions regardless of whether shipments are going to TCI or directly to the unaffiliated customer. Therefore, Ta Chen's U.S. sales constitute a single LOT.

The Department compared the selling functions Ta Chen provided in the home market LOT with the selling functions provided in the U.S. LOT. In the home market LOT, Ta Chen provides significant selling functions related to the sales process, R&D, technical services, and after-sales services it does not provide for sales to TCI. Therefore, we find that the LOT in the home market is more advanced than the LOT of the CEP sales. However, since we have preliminarily determined that there is only one LOT in the home market, we are unable to calculate a LOT adjustment. Ta Chen has requested a CEP offset. Because we have preliminarily determined that NV is established at a LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, and we are unable to quantify a LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, for these preliminary results we have applied a CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margins for the period June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004, to be as follows:

The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments are limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each respondent. Antidumping duties for the rescinded companies shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed in the final results of review; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the “all others” rate of 51.01 percent, which is the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the 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.

On March 7, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of the 2003-2004 antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea. See Preliminary Results. The review covers Sungkwang Bend Company (SKBC), and the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. In the Preliminary Results, we invited parties to comment. SKBC submitted a case brief on April 6, 2005. Petitioner submitted no comments, and no party filed rebuttal comments.

The products covered by this order are certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings), whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches in inside diameter.

Pipe fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise can be used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system: (1) Corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used; (2) contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented; (3) high temperatures are present; (4) extreme low temperatures are present; (5) high pressures are contained within the system.

Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, and the following five are the most basic: “elbows,” “tees,” “reducers,” “stub ends,” and “caps.” The edges of finished fittings are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from this review. The pipe fittings subject to this order are classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

All issues raised in the case brief submitted in this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated July 5, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which SKBC has raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. The changes are listed below:

• We have added billing adjustments to the Net U.S. Price.

• We have revised the model-match program to distinguish between fittings with fractional size and wall thickness measurements ( e.g. , 1/2 inch or 1 1/2 inches).

• We have revised the model-match program to ensure that U.S. sales are matched to the most contemporaneous home market sale.

• We have removed the deduction for home market inventory carrying costs from our calculation of U.S. price.

All programming changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum, accessible in B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building and on the Web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov.

We determine the following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period February 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004:

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. To calculate these rates, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct Customs to assess the appropriate assessment rate against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries under the relevant order during the POR.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (the Act): (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 21.2 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the amended final determination in the LTFV investigation. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Korea: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 58 FR 11029, (February 23, 1993).

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until the publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing 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 or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 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 violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

The commercial availability provision of the CBTPA provides for duty-free and quota-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary CBTPA country from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamation 7351, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to apparel articles from fabrics or yarn designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the Federal Register. In Executive Order 13191, the President authorized CITA to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner.

On March 9, 2005, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Sandler, Travis, and Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of B*W*A, alleging that certain 100 percent cotton, 4-thread twill weave and herringbone twill weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, ring spun, and plied yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in HTSUS subheadings 5209.43.0050 and 5209.49.0090, for use in men's and boys' woven cotton shirts, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. It requested quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for men's and boys' woven cotton shirts that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics. On March 15, 2005, CITA requested public comment on the petition. See Request for Public Comment on Commercial Availability Petition under the United States - Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), 70 FR 12654, (March 15, 2005). On March 31, 2005, CITA and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) sought the advice of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for Textiles and Clothing and the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for Distribution Services. On March 31, 2005, CITA and USTR offered to hold consultations with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate (collectively, the Congressional Committees). On April 14, 2005, the U.S. International Trade Commission provided advice on the petition.

Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, CITA determined that the fabrics set forth in the petition cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On May 4, 2005, CITA and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired.

CITA hereby designates as eligible for preferential treatment under HTSUS subheading 9820.11.27, men's and boys' woven cotton shirts, that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible CBTPA beneficiary countries, from certain 100 percent cotton, 4-thread twill weave and herringbone twill weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, ring spun, and plied yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in HTSUS subheadings 5209.43.0050 and 5209.49.0090, not formed in the United States. The referenced apparel articles are eligible provided that all other fabrics are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, subject to the special rules for findings and trimmings, certain interlinings and de minimis fibers and yarns under section 211(b)(2)(A)(vii) of the CBTPA, and that such articles are imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible CBTPA beneficiary country.

An “eligible CBTPA beneficiary country” means a country which the President has designated as a CBTPA beneficiary country under section 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(5)(B)) and which has been the subject of a finding, published in the Federal Register, that the country has satisfied the requirements of section 213(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(4)(A)(ii)) and resulting in the enumeration of such country in U.S. note 1 to subchapter XX of Chapter 98 of the HTSUS.

The commercial availability provision of the CBTPA provides for duty-free and quota-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary CBTPA country from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamation 7351, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to apparel articles from fabrics or yarn designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the Federal Register. In Executive Order 13191, the President authorized CITA to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner.

On March 9, 2005, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Sandler, Travis, and Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of B*W*A, alleging that certain 100 percent cotton, double faced irregular sateen weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in HTSUS subheading 5209.59.0025, for use in woven cotton shirts and blouses, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. It requested quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for woven cotton shirts and blouses that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics. On March 15, 2005, CITA requested public comment on the petition. See Request for Public Comment on Commercial Availability Petition under the United States - Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), 70 FR 12655 (March 15, 2005). On March 31, 2005, CITA and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) sought the advice of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for Textiles and Clothing and the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for Distribution Services. On March 31, 2005, CITA and USTR offered to hold consultations with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate (collectively, the Congressional Committees). On April 14, 2005, the U.S. International Trade Commission provided advice on the petition.

Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, CITA determined that the fabrics set forth in the petition cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On May 4, 2005, CITA and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired.

CITA hereby designates as eligible for preferential treatment under HTSUS subheading 9820.11.27, woven cotton shirts and blouses, that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible CBTPA beneficiary countries, from certain 100 percent cotton, double faced irregular sateen weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in HTSUS subheading 5209.59.0025, not formed in the United States. The referenced apparel articles are eligible provided that all other fabrics are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, subject to the special rules for findings and trimmings, certain interlinings and de minimis fibers and yarns under section 211(b)(2)(A)(vii) of the CBTPA, and that such articles are imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible CBTPA beneficiary country.

An “eligible CBTPA beneficiary country” means a country which the President has designated as a CBTPA beneficiary country under section 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(5)(B)) and which has been the subject of a finding, published in the Federal Register, that the country has satisfied the requirements of section 213(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(4)(A)(ii)) and resulting in the enumeration of such country in U.S. note 1 to subchapter XX of Chapter 98 of the HTSUS.

The commercial availability provision of the CBTPA provides for duty-free and quota-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit to shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary CBTPA country from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamation 7351, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to apparel articles from fabrics or yarn designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the Federal Register. In Executive Order 13191, the President authorized CITA to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner.

On March 3, 2005, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Sandler, Travis, and Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of B*W*A, alleging that certain 100 percent cotton, 4-thread twill weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, combed, and ring spun single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in HTSUS subheading 5208.43.0000, for use in men's and boys' woven cotton shirts, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. It requested quota- and duty-free treatment under the CBTPA for men's and boys' woven cotton shirts that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from such fabrics. On March 9, 2005, CITA requested public comment on the petition. See Request for Public Comment on Commercial Availability Petition under the United States - Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA), 70 FR 11622, (March 9, 2005). On March 25, 2005, CITA and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) sought the advice of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for Textiles and Clothing and the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for Distribution Services. On March 25, 2005, CITA and USTR offered to hold consultations with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate (collectively, the Congressional Committees). On April 14, 2005, the U.S. International Trade Commission provided advice on the petition.

Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, CITA determined that the fabrics set forth in the petition cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On May 2, 2005, CITA and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired.

CITA hereby designates as eligible for preferential treatment under HTSUS subheading 9820.11.27, men's and boys' woven cotton shirts, that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible CBTPA beneficiary countries, from certain 100 percent cotton, 4-thread twill weave, flannel fabrics, of yarn-dyed, combed, and ring spun single yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in HTSUS subheading 5208.43.0000, not formed in the United States. The referenced apparel articles are eligible provided that all other fabrics are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, subject to the special rules for findings and trimmings, certain interlinings and de minimis fibers and yarns under section 211(b)(2)(A)(vii) of the CBTPA, and that such articles are imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible CBTPA beneficiary country.

An “eligible CBTPA beneficiary country” means a country which the President has designated as a CBTPA beneficiary country under section 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(5)(B)) and which has been the subject of a finding, published in the Federal Register, that the country has satisfied the requirements of section 213(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(4)(A)(ii)) and resulting in the enumeration of such country in U.S. note 1 to subchapter XX of Chapter 98 of the HTSUS.

When the Government purchases supplies that are new to the supply system, nonstandard, or modifications of previously shipped items, and different freight classifications may apply, offerors are requested to indicate the full Uniform Freight Classification or National Motor Freight Classification. The information is used to determine the proper freight rate for the supplies.

Respondents: 2,640.

Responses Per Respondent: 3.

Annual Responses: 7,920.

Hours Per Response: .167.

Total Burden Hours: 1,323.

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0055, Freight Classification Description, in all correspondence.

Incentive contracts are normally used when a firm fixed-price contract is not appropriate and the required supplies or services can be acquired at lower costs, and sometimes with improved delivery or technical performance, by relating the amount of profit or fee payable under the contract to the contractor's performance.

The information required periodically from the contractor, such as cost of work already performed, estimated costs of further performance necessary to complete all work, total contract price for supplies or services accepted by the Government for which final prices have been established, and estimated costs allocable to supplies or services accepted by the Government and for which final prices have not been established, is needed to negotiate the final prices of incentive-related items and services.

The contracting officer evaluates the information received to determine the contractor's performance in meeting the incentive target and the appropriate price revision, if any, for the items or services.

Respondents: 3,000.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 3,000.

Hours Per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 3,000.

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requesters may obtain copies of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts, in all correspondence.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) title; (3) summary of the collection; (4) description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: 2006 Field Test for the 2007 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES:2007).

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 2,476.

Burden Hours: 483.

Abstract: NHES:2005 is a survey of households using random-digit-dialing and computer-assisted telephone interviewing. Three topical surveys are to be conducted in NHES:2007: School Readiness (SR), Parent and Family Involvement in Education (PFI), and Adult Education for Work-Related Reasons (AEWR). The surveys' results will support cross-sectional analyses and the analyses of changes over time.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2812. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor ( i.e., the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request ( i.e., new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden ( i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).

1. Form OE-417, “Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report”.

2. Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability/OE.

3. OMB Number 1901-0288.

4. Revision and three-year approval requested.

5. Mandatory.

6. Form OE-417 collects information on electric emergency incidents and disturbances for DOE's use in fulfilling its overall national security and other energy management responsibilities. The information will also be used by DOE for analytical purposes. All electric utilities, including those that operate Control Area Operator functions and Reliability Authority functions, will be required to supply information when an incident or disturbance meets a reporting threshold.

Since the pre-survey consultation notice was published, the program will request respondents to report outages that affect 50,000 customers or more. This was a revision based on public comments that claimed a reduction to report outages that affect 25,000 customers or more would be too burdensome.

7. Business or other for-profit; State, local or tribal government.

8. 4,322 hours.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest if you produce, manufacture, use, consume, work with, or import pesticide chemicals and other substances. To determine whether you or your business may have an interest in this notice you should carefully examine section 408(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-170), 21 U.S.C. 346a(p), and amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (Public Law 104-182), 42 U.S.C. 300j-17. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2005-0037. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other related information. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that are available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in the EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0282.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ . A meeting agenda, a list of EDMVAC members and information from previous EDMVS and EDMVAC meetings are available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

You may submit a request to participate in the meeting through e-mail, telephone, fax, or hand delivery/courier. We would normally accept requests by mail, but in this time of delays in delivery of government mail due to health and security concerns, we cannot assure your request would arrive in a timely manner. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered CBI. Your request must be received by EPA on or before July 25, 2005. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPPT-2005-0037 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the public is encouraged to submit written comments on the topic of this meeting. The EDMVAC will have a period available during the meeting for public comment. It is the policy of the EDMVAC to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The EDMVAC expects that public statements presented at its meeting will be on the meeting topic and not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic request to participate in the meeting or comments as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your request or comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the request or comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your request or comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your request or comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your request or comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a request or comment will be included as part of the request or comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your request or comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your request or comment.

i. EPA Docket . You may use EPA's electronic public docket http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting materials. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2005-0037. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your request.

ii. E-mail . Requests to participate in the meeting or comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2005-0037. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail request directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the request that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM by hand delivery, courier, or package service, such as Federal Express, to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Do not submit any disk or CD ROM through the mail. Disks and CD ROMs risk being destroyed when handled as Federal Government mail.

2. Telephone or fax . Telephone or fax your request to participate in the meeting to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2005-0037. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

In 1996, through enactment of FQPA, which amended the FFDCA, Congress directed EPA to develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have hormonal effects in humans or such other endocrine effects. In 1996, EPA chartered a scientific advisory committee, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), under the authority of FACA, to advise it on establishing a program to carry out Congress' directive. EDSTAC recommended a multi-step approach including a series of screens (Tier 1 screens) and tests (Tier 2 tests) for determining whether a chemical substance may have an effect similar to that produced by naturally occurring hormones. EPA adopted almost all of EDSTAC's recommendations in the program that it developed, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), to carry out Congress' directive.

EPA is in the process of developing and validating the screens and tests that EDSTAC recommended for inclusion in the EDSP. In carrying out this validation exercise, EPA is working closely with the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternate Methods (ICCVAM). EPA also is working closely with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Endocrine Testing and Assessment Task Force to validate and harmonize endocrine screening tests of international interest.

Finally, to ensure that EPA has the best and most up-to-date advice available regarding the validation of the screens and tests in the EDSP, EPA chartered the Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation Subcommmittee (EDMVS) of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). The EDMVS convened nine meetings between October 2001 and December 2003. In 2003, NACEPT recommended EDMVS become an Agency level 1 FACA Committee due to the complexity of the recommendations. The EDMVAC was chartered in 2004. The EDMVAC provides independent advice and counsel to the Agency on scientific and technical issues related to validation of the EDSP Tier 1 screens and Tier 2 tests, including advice on methods for reducing animal use, refining procedures involving animals to make them less stressful, and replacing animals where scientifically appropriate. EDMVAC and previous EDMVS meeting information and corresponding docket numbers are available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/ . You may also go to the EPA Docket at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting materials.

The objective for the August 2, 2005 teleconference meeting (docket ID number OPPT-2005-0037) is to discuss the 15-Day Intact Adult Male Assay.

A list of the EDMVAC members and meeting materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/ and in the public docket.

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPPT-2005-0038. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also, include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment, and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties, or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2005-0038. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2005-0038 and PMN number or TME number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2005-0038, and PMN number or TME number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action and the specific PMN number you are commenting on in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN, or an application for a TME, and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review, and the receipt of Notices of Commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from June 9, 2005 to June 20, 2005, consists of the PMNs and TME, both pending or expired, and the Notices of Commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

This status report identifies the PMNs and TME, both pending or expired, and the Notices of Commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the TME received:

In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received: