Pursuant to the provisions of section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (U.S.C. App.2) this notice is given regarding a Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Board meeting. The board is constituted under section 7 of the PVP Act (7 U.S.C. 2327). The proposed agenda for the meeting will include discussions of: (1) The accomplishments of the PVP Office, (2) The financial status of the PVP Office, (3) PVP Office information technology infrastructure, (4) Discussion of current program operations and long term strategic plan, and (5) Other related topics. Upon entering the National Agricultural Library Building, visitors should inform security personnel that they are attending the PVP Board Meeting. Identification will be required to be admitted to the building. Security personnel will direct visitors to the registration table located outside of Room 1400. Registration upon arrival is necessary for all participants.

If you require accommodations, such as sign language interpreter, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Minutes of the meeting will be available for public review 30 days following the meeting at the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The minutes will also be posted on the Internet Web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/PVPO/PVPindex.htm.

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. The Coronado National Forest currently has one other rental facility. This facility is booked regularly throughout the rental season. A business analysis for the rental of the Half Moon Ranch shows that people desire having this sort of recreation experience on the Coronado National Forest. A market analysis indicates that the $150.00 daily fee is both reasonable and acceptable for this sort of unique recreation experience. People wanting to rent the Half Moon Ranch will need to do so through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at http://www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777. The National Recreation Reservation Service charges a $9 fee per reservation.

In separate actions, plaintiffs, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. (“Fuyao”), Xinyi Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (“Xinyi”), Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass, Co., Ltd, Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (collectively “Pilkington”), and Benxun Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (“Benxun”) 1 contested several aspects of the Final Determination , including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy inputs. 2 On February 15, 2006, while the cases were consolidated, the Court remanded the Department's decision regarding certain market economy inputs to the Department. See Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 02-00282, 2006 Ct. Int'l Trade Lexis 21, Slip Op. 2006-21 (CIT February 15, 2006) (“ Fuyao Glass III ”). In its remand to the Department, the Court concluded with respect to the standard applied in the Department's analysis that the Department must conduct its analysis “in accordance with the court's finding with respect to the use of the word `are' rather than `may be' when applying its subsidized price methodology.” Fuyao Glass III , Slip Op. P. 9. The Court further directed the Department to either (1) “concur with the court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or (2) re-open the record . . .” Fuyao Glass III , Slip Op. P. 7. The Court concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, i.e. , that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by substantial record evidence. See Fuyao Glass III , Slip Op. p. 16. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized. See Viraj Group v. United States , 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence on the record does not support the Department's determination to disregard prices from South Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and Xinyi, mandatory respondents, based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers located in South Korea and Indonesia. As a result of its remand determination, the Department calculated zero margins for both Fuyao and Xinyi.

In Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 02-00282, (Orders of November 2, 2006 and December 19, 2006) (“ Fuyao Glass IV ”), the Court then granted the Department's request for a voluntary remand and instructed the Department to devise a reasonable methodology to calculate an antidumping margin for Pilkington and Benxun, taking into consideration the zero margins assigned to Fuyao and Xinyi. On January 8, 2007, the Court severed Fuyao's and Xinyi's actions, Court Nos. 02-00282 and 02-00321, from the consolidated action, and designated Pilkington's action, Court No. 02-00312, as the lead case, under which Court Nos. 02-00319 and 02-00320 were consolidated. On May 10, 2007, and June 28, 2007, respectively, the Court issued final judgments in Court Nos. 02-00282 and 02-00321, wherein it affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Fuyao's and Xinyi's actions. The Department then completed its voluntary remand in which it devised a reasonable methodology to calculate an antidumping margin for Pilkington and Benxun, taking into consideration the zero margins assigned to Fuyao and Xinyi. Specifically, on remand, the Department identified the control numbers (“CONNUMS”) shared by the Pilkington Plaintiffs, Benxun, Fuyao and Xinyi, as reported in their questionnaire responses, and “impute{d} Fuyao's and Xinyi's CONNUM-specific margins to the matching CONNUMs of the {the Pilkington Plaintiffs} and Benxun.” Commerce then weight-averaged those CONNUM-specific margins, which resulted in the de minimis antidumping margin of 1.47 percent for the Pilkington Plaintiffs and Benxun.

On August 3, 2007, the Court issued a final judgement, wherein it affirmed the Department's fourth remand results with respect to Pilkington and Benxun.

In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ Timken ”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination. The Court's decision in Pilkington on August 3, 2007, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Determination . This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken . Accordingly, the Department will issue an amended final determination and revised instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection if the Court's decision is not appealed or if it is affirmed on appeal.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act.

This case arises out of the Department's AD Order and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) (“ Final Determination ”), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (“Decision Memo”), as amended at 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (“POI”), July 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Following publication of the Final Determination , Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. et al. (“Fuyao”), Xinyi Automotove Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Xinyi”), 1 Shenzhen Benxun Automotove Glass Co., Ltd. (Benxun), 2 and Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass, Co., Ltd., Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Yao hua Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (collectively “Pilkington”) filed lawsuits with the Court challenging the Department's Final Determination . 3 Plaintiffs, Fuyao, Xinyi, Benxun, and Pilkington, initially in separate lawsuits, contested several aspects of the Final Determination , including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy inputs. On August 2, 2002, all law suits challenging the Final Determination , including Xinyi's lawsuit, were consolidated into Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 02-00282. On February 15, 2006, while the cases were still consolidated, the Court issued its third remand concerning the Department's decision concerning certain market economy inputs. See Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 02-00282, Slip Op. 2006-21, (CIT, February 15, 2006). In its remand to the Department, the Court concluded with respect to the standard applied in the Department's analysis, that the Department must conduct its analysis “in accordance with the Court's finding with respect to the use of the word 'are' rather than 'may be' when applying its subsidized price methodology.” Id . at 9. The Court further directed the Department to either (1) “concur with the court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or (2) re-open the record . . .” Id . at 7. The Court concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by substantial record evidence. Id . at 16. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized. See Viraj Group v. United States , 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence on the record does not support the Department's determination to disregard prices from South Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers located in South Korea and Indonesia.

On January 8, 2007, Xinyi's action was severed from the consolidated action. See Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-00282. On June 28, 2007, the Court issued a final judgment, wherein it affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Xinyi's action, Xinyi v. United States . On September 13, 2007, consistent with the decision in Timken Co. v. United States , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the Court's decision was not in harmony with the Department's final determination. See Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from The People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony , 72 FR 52344 (September 13, 2007). No party appealed the Court's decision. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, we are amending our Final Determination.

As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is amending the Final Determination to reflect the results of our third remand determination. The revised dumping margin in the amended final determination is as follows:

This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Background

This case arose out of the Department's Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the PRC , 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002) and the Department's Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) (“ Final Determination ”), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum (“Decision Memo”), as amended at 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002), covering the period of investigation (“POI”), July 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Following publication of the Final Determination , in separate actions, Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. et al. (“Fuyao”), Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Xinyi”), 1 Shenzhen Benxun Automotive Glass Co., Ltd. (Benxun), 2 and Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass, Co., Ltd., Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd., and Wuhan Yao hua Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (collectively “Pilkington”) filed lawsuits with the Court challenging the Department's Final Determination . 3 Collectively, the plaintiffs contested several aspects of the Final Determination , including the Department's decision to disregard certain market economy inputs. On August 2, 2002, all lawsuits challenging the Final Determination , including Xinyi's lawsuit, were consolidated into Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 02-00282. On February 15, 2006, while the cases were still consolidated, the Court issued a third remand order to the Department concerning its decision regarding certain market economy inputs. See Fuyao Glass III. The Court concluded with respect to the standard applied in the Department's analysis, that the Department must conduct its analysis “in accordance with the court's finding with respect to the use of the word ‘are’ rather than ‘may be’ when applying its subsidized price methodology.” Id. at 9. The Court further directed the Department to either (1) “concur with the court's conclusions with respect to substantial evidence, or (2) re-open the record * * *.” Id. at 7. The Court concluded that it does not find the Department's determination, that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized, is supported by substantial record evidence. See id. at 16. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, and under respectful protest, the Department concurred that the record evidence does not contain substantial evidence to support a conclusion that prices from South Korea and Indonesia are subsidized. See Viraj Group v. United States , 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Because the Court found that the evidence on the record does not support the Department's determination to disregard prices from South Korea and Indonesia, in the remand results, the Department determined to calculate the dumping margin for Fuyao and Xinyi based upon prices the plaintiffs actually paid to suppliers located in South Korea and Indonesia.

On January 8, 2007, Fuyao's action was severed from the consolidated action. See Court Order of January 8, 2007, in Ct. No. 02-00282. On May 10, 2007, the Court issued a final judgment wherein it affirmed the Department's third remand results with respect to Fuyao's action. On May 30, 2007, consistent with the decision in Timken Co. v. United States , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified the public that the Court's decision was not in harmony with the Department's final determination. See Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony , 72 FR 29969 (May 30, 2007). No party appealed the Court's decision. As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, we are amending our Final Determination .

As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is amending the Final Determination to reflect the results of our third remand determination. The revised dumping margin in the amended final determination is as follows:

The PRC-wide rate continues to be 124.5 percent as determined in the Department's Final Determination . The Department intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) fifteen days after publication of this notice, to revise the cash deposit rates for the company listed above, effective as of the publication date of this notice. Because Fuyao obtained a preliminary injunction, we will also instruct CBP to liquidate all entries without regard to antidumping duties.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from Canada. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada , 67 FR 65944 (October 29, 2002) (Order). On October 2, 2006, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 POR. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 2006). On October 31, 2006, Mittal Canada Inc. (formerly Ispat Sidbec Inc.) (Mittal Canada) requested an administrative review of its entries that were subject to the antidumping duty order for this period. On that same date, the Department received a request from petitioners (Mittal Steel USA Inc.—Georgetown, Gerdau USA Inc., Nucor Steel Connecticut Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills) for a review of Ivaco, Inc. and Ivaco Rolling Mills L.P. (which petitioners referred to collectively as “Ivaco”). Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P., also requested a review of their entries. On November 27, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006). 1 Mittal Canada subsequently withdrew its request for review, and the Department rescinded the administrative review with respect to Mittal Canada. See Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada , 72 FR 51408 (September 7, 2007).

Ivaco submitted a response to section A of the Department's questionnaire on January 16, 2007, and a response to sections B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire on February 21, 2007. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated June 8, 2007, Ivaco submitted a supplemental response for sections A, B, and C on July 13, 2007. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated September 12, 2007, Ivaco submitted a supplemental response, for sections A, B, C, and D on October 3, 2007. In response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire dated October 10, 2007, Ivaco submitted a supplemental response, for section C on October 17, 2007. On October 11, 2007, petitioners submitted comments regarding Ivaco's claims with respect to levels of trade and certain Ivaco costs, and, on October 19, 2007, Ivaco submitted a response to petitioners' comments on those issues.

The Department is considering IRM and Sivaco Ontario as part of the same entity (referred to collectively in this notice as “Ivaco”), consistent with the Department's treatment of these companies in previous proceedings. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada , 72 FR 26591 (May 10, 2007) and Ivaco Changed Circumstance Review , 72 FR 15102.

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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“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. 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.

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.

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 subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, 7227.90.6010, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP), as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the producer or exporter 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.

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

Ivaco made both EP and CEP transactions. We calculated an EP for sales where the merchandise was sold directly by Ivaco to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We calculated a CEP for sales made by Ivaco after importation to the United States (where the merchandise was located at an unaffiliated processor facility or unaffiliated distributor warehouse at the time of sale).

For EP sales, we made additions to the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate, for freight revenue received by Ivaco (reimbursement by customers for freight charges paid by Ivaco) and for billing errors (debit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), and deductions, where appropriate, for billing adjustments (including credit-note price adjustments made by Ivaco), early payment discounts and rebates, and movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland freight, warehousing expenses, and brokerage fees. For CEP sales, we made adjustments to the starting price as for the EP transactions described above. However, consistent with our treatment of these expenses in recent administrative reviews, we re-categorized freight from one unaffiliated processor in the United States to another unaffiliated processor in the United States as further manufacturing costs. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada , 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; and Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada , 71 FR 64921, 64923 (November 6, 2006) (unchanged in final results, 72 FR 26591 (May 10, 2007)). In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses (imputed credit expenses and warranty expenses), imputed inventory carrying costs, and further manufacturing. Finally, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to the expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. See the October 31, 2007, Memorandum from Steve Bezirganian, Analyst, through Robert James, Program Manager, entitled “Analysis Memorandum for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (A-122-840)” (Ivaco Analysis Memorandum).

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is not a particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with sales to the United States. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act.

We found that Ivaco had a viable home market for steel wire rod. See Ivaco Analysis Memorandum. Ivaco submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the “Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices” section below.

Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by the respondent were made at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the POR. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada , 70 FR 41681, 41684 (July 20, 2005) (unchanged in final results, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006)); and section 773(b) of the Act. Therefore, we required Ivaco to file a response to Section D of the Department's Questionnaire.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses.

We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondent 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 the COP within an extended period of time ( i.e. , normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

We disregard below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Ivaco made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate.

We determined NV for Ivaco as follows. We made adjustments to the gross price to account for billing adjustments, and deducted discounts and rebates. We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically, we made adjustments for Ivaco's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( i.e. , credit expenses and warranty expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses ( i.e. , credit expenses and warranty expenses). See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.410(c). Where we compared Ivaco's U.S. sales to home market sales of merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

The respondent reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison Market , 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Ivaco's sales to affiliated parties that were determined not to be at arm's length were disregarded in our comparison to U.S. sales.

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value (CV). Accordingly, for those models of steel wire rod for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV.

Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. packing expenses. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. We based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.

We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For CEP and EP comparisons, we deducted direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales ( i.e. , credit expenses and warranty expenses). See Section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act; and 19 CFR 351.410(c). For EP sales, we added U.S. direct selling expenses ( i.e. , credit expenses and warranty expenses) to the NV.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there are no sales at the same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. The Department identifies the LOT based on: the starting price or constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for EP sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the Act (for CEP sales). If the comparison-market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, 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, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).

Ivaco reported home market sales in two channels of distribution: (1) Direct sales by IRM and (2) direct sales by Sivaco Ontario. Ivaco reported U.S. EP sales in two channels of distribution: (1) Direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers and (2) direct sales by Sivaco Ontario to U.S. customers. Finally, Ivaco reported U.S. CEP sales in one channel of distribution: (1) Direct sales by IRM to U.S. customers made from the facilities of unaffiliated U.S. processors or unaffiliated U.S. warehouses. Ivaco claims that all of IRM's home market and U.S. sales are at one LOT, and that all of Sivaco's home market and U.S. sales are at another, more advanced, LOT. Ivaco states that the Department should calculate a LOT adjustment when sales by IRM are matched to sales by Sivaco. Ivaco also states that, if the Department determines that IRM's U.S. CEP sales are at a different LOT from all Ivaco's home market sales, the Department should grant a CEP offset.

To determine whether there were multiple LOTs, we examined the selling functions performed by Ivaco for its customers. We found few differences in selling functions across the various channels of distribution and, based on this examination, we preliminarily determine that Ivaco sold merchandise at one LOT in both markets. See the October 31, 2007 memorandum from Steve Bezirganian, through Robert James, to Richard Weible, “Level of Trade Analysis for Ivaco Rolling Mills 2004 L.P. and Sivaco Ontario, a division of Sivaco Wire Group 2004 L.P.: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (A-122-840).” Consequently, there is no basis for calculating a level-of-trade adjustment or a CEP offset.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as provided by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of publication of this notice. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days after submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the arguments, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. 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 date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of the Act.

Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue assessment instructions directly to CBP on or after 41 days following the publication of the final results of review, pursuant to 19 CFR 356.8(a). We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. 2

The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by companies included in these final results of reviews for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary ( e.g. , a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there was no rate calculated in this review for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice , 68 FR at 23954, for a full discussion of this clarification.

The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of steel wire rod from Canada entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Ivaco will be the rates established in the final esults of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis , the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (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) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 8.11 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect util publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entities 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 published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on wire rod from Mexico; see Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 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 2, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review , 71 FR 57920 (October 2, 2006).

On October 31, 2006, we received a request for review from petitioners, 1 with respect to Hylsa and Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas S.A. de C.V. (“Sicartsa”). This review was requested in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2).

On November 27, 2006, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 71 FR 68535 (November 27, 2006).

On December 28, 2006, petitioners withdrew their request for a review of Sicartsa pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). On May 25, 2007, we published in the Federal Register the notice of rescission for Sicartsa; see Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 29300 (May 25, 2007).

On February 5, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section A response to the Department's December 8, 2006, initial questionnaire. On February 12, 2007, Hylsa submitted its sections B-C response to the Department's initial questionnaire. On June 11, 2007, Hylsa submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's May 4, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On September 6, 2007, Hylsa submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's August 23, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C. On September 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's September 10, 2007, questionnaire for sections A-C.

On February 20, 2007, Hylsa submitted its section D response to the Department's December 7, 2007, questionnaire. On July 16, 2007, Hylsa submitted its supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's June 18, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On September 13, 2007, Hylsa submitted its second questionnaire response to the Department's August 23, 2007, questionnaire for section D. On October 10, 2007, Hylsa submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response to the Department's October 3, 2007, questionnaire for section D.

On March 30, 2007, the petitioners submitted comments with respect to Hylsa. On May 17, 2007, the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of the fourth administrative review from July 3, 2007, to October 31, 2007. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 72 FR 27801 (May 17, 2007).

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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“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 decarborization 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 decarborization 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 review 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 this proceeding is dispositive. 2

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the “Scope of Review” section, above, and sold in Mexico during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product or constructed value (“CV”): grade range, carbon content range, surface quality, deoxidation, maximum total residual content, heat treatment, diameter range, and coating. These characteristics have been weighted by the Department where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

To determine whether sales of wire rod from Mexico were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the EP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

For the price to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and when constructed export price was not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record. We based EP on the packed cost-insurance-freight (“CIF”), ex-factory, free-on-board (“FOB”), or delivered prices to the first unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign brokerage, handling and loading charges, U.S. brokerage, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to the customer) and insurance. We also adjusted EP for billing adjustments.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(e)(2) and in keeping with our practice, we added interest, freight, and other revenue ( i.e. , Mexican and U.S. brokerage and handling) where applicable. See, e.g., Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination , 69 FR 19400, 19406 (April 13, 2004); unchanged in Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value , 69 FR 53677 (September 2, 2004).

To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Hylsa's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Hylsa had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

Hylsa reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated end-users and affiliated resellers. The Department calculates the NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the producer or exporter, i.e. , sales at arm's-length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and 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); see also Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade , 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). Conversely, where sales to the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party have been excluded from the NV calculation. Id. Some of Hylsa's sales did not pass the arm's-length test and were excluded from the NV calculation.

Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of Hylsa, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the respondents' comparison market sales were made below the COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We adjusted Hylsa's reported general and administrative expenses to account for certain costs. The Department normally includes these costs in the calculation of COP. See October 31, 2007, memorandum to the file, “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Hylsa Puebla S.A. de C.V.” from Gina K. Lee, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting.

As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with the statute and the Department's practice, we determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses (also subtracted from the COP), and packing expenses. We also adjusted the gross unit price for billing adjustments and interest revenue. See section 773(b) of the Act; see also Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part , 69 FR 25063, 25066 (May 5, 2004); unchanged in Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey: Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part , 69 FR 64731 (November 8, 2004).

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities.” See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. The sales were made within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because they were made over the course of the POR. In such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for Hylsa, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the October 31, 2007, memorandum to the file, “Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for Hylsa S.A. de C.V.” (“Calculation Memorandum for Hylsa”) from Jolanta Lawska, Case Analyst, Office of AD/CVD Operations III, available in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) Import Administration, Washington, DC, HCHB Building, Room B for our calculation methodology and results.

We calculated NV based on ex-works, FOB or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We calculated the starting price taking into account, where necessary, billing adjustments and early payment discounts. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting price, when appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, and inland insurance. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.402, we added interest revenue, where applicable. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In addition, we made circumstance of sale (“COS”) adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed credit expenses, and warranty expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs.

Sales of wire rod purchased by the respondents from unaffiliated producers and resold in the comparison market were treated in the same manner described above in the “Export Price” section of this notice.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the EP sales, to the extent practicable. When there were no sales at the same LOT, we compared U.S. sales to comparison market sales at a different LOT.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the comparison-market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

In its questionnaire response, Hylsa did not claim a LOT adjustment. See Hylsa's Section A questionnaire response dated February 12, 2007, at page 29. Moreover, based on our analysis of the facts of this administrative review, we preliminarily determine that there is no substantial difference in the selling functions between the sales on which NV is based and the export transactions. All of Hylsa's U.S. sales are reported as EP sales. Thus, we have matched EP sales to sales in the home market without regard to level of trade and made no level of trade adjustment.

For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of Hylsa's LOT findings for these preliminary results, see page 3 of the October 31, 2007, calculation memorandum for Hylsa.

For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006:

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. After 41 days of publication of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific ad valorem rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis ( i.e. , at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. The total customs value is based on the entered value reported for each importer for all U.S. entries of subject merchandise purchased during the POR for consumption in the United States.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties , 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the companies included in these preliminary results for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company or companies involved in the transaction.

To calculate the cash deposit rate for Hylsa in this administrative review, we divided the total dumping margins by the total net value for this company's sales during the review period.

The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis , the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 20.11 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 Mexico , 67 FR 55800 (August 30, 2002).

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

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

This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On July 6, 2007, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the AD order on wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago. See Preliminary Results. This review covers imports of wire rod from Mittal Steel Point Lisas Limited and its affiliates Mittal Steel North America (MSNA) and Walker Wire (Ispat) Inc. (collectively Mittal) during the POR, October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results.

On August 6, 2007, we received a case brief from the petitioners: ISG Georgetown Inc., Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc. On August 10, 2007, we extended Mittal's deadline for submitting its rebuttal brief. On August 13, 2007, we received Mittal's rebuttal brief.

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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (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. See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 68 FR 64079, 64081 (November 12, 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 review 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 this order is dispositive.

The sole issue raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary ( Decision Memorandum ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issue concerns the “Methodology for Calculating Imputed Expenses for CEP Sales.” The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

As noted above, there have been no changes from the Preliminary Results . However, we have attached a Decision Memorandum to this Federal Register notice addressing the methodology used to calculate imputed credit expenses. For further details of the issues addressed in this proceeding, see the Preliminary Results .

As a result of this review, we find that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006:

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Mittal where Mittal did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the “All Others” rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) For Mittal no cash deposit will be required; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most recent company-specific rate established in the final determination or final results; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the LTFV investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise for the most recent period; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 11.40 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago, 67 FR 55788 (August 30, 2002). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent increase in antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/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 that is subject to sanction.

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

Background

We initiated an antidumping investigation on glycine from India. See Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72 FR 20816 (April 26, 2007). On October 26, 2007, we issued our preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value (not yet published). We stated in our October 26, 2007, preliminary determination that we used total facts available, including an adverse inference, for one firm, Nutracare International/Salvi Chemical Industries (Salvi), which did not respond to our quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire and, therefore, withheld requested information and significantly impeded this proceeding pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. We stated further that, because it did not cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, in reaching our preliminary determination we applied total adverse facts available to Salvi pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.

There were nine firms in addition to Salvi which did not respond to our Q&V questionnaire and, to clarify our inadvertent error of omission of these firms, we are amending our preliminary determination. The firms which failed to respond to our request for information and for which we are applying adverse facts available in accordance with sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act are as follows: Abhiyan Media Pvt. Ltd., Ashok Alco-Chem, Ltd., Bimal Pharma, Pvt., Ltd., Euro Asian Industrial Co., EPIC Enzymes Pharmaceuticals & Industrial, Indian Chemical Industries, Kumar Industries, Sisco Research Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, and Sealink International, Inc.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006:

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of glycine from India that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rates for the mandatory respondents except Paras will be the rates we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 45.82 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(e)(2), because the weighted-average margin for Paras is zero, we will not instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of merchandise produced and exported by Paras.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our amended preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the imports covered by that determination are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for the ITC's determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of the preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the amended preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of the final verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline for the submission of case briefs. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide us with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette.

Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will make our final determination within 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On April 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the initiation of an antidumping investigation on glycine from India. See Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72 FR 20816 (April 26, 2007) ( Initiation Notice ). The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 20817. We did not receive comments regarding product coverage from any interested party.

On May 17, 2007, we issued the quantity-and-value (Q&V) questionnaire to all companies identified in the petition. In addition, we issued the Q&V questionnaire to companies in India for which we obtained public information indicating that the companies produced and/or exported glycine or pharmaceuticals. See the June 22, 2007, Memorandum to the File entitled “Issuance of Quantity and Value Questionnaires to Potential Indian Respondents.” We received responses from seven companies. Based on an analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) import statistics of Indian glycine under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) number 2922.49.4020, Advanced Exports/Aico Laboratories (AICO), Nutracare International/Salvi Chemical Industries (Salvi), and Paras Intermediates (Paras) account for more than 75 percent of imports. AICO and Paras responded to our Q&V questionnaire; Salvi did not respond. We selected AICO and Paras as mandatory respondents.

On May 25, 2007, the International Trade Commission (ITC) published its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of glycine from India. See Glycine from India, Japan, and Korea, 72 FR 29352 (May 25, 2007).

The period of investigation is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

The merchandise covered by this investigation is glycine, which in its solid, i.e., crystallized, form is a free-flowing crystalline material. Glycine is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, metal complexing agent, dietary supplement, and is used in certain pharmaceuticals. The scope of this investigation covers glycine in any form and purity level. Although glycine blended with other materials is not covered by the scope of this investigation, glycine to which relatively small quantities of other materials have been added is covered by the scope. Glycine's chemical composition is C 2 H 5 NO 2 and is normally classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the HTSUS.

The scope of this investigation also covers precursors of dried crystalline glycine, including, but not limited to, glycine slurry, i.e. , glycine in a non-crystallized form, and sodium glycinate. Glycine slurry is classified under the same HTSUS subheading as crystallized glycine (2922.49.4020) and sodium glycinate is classified under subheading HTSUS 2922.49.8000.

While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

On June 26, 2007, we issued sections A, B, C, D, and E  1 of the antidumping questionnaire to AICO and Paras. Although we received timely responses from Paras, we did not receive timely responses from AICO, as described in detail below, despite granting several extensions of the applicable deadlines.

For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of facts otherwise available with an adverse inference is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to Salvi and AICO.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Act states further that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.

Salvi —Salvi did not respond to our Q&V questionnaire and, therefore, did not provide any information necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary determination. On June 1, 2007, we sent Salvi a follow-up letter informing it that failure to respond might result in the application of facts available, including an adverse inference, in accordance with section 776 of the Act and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.308. Salvi still did not respond to our Q&V questionnaire and, thus, withheld requested information and significantly impeded this proceeding. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our preliminary determination, we have used total facts available for Salvi because it did not provide the data we needed to decide whether it should be selected as a mandatory respondent.

AICO —In this case, AICO did not provide pertinent information we requested that is necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary determination. The following is a summary of our attempts to receive a complete response from AICO. On April 19, 2007, we initiated the less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation of glycine from India. In that initiation, we also initiated an investigation of sales at prices below the cost of production in the comparison market. The statutory date of the preliminary determination at this time was September 6, 2007. On June 26, 2007, we issued our standard questionnaire. The section A response was due on July 16, 2007, 21 days from the issuance of the questionnaire, and the section B, C, and D responses were due on August 2, 2007, 39 days from the issuance of the questionnaire.

On July 10, 2007, AICO requested an extension of 45-60 days to submit its section A response. We granted AICO an additional 14 days, and the revised due date for its section A response was July 30, 2007. Four days after the extended deadline for its section A response and one day after the due date for AICO's sections B, C, and D responses, on August 3, 2007, we received from AICO an incomplete, two-page section A response and a request for a “4-5 week” extension of the deadline to submit section B, C, and D responses. We granted AICO a two-week extension until August 16, 2007, for its sections B, C, and D responses and also requested that it file a complete section A response at the same time it submitted its section B, C, and D responses.

On August 16, 2007, we received AICO's revised section A response and a request from AICO for a one-month extension for the submission of its section B, C, and D responses. We gave AICO a two-week extension for its section B, C, and D responses until August 30, 2007. On September 5, 2007, six days after the deadline, we received AICO's section B and C responses and a request for a two-week extension for its submission of its section D response, i.e. , until September 15, 2007.

On September 14, 2007, we informed AICO that, despite the fact that we had given it several extensions and a total of 66 days to respond to our original questionnaire, we had received AICO's section B and C responses six days after the due date. We also informed it that we had received its request for an additional extension of time to respond to section D of our questionnaire six days after the already-extended due date for the section D response. We declined to give AICO any further extensions and returned its sections B and C responses as untimely.

AICO did not file its sections B and C responses in a timely matter despite having been granted multiple extensions of time. Therefore, AICO failed to provide information requested by the established deadlines. See section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Also, AICO did not respond at all to section D of our questionnaire, thereby withholding, among other things, cost-of-production information that is necessary for reaching the applicable determination. See section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. In granting extensions, we informed AICO repeatedly that, if we did not receive submissions by the stated deadline, we may reject the submission and use facts available in the preliminary determination.

By not providing its submissions by the applicable deadlines, AICO did not provide information we need to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary determination. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, we have based the dumping margin on facts otherwise available for AICO.

In applying the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.

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. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) at 870 ( SAA ). Further, “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, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department provided Salvi and AICO with notice informing them of the consequences of their failure to respond adequately to the Department's request for information. Nevertheless, Salvi did not respond to the Q&V questionnaire and AICO did not respond adequately, completely, or in a timely manner to the standard questionnaire. This constitutes a failure on the part of Salvi and AICO to cooperate to the best of their ability to comply with requests for information by the Department within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Because Salvi and AICO did not provide information we requested, section 782(e) of the Act is not applicable. Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined that Salvi and AICO failed to cooperate to the best of their ability and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000).

Where the Department applies adverse facts available because a 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 Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 870. In this case, because we are unable to calculate a margin for Salvi and AICO and because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned to Salvi and AICO a margin of 121.62 percent, the highest margin alleged in the petition. See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Glycine from India, Japan, and the Republic of Korea dated March 30, 2007 ( Petition ), and the supplements to the Petition filed on behalf of Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (the petitioner), and dated April 3, 12, 13, 17, and 18, 2007, as recalculated in the April 19, 2007, “Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist for the Antidumping Duty Petition on Glycine from the India “( Initiation Checklist ) on file in Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as information contained in the petition) rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable, information from independent sources that are reasonably available at its disposal.

The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As stated in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in 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; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. The Department's regulations state 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 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.

For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the Petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for purposes of this preliminary determination. See Initiation Checklist. We examined evidence supporting the calculations in the Petition to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the Petition for use as adverse facts available for purposes of this preliminary determination. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to derive margins. Also, during our pre-initiation analysis, we examined information from various independent sources provided either in the Petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the Petition , that corroborates key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to derive estimated margins.

The petitioner calculated export prices using lost sales reports from sales staff. See the Petition at 27-29. The Petitioner adjusted U.S. prices for foreign inland freight, international freight, U.S. inland freight, distributor mark-up, and credit charges using publicly available data. See Petition at Exhibits 1-4 and 6. The petitioner arrived at adjusted, per pound, U.S. dollar figures per pound for technical grade glycine, food grade glycine, and pharmaceutical grade glycine, the same unit and currency on which normal value was calculated. See Volume I of the Petition at pages 27-29, Volume II of the Petition at DOC Exhibits 1-7, the April 12, 2007, supplement to the Petition , at Exhibit A, and the April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition , at Exhibit L.

Based on our review of the information contained in the Petition , we recalculated net export prices (based on price quotes) by excluding an adjustment to export price for U.S. credit expenses. Because the petitioner did not provide supporting documentation for its home-market interest rate, we did not make an adjustment to normal value for home-market credit expenses. We also recalculated the net export prices based on price quotes by revising the reported value associated with a distributor's mark-up. See Volume II of the Petition , at Exhibits DOC-1, DOC-27 through DOC-29, and the April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition , at Exhibits L, M, and N. In addition, we recalculated the distributor's mark-up value using a reseller's average mark-up percentage based on the industry practice of glycine sales in the United States. See Initiation Checklist , Attachment VI. Based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we consider the petitioner's calculation of net U.S. prices corroborated.

With respect to normal value, the petitioner stated that, because it does not sell glycine in the Indian market, it does not have specific knowledge of how glycine is sold, marketed, or packaged in the Indian market. Therefore, the petitioner determined the price of glycine sold in the Indian market and the cost of production (COP) based on market research of Indian manufactures of glycine. The petitioner was able to determine domestic Indian prices based on price quotes, obtained by a market researcher, from two Indian manufacturers of glycine. See the Memorandum to the File entitled “Telephone Call to Market Research Firm Regarding the Antidumping Petition on Glycine from India,” dated April 19, 2007. These price quotations identified specific terms of sale and payment terms. See Volume II of the Petition , at Exhibits DOC-17, DOC-18, DOC-22, and DOC-23. These per pound price quotes were for technical grade glycine, USP grade glycine (food grade), and pharmaceutical grade glycine.

Based on our review of the information contained in the Petition , we recalculated normal value for Indian glycine (when based on price quotations) by excluding the adjustment for home-market and U.S. credit expenses. See Initiation Checklist .

Based on the petitioner's initial cost model, all of the domestic Indian prices of glycine were found to be above cost, and, therefore, there was no allegation of sales at prices below COP. See, e.g. , Volume I of the Petition , at page 33, Volume II of the Petition , at Exhibits DOC-17—DOC-20, and the April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition , at pages 2-3 and Exhibits B, F, and I, and the discussion of export price above. In its April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition , in response to questions by the Department regarding cost methodology, however, the petitioner revised its cost-calculation methodology and calculated Indian COP based on publicly available cost information. Based on the new cost methodology, the petitioner re-calculated the cost of USP grade glycine and this resulted in the Indian market prices of USP grade glycine being significantly below the COP for that specific product. The petitioner alleged that these sales in the Indian market did not form an adequate basis for comparison to the U.S. prices and that normal value in those instances should be based on the constructed value of the merchandise. See the April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition , at 5 and Exhibit I, and Volume II of the Petition , at Exhibits DOC-17 and DOC-18.

Further, because this methodology provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of glycine in India were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, the petitioner requested that the Department conduct a cost investigation for respondents in India. See the April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition , at 5, Exhibit I, and Volume II of the Petition at Exhibits DOC-17 and DOC-18.

Further, section 773(b)(1) of the Act requires that the Department have “reasonable grounds to believe or suspect” that below-cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question are at below-cost prices. See section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and packing expenses. To calculate the COM, the petitioner multiplied the usage quantity of each input needed to produce one metric ton (MT) of glycine by the value of that input. The petitioner obtained all of the quantity and value data it used to calculate the COM from public sources. The petitioner obtained the input-usage factors from the public record of the 1997-1998 administrative review of glycine from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See Initiation Notice , 72 FR 20819. The petitioner asserted that the producer in the PRC 1997-1998 review produced glycine by the same production method that producers in India use. The petitioner obtained the values for the inputs from various public sources. The petitioner calculated factory overhead, SG&A, and the financial-expense ratios based on the Indian surrogate ratios that the Department used in the preliminary results of the 2005-2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC. Where the Department used constructed value to determine normal value in that review, the petitioner added an amount for profit from the same financial statements the Department used.

We adjusted petitioner's calculation of SG&A expenses to apply the SG&A rate to COM inclusive of factory overhead. We did not include a separate financial-expense amount as the petitioner did because the SG&A ratio already included financial expense. See the Initiation Checklist for a full description of the petitioner's methodology and the adjustments the Department made to the petitioner's calculations.

Because it alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), (b) and (e) of the Act, the petitioner also based normal value for Indian sales of a certain grade glycine on constructed value. The petitioner calculated constructed value using the same COM, SG&A, and financial-expense figures it used to compute the COP. Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioner included an amount for profit in constructed value. See the April 13, 2007, supplement to the Petition , pages 1-5, Exhibit I.

The petitioner obtained the values for the inputs from various public sources. Specifically, the petitioner valued raw materials using import statistics in the World Trade Atlas for the year 2006, exclusive of imports from non-market and heavily subsidized economies, which is the latest Indian import data available. See Initiation Checklist at 9. The petitioner valued labor costs using the average per-hour wages for India for 2004 using the International Labour Organization's Yearbook of Labour Statistics and per-capita gross national income obtained from the World Bank. The petitioner did not adjust the labor data for wage inflation. See Initiation Checklist at 10. The petitioner valued electricity and water consumption using data from page 43 of the Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency, which were attached to the 2005-2006 Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission of Glycine from the People's Republic of China, Surrogate Value Memo, at Exhibit 6, dated April 2, 2007. The petitioner did not adjust the electricity data for inflation. See Initiation Checklist at 10.

Because the petitioner demonstrated, and we confirmed, the validity of the input-usage quantities it used in its COP/constructed-value build-up, used public sources of information, such as official import statistics, that we confirmed were accurate to value inputs of production, and used documents that were used in the Department's prior decisions and that we consider to be accurate to compute factory overhead, SG&A, financial expense, and profit, we consider the petitioner's calculation of normal value corroborated. Further, we consider the petitioner's calculation of normal value corroborated because the bulk of the calculations relied on publicly available information or import statistics which do not require further corroboration. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the information underlying the derivation of margins in the Petition by examining source documents as well as publically available information, we preliminarily determine that the margins in the Petition are reliable for the purposes of this investigation.

In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin as “best information available” (the predecessor to “facts available”) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high dumping margin.

In Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (CIT 2003), the court found that the adverse facts-available rate bore a “rational relationship” to the respondent's “commercial practices” and was, therefore, relevant. In the pre-initiation stage of this investigation, we confirmed that the calculation of margins in the Petition reflects commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of investigation. Further, no information has been presented in the investigation that calls into question the relevance of this information. As such, we preliminarily determine that the highest margin in the Petition , which we determined during our pre-initiation analysis was based on adequate and accurate information and which we have corroborated for purposes of this preliminary determination, is relevant as the adverse facts-available rate for Salvi and AICO in this investigation.

Similar to our position in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is the first proceeding involving Salvi and AICO, there are no probative alternatives. Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determined to be relevant to Salvi and AICO in this investigation, we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate “to the extent practicable.” See section 776(c) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004), which states, “pursuant to the ‘to the extent practicable' language * * * the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory when not feasible.” Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 121.62 percent in the Initiation Notice has probative value. Consequently, in selecting a rate to apply as adverse facts available, with respect to Salvi and AICO, we have applied the margin rate of 121.62 percent, the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of initiation. See Initiation Notice , 72 FR 20820.

Paras was the sole selected respondent which provided timely responses to all sections of our questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires. We have calculated a margin for Paras using the information and methodology we describe below.

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of glycine in the comparison market to serve as a viable basis for calculating the normal value, we compared the volume of Paras's home-market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of the U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Paras's quantity of sales in the home market was greater than five percent of its sales to the U.S. market. Based on this comparison of the aggregate quantities of the sales in comparison market (India) and the United States and absent any information that a particular market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product sold by the respondent in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, we determined that Paras's home market was viable during the period of investigation. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value for the respondent on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the U.S. sales.

We calculated export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because Paras sold the merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation. We based export price on the packed, delivered, duty-unpaid price to the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We added duty drawback to the gross unit price. See section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the scope of the order which were produced and sold by Paras in the home market during the period of investigation to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to glycine sold in the United States. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison market during the period of investigation.

We found there were sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to Paras's U.S. sales. In making product comparisons, we defined identical foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Paras in the following order of importance: type, grade, specification, and nominal grade. For more information, see “Analysis Memorandum of Paras Intermediates, Pvt. Ltd., for the Preliminary Determination of the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation on Glycine from India” dated October 26, 2007 ( Prelim Memo ).

Based on allegations contained in the petition and in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that glycine sales were made in India at prices below the COP. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 20818. As a result, the Department has conducted an investigation to determine whether Paras made home-market sales at prices below its COP during the period of investigation within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. For Paras, we conducted the COP analysis as described below. We were unable to conduct a cost investigation of Salve and AICO because of their failure to respond to our questionnaire in a timely manner.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and labor employed in producing the foreign like product, the SG&A expenses, and all costs and expenses incidental to packing the merchandise. In our COP analysis, we used the home-market sales and COP information Paras provided in its questionnaire responses, including its home-market and COP databases. The Department issued a detailed supplemental section D questionnaire on October 9, 2007, to Paras to address various questions and fundamental issues, including transactions with affiliated parties and further processing of imported materials, after reviewing the original section D response dated August 27, 2007. The due date for the response to the supplemental questionnaire is October 30, 2007, which is later than the statutory deadline for this preliminary determination. Upon receipt of a response from Paras, we will analyze these issues, provide a memorandum discussing the results of our analysis to the respondents and the petitioner, and allow the parties to comment prior to the final determination.

After calculating the COP and in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we tested home-market sales of the foreign like product to determine whether they were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. The home-market prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing adjustments, discounts, and indirect selling expenses. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of Paras's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of Paras's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and because, based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the period of investigation, we determined that these below-cost 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)(2)(D) of the Act. See Prelim Memo. Consequently, we disregarded Paras's below-cost sales of products where 20 percent or more of the product were at prices less than the COP and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

We based normal value for Paras on the prices of the foreign like products sold to its comparison-market customers. When applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to export price, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct selling expenses incurred on home-market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, normal value.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined normal value based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade as the export-price sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1), the normal-value level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales in the home market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, the starting price of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For export-price sales, the U.S. level of trade is based on the starting price of the sales to the U.S. market.

To determine whether normal-value sales are at a different level of trade than the export-price sales, the Department examines stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade than the export-price sales and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested by a pattern of consistent price differences between comparison-market sales at the normal-value level of trade and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, the Department makes a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).

In determining whether Paras made sales at different levels of trade, we obtained information from Paras regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and home-market sales, including a description of the selling activities it performed for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same, the selling functions and activities of the seller at each level of distribution should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and activities of the seller for each distribution group should be dissimilar.

Paras reported export-price sales to the United States through two channels of distribution, end-users and traders. We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities associated with sales reported by Paras to these two channels of distribution in the United States. Based on Paras's response, we determined that it provided relatively equal levels of support for most sales-process and marketing-support functions. These functions include, among other functions, sales forecasting, advertising, and sales promotion. It provided less training for end-users than it did for traders and slightly less inventory maintenance for end-users.

Paras did not report any billing adjustments, early-payment discounts, quantity discounts, or rebates for its sales to the United States. Based on the limited information we received from Paras, we determine that the degree of sales process and marketing support provided is medium.

Paras provided less freight and delivery for end-users. For traders, Paras may ship, at the trader's request, the order directly to the trader's customers. We determine that the degree of freight and delivery services provided is higher for traders than for end-users.

Paras reported that none of the subject merchandise sold in United States during the period of investigation was shipped to a warehouse or other intermediate location to either channel of distribution.

We found that both distribution channels for sales to the U.S. market were similar with respect to sales process and marketing support but different with respect to freight services. Consequently we find that these channels constituted two distinct levels of trade.

Paras reported home-market sales during the period of investigation through two channels of distribution, end-users and traders. We examined the chain of distribution and the selling activities associated with sales reported by Paras to these two channels of distribution in the home market. Based on Paras's response, we determine that it provided relatively equal levels of support for most sales-process and marketing-support functions. These functions include, among other functions, sales forecasting, advertising, and sales promotion. It provided less training for end-users than it did for traders, however, as well as less technical assistance and market research for end-users than traders. With respect to inventory maintenance, Paras provided slightly less inventory maintenance for end-users.

Based on the limited information we received from Paras, we determine that the degree of sales process and marketing support provided is medium although it is slightly higher for traders.

Paras provided less freight and delivery for end-users. For traders, Paras may ship, at the trader's request, the order directly to the trader's customers. We determine that the degree of freight and delivery services provided is higher for traders than for end-users.

Paras reported that none of the subject merchandise sold in the home market during the period of investigation was shipped to a warehouse or other intermediate location.

We found that both distribution channels in the home market were similar with respect to sales process and warehousing services but different with respect to freight services. Therefore, we find that these two channels constitute two distinct levels of trade.

Paras reported export-price sales through two channels of distribution. To the extent practicable, we compare normal value at the same level of trade as the U.S. price. The export-price level of trade for end-users is similar to the home-market level of trade for end-users with respect to sales process, freight services, and warehousing services. The export-price level of trade for traders differed from end-users with respect to freight and delivery and warehousing but was similar to the level of trade for home-market traders. We were able to match all export-price sales to identical sales in the home-market but not always at the same level of trade. For those comparison-market sales for which we matched export-price sales at a different level of trade, we found that there was a pattern of price difference and we made a level-of-trade adjustment.

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, the only individually investigated companies have margins which are zero or determined entirely under section 776. Under these circumstances, we have assigned, as the all-others rate, the simple average of the margins in the Petition. See Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Argentina, Japan and Thailand, 65 FR 5520, 5527-28 (February 4, 2000); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March 31, 1999). Consistent with our practice, we calculated a simple average of the rates in the Petition, as recalculated in the Initiation Checklist at Attachment VI and ranged in the Initiation Notice, and assigned this rate to all other manufacturers/exporters. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 20820. For details of these calculations, see the memorandum from George Callen to the File entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Glycine from India—Analysis Memo for All-Others Rate,” dated October 26, 2007.

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts based on the exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank.

We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006:

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of glycine from India that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rates for the mandatory respondents except Paras (see below) will be the rates we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 45.82 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(e)(2), because the weighted-average margin for Paras is zero, we will not instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of merchandise produced and exported by Paras.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the imports covered by that determination are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for the ITC's determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of the final verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline for the submission of case briefs. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide us with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette. Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On August 21, 2007, Petitioners, 2 Dare Group, Shanghai Aosen, and Kunwa filed timely ministerial error allegations with respect to the Department's antidumping duty margin calculation in the Final Results . On August 27, 2007, Petitioners and Dare Group filed timely rebuttal comments.

The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.

The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests, 3 highboys, 4 lowboys, 5 chests of drawers, 6 chests, 7 door chests, 8 chiffoniers, 9 hutches, 10 and armoires;  11 (6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.

The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate;  12 (9) jewelry armoires;  13 (10) cheval mirrors;  14 (11) certain metal parts;  15 (12) mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set; and (13) upholstered beds. 16

Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “wooden * * * beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other * * * wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood” and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors * * * framed.” This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

A ministerial error is defined in section 751(h) of the Act and further clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.”

After analyzing all interested parties' comments, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that ministerial errors existed in certain calculations for Dare Group and Shanghai Aosen in the Final Results . Correction of these errors results in a change to Dare Group's and Shanghai Aosen's final antidumping duty margins. Additionally, the rate change for Dare Group and Shanghai Aosen also affects the cash deposit rates for the companies subject to the administrative review that receive a separate rate. The rate for the PRC-wide entity remains unchanged. Further, we determined that a certain ministerial error existed with respect to our determination not to grant Kunwa a separate rate and, for these amended final results, we have determined that Kunwa has demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate. For a detailed discussion of these ministerial errors, as well as the Department's analysis, see The Memorandum: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations, dated November 5, 2007 (“Ministerial Error Allegation Memorandum”). The Ministerial Error Allegation Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 in the main Department building.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of the administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. The revised weighted-average dumping margins are detailed below. For company-specific calculations, see “Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results for Dare Group,” dated November 5, 2007 and “Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results for Shanghai Aosen,” dated November 5, 2007. The revised final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For customers/importers of respondents that did not report entered value, we calculated customer/importer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales of subject merchandise to the total quantity of subject merchandise sold in those transactions. For customers/importers of respondents that reported entered value, we calculated customer-specific antidumping duty assessment amounts based on customer/importer-specific ad valorem rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review (i.e., separate rate companies) we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the second amended final results of these new shipper and administrative reviews.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these second amended final results of this administrative review and new shippers for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rates shown for those companies (except if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

These second amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On March 7, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register the CVD order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube products from Turkey. See Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 51 FR 7984 (March 7, 1986). On March 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 9505 (March 2, 2007). On March 16, 2007, we received a timely request for review from Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (“BMB”), Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (“Istikbal”) and their affiliates (collectively, the Borusan Group (“Borusan”)), a Turkish producer and exporter of the subject merchandise. On April 27, 2007, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipe from Turkey, covering the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 20986 (April 27, 2007).

On May 1, 2007, the Department issued a questionnaire to Borusan and the Government of the Republic of Turkey (“the GOT”); we received Borusan's and the GOT's questionnaire responses on July 5, 2007.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. The only company subject to this review is Borusan. This review covers 11 programs.

The products covered by this order are certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness (pipe and tube) from Turkey. These products are currently provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as item numbers 7306.30.10, 7306.30.50, and 7306.90.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

The period for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

BMB was the only company in the Borusan Group that produced the subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”). 1 During 2006, all subject merchandise sold to the United States was either sold directly to the U.S. customer by BMB, or first sold by BMB to Istikbal, the affiliated export sales company, and then resold to an unaffiliated U.S. customer.

BMB's shares are majority held by Borusan Mannesmann Boru Yatirim Holding A.S., a holding company owned by Borusan Holding A.S. 2 and by Mannesmannrohren-Werke A.G., a publicly traded company in Germany. Istikbal is majority-owned by Borusan Holding A.S.

To determine whether government-provided loans under review conferred a benefit, the Department uses, where possible, company-specific interest rates for comparable commercial loans. See 19 CFR 351.505(a). Where no company-specific benchmark interest rates are available, as is the case in this review, the Department's regulations direct us to use a national average interest rate as the benchmark. See 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). According to the GOT, however, there is no official national average short-term interest rate available. 3 Therefore, we have calculated the benchmark interest rate for short-term New Turkish Lira (“YTL”) denominated loans based on short-term interest rate data for 2006, as reported by The Economist. 4

To calculate the benchmark, we sourced the short-term interest rate reported in the last weekly publication of The Economist for each quarter of 2006, i.e., the March 23, 2006, June 22, 2006, September 28, 2006, and December 19, 2006, editions. We then simple averaged those rates to calculate an annual short-term interest rate for Turkey. 5 We then compared the nominal average interest rate with the interest rates that the company paid against the YTL-denominated Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term Export Credits and Pre-Export Credits. See Memorandum to the File concerning the Calculations for the Preliminary Results of the 2006 Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, at 2 (November 1, 2007). This methodology is consistent with the Department's practice. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey, 72 FR 13479 (March 22, 2007) (“ 2005 Pipe Final ”) (affirming methodology from the preliminary results, 71 FR 68550, 68551 (November 27, 2006)); see also, 2004 Pipe Memorandum at “Benchmark Interest Rates” and “Comment 1: Benchmark Interest Rate for Turkish lira Loans.”

Addendum 4108 of Article 40 of the Income Tax Law, dated June 2, 1995, allows companies that operate internationally to claim, directly on their corporate income tax returns, a tax deduction equal to 0.5 percent of the foreign exchange revenue earned from exports and other international activities. 6 The income tax deduction for export earnings may either be taken as a lump sum or be used to cover certain undocumented expenses, which were incurred through international activities, that would otherwise be non-deductible for tax purposes ( e.g., expenses paid in cash, such as for lodging, gasoline, and food).

Consistent with prior determinations, we preliminarily find that this tax deduction is a countervailable subsidy. See 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552) and 2004 Pipe Memorandum, at “Deduction from Taxable Income for Export Revenue.” The deduction provides a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), because it represents revenue forgone by the GOT. The deduction provides a benefit in the amount of the tax savings to the company pursuant to section 771(5)(E) of the Act. It is also specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because its receipt is contingent upon export earnings. In this review, no new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted to warrant reconsideration of the Department's prior findings.

During 2006, the review period, BMB and Istikbal filed separate corporate income tax returns for tax year 2005. Each company utilized the deduction for export earnings with respect to its 2005 income taxes.

The Department typically treats a tax deduction as a recurring benefit in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1). To calculate the countervailable subsidy rate for this program, we calculated the tax savings realized by BMB and Istikbal in 2006, as a result of the deduction for export earnings. We then divided that benefit by Borusan's total export sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy for this program to be 0.12 percent ad valorem.

The Foreign Trade Company (“FTC”) loan program was established by the Export Credit Bank of Turkey (“Export Bank”) to meet the working capital needs of exporters, manufacturer-exporters, and manufacturers supplying exporters. This program is specifically designed to benefit Foreign Trade Corporate Companies (“FTCC”) and Sectoral Foreign Trade Companies (“SFTC”). 7 An FTCC is a company whose export performance was at least US$100 million in the previous year and whose paid in capital is at least YTL 2 million.

To eligible applicants, the Export Bank provides short-term export loans directly to companies in Turkish lira or foreign currency, based on their prior export performance, up to 100 percent of the FOB export commitment. The loan interest rates are set by the Export Bank and the maturity of the loans is usually 180 days for YTL-denominated loans and 360 days for foreign currency-denominated loans. To qualify for an FTC loan, along with the necessary application documents, a company must provide a bank letter of guarantee, equivalent to the loan's principal and interest amount, because the financing is a direct credit from the Export Bank. Istikbal, which has FTC status, was the only Borusan company to receive FTC credits during the POR.

Consistent with previous determinations, we preliminarily find that these loans confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe Memorandum at “Foreign Trade Companies Short-Term Export Credits.” The loans constitute a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the GOT, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount of the difference between the payments of interest that Istikbal made on its loans during the POR and the payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. The program is also specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export performance. Further, the FTC loans are not tied to a particular export destination. Therefore, we have treated this program as an untied export loan program, which renders it countervailable regardless of whether the loans were used for exports to the United States. See id.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we have calculated the benefit as the difference between the payments of interest that Istikbal made on its FTC loans during the POR and the payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. 8 In accordance with section 771(6)(A) of the Act, we subtracted from the benefit amount the fees that Istikbal paid to commercial banks for the required letters of guarantee. We then divided the resulting benefit by Borusan's total export sales for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily find that the net countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.06 percent ad valorem.

This program is similar to the FTC credit program described above; however, companies classified as either FTC or SFTC are not eligible for pre-export loans. Under the pre-export credit program, a company's past export performance is considered in evaluating its eligibility for loans and establishing the credit limit. Specifically, to be eligible for a loan, a company must have exported more than $200,000 of goods in the prior 12-month period. Like FTC loans, the Export Bank directly extends to companies' pre-export loans, which are contingent upon export commitment. The loans, whose interest rates are set by the Export Bank, are denominated in either Turkish lira or foreign currency and have a maximum maturity of 360 and 540 days, respectively. To quality for a pre-export loan, along with necessary application documents, a company must provide a bank letter of guarantee, equivalent to the loan's principal and interest amount. During the POR, BMB paid interest against pre-export loans.

Consistent with previous determinations, we preliminarily find that these loans confer a countervailable subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. See, e.g., 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe Memorandum at “Pre-Export Credits.” The loans constitute a financial contribution in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the GOT, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. A benefit exists under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act in the amount of the difference between the payments of interest that BMB made on the loans during the POR and the payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. The program is also specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because receipt of the loans is contingent upon export performance.

Further, like the FTC loans, these loans are not tied to a particular export destination. Therefore, we have treated this program as an untied export loan program rendering it countervailable regardless of whether the loans were used for exports to the United States. See id.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we have calculated the benefit as the difference between the payments of interest that BMB made on its pre-export loans during the POR and the payments the company would have made on comparable commercial loans. 9 In accordance with section 771(6)(A) of the Act, we subtracted from the benefit amount the fees which BMB paid to commercial banks for the required letters of guarantee. We then divided the resulting benefit by Borusan's total export value for 2006. On this basis, we preliminarily find that the net countervailable subsidy for this program is 0.05 percent ad valorem .

Under the Inward Processing Certificate (“IPC”)  10 program, companies are exempt from paying customs duties and value added taxes (“VAT”) on raw materials and intermediate unfinished goods imported to be used in the production of exported goods. Companies may choose whether to be exempted from the applicable duties and taxes upon importation ( i.e. , the Suspension System) or have the duties and taxes reimbursed after exportation of the finished goods ( i.e. , the Drawback System). Under the Suspension System, companies provide a letter of guarantee that is returned to the companies upon fulfillment of the export commitment.

To participate in this program, a company must hold an IPC, which lists the amount of raw materials/intermediate unfinished goods to be imported and the amount of product to be exported. To obtain an IPC, an exporter must submit an application, which states the amount of imported raw material required to produce the finished products and a “letter of export commitment,” which specifies that the importer of materials will use the materials to produce exported goods. There are two types of IPCs: a D-1 certificate and a D-3 certificate. 11 During the POR, Borusan utilized D-1 certificates associated with imports of hot-rolled coil and zinc used in the production of carbon steel pipe and tube. Borusan did not utilize any D-3 certificates during the POR.

An IPC specifies the maximum quantity of inputs that can be imported under the program. Under the IPC program, the value of imported inputs may not exceed the value of the exported products. Input/output usage rates listed on an IPC are set by the GOT working in conjunction with Turkey's Exporter Associations, which are quasi-governmental organizations, which represent different industries. The input/output usage rates vary by product and industry and are determined using data from capacity reports submitted by companies that apply for IPCs. The input/output usage rates are subject to periodic review and verification by the GOT. The GOT uses the input/output usage rates to ensure that a company's expected export quantities are sufficient to cover the quantity of inputs imported duty-free under the program. 12 Each time a company imports raw materials on a duty exempt basis, the company must present the IPC to Turkish customs.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(a)(1)(ii), a benefit exists to the extent that the exemption extends to inputs that are not consumed in the production of the exported product, making normal allowances for waste, or if the exemption covers charges other than imported charges that are imposed on the input. In regard to the VAT exemption granted under this program, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.517(a), in the case of the exemption upon export of indirect taxes, a benefit exists to the extent that the Department determines that the amount exempted exceeds the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption.

In prior reviews, the Department found that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4)(i), the GOT has a system in place to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, and that the system is reasonable for the purposes intended. See 2005 Pipe Final, 72 FR 13429 (affirming preliminary results, 71 FR at 68552); and 2004 Pipe Memorandum, at “Inward Processing Certificate Exemption.” During the POR, under D-1 certificates, Borusan received duty and VAT exemptions on certain imported inputs used in the production of steel pipes and tubes and not duty or VAT refunds. There is no evidence on the record of this review that indicates the amount of exempted inputs imported under the program were excessive or that Borusan used the imported inputs for any other product besides those exported. Further, there is no evidence on the record of this review to warrant a reconsideration of the Department's finding that the GOT's IPC monitoring system is reasonable.

Therefore, consistent with the 2005 Pipe Final and 2004 Pipe Final, we preliminarily determine that the tax and duty exemptions, which Borusan received on imported inputs under D-1 certificates of the IPC program, did not confer countervailable benefits as Borusan consumed the imported inputs in the production of the exported product, making normal allowance for waste. We further preliminarily find that the VAT exemption did not confer countervailable benefits on Borusan because the exemption does not exceed the amount levied with respect to the production and distribution of like products when sold for domestic consumption. Further, because Borusan did not import any goods under a D-3 certificate during the POR, we preliminarily determine that this aspect of the IPC program was not used.

We examined the following programs and preliminarily determine that Borusan did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR:

A. VAT Support Program (Incentive Premium on Domestically Obtained Goods) 13

B. Pre-Shipment Export Credits

C. Post-Shipment Export Loans

D. Pre-Shipment Rediscount Loans

E. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit Facilities

F. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of Fixed Expenditures

G. Regional Subsidies.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated a subsidy rate for Borusan for the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. We preliminarily determine that the total net countervailable subsidy rate is 0.23 percent ad valorem, which is de minimis , pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c).

The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. If the final results remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise produced by Borusan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. The Department will also instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise produced by Borusan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

CBP will continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by this order but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding for each company. Those rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. See 19 CFR 351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs.

This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1), 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

Under the authority of section 153(a)(1)(I) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, 20 U.S.C. 9543, which authorizes NCES to gather data on the financing of education, NCES collects data annually from SEAs through ED Form 2447. The report from SEAs includes attendance, revenue, and expenditure data from which NCES determines the average State per-pupil expenditure (SPPE) for elementary and secondary education, as defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7801(2)).

In addition to utilizing the SPPE data as general information on the financing of elementary and secondary education, the Secretary uses these data directly in calculating allocations for certain formula grant programs, including Title I, Part A of the ESEA, Impact Aid, and Indian Education programs. Other programs, such as the Educational Technology State Grants program (Title II, Part D of the ESEA), the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program under Title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the Teacher Quality State Grants program (Title II, Part A of the ESEA), and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program (Title IV, Part A of the ESEA), make use of SPPE data indirectly because their formulas are based, in whole or in part, on State Title I, Part A allocations.

In January 2008, the Bureau of the Census, acting as the data collection agent for NCES, will e-mail to SEAs ED Form 2447 with instructions and request that SEAs submit data to the Bureau of the Census on March 17, 2008, or as soon as possible thereafter. SEAs are urged to submit accurate and complete data on March 17, or as soon as possible thereafter, to facilitate timely processing. Submissions by SEAs to the Bureau of the Census will be checked for accuracy and returned to each SEA for verification. All data, including any revisions, must be submitted to the Bureau of the Census by an SEA not later than September 2, 2008.

Having accurate and consistent information on time is critical to an efficient and fair allocation process and to the NCES statistical process. To ensure timely distribution of Federal education funds based on the best, most accurate data available, NCES establishes, for allocation purposes, September 2, 2008, as the final date by which the NPEFS Web form or ED Form 2447 must be submitted. If an SEA submits revised data after the final deadline that results in a lower SPPE figure, its allocations may be adjusted downward or the Department may request the SEA to return funds. SEAs should be aware that all of these data are subject to audit and that, if any inaccuracies are discovered in the audit process, the Department may seek recovery of overpayments for the applicable programs. If an SEA submits revised data after September 2, 2008, the data also may be too late to be included in the final NCES published dataset.

Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in SFIREG information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0409. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http:// www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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 .

1. Report on Unacceptable Label Language

2. Iodomethane Registration Decision

3. Soil Fumigant Update

4. Label Accountability Workgroup

5. Report of E-Labeling Subcommittee

6. Cause Marketing PR Notice

7. Rodenticide Cluster Review and Strychnine Issue

8. Tribal Pesticide Program Council Update

9. OPP and OECA Program Updates

10. Interaction with ASIWPCA and WQ Benchmark Setting

11. Regional Reports

12. Working Committee Reports

The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed at in 2001, in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe along with EPA and Federal Land Managers.

Type of Meeting: This meeting will be open to the public.

Agenda: Copies of the final agenda are available from the OTC office (202) 508-3840; by e-mail: ozone@otcair.org or via the MANE-VU Web site at http://www.manevu.org .

The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on areas that may include, among other things, “advice about EPA's progress, quality and adequacy in planning, developing and implementing environmental justice strategies, projects and programs” relating to environment justice. The purpose of the teleconference meeting is to review the NEJAC initial comments regarding EPA's Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT).

Public Comment: Individuals or groups making oral presentations during the public comment period will be limited to a total time of five minutes. Only one representative of a community, an organization, or a group will be allowed to speak. Any number of written comments can be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals making public comment should be as follows: Name of Speaker, Name of Organization/Community, Address/Telephone/E-mail, Description of Concern and its Relationship to the policy issue(s), and Recommendations or desired outcome. Written comments received by November 12, 2007 will be included in the materials distributed to the members of the NEJAC. Written comments received after that date will be provided to the NEJAC as logistics allow. All information should be sent to the address, e-mail, or fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Information about Services for the Handicapped: Individuals requiring accommodations for a disability should contact the Ms. Julianne Pardi at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made to facilitate their participation. For information about services for the disabled or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Pardi as soon as possible. All requests should be sent to the address, e-mail, or fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this 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. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 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. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents for prometon, a triazine pesticide, and soliciting public comment on risk management ideas or proposals. Prometon is a nonselective “bare-ground” herbicide used to manage annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds. EPA developed the risk assessments and risk characterization for prometon through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

Prometon is a nonselective “bare-ground” herbicide labeled for pre- and post-emergence applications to manage annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds. Products containing prometon are formulated as emulsifiable concentrates, Ready-to-Use, water-based flowable concentrates, and pelleted granules. Prometon is registered for weed control around buildings, storage areas, fences, pumps, machinery, fuel tanks, recreational areas, roadways, guard rails, airports, military installations, highway medians, pipelines, railroads, lumberyards, rights-of-way, and industrial sites (such as cross connects, pedestals, transformers, vaults, buried cable closures, telephone booths, fire plugs).

EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessments for prometon. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as typical sizes of treatment areas, any use sites that prometon is no longer used on, and alternative pesticides or weed management methods that would be utilized in place of applying prometon, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide.

Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise comment on risk management for prometon. Risks of concern associated with the use of prometon are various ecological risks and some human health exposure scenarios in residential settings. In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction measures.

EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to prometon, compared to the general population.

EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For prometon, a modified, 4-Phase process with 1 comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its limited use, few complex issues, and other factors. However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed. Although prometon is part of the triazine group of pesticides, it did not meet the criterion for inclusion into the triazine cumulative risk assessment (71 FR 35664), based on its toxicity profile. It was therefore excluded from the triazine cumulative risk assessment.

All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for prometon. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.”

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this 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 a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0369. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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 .

This notice announces the cancellation order to terminate use as a seed treatment, as requested by the registrant, of chloroneb products registered under section 3 of FIFRA. Chloroneb is a fungicide currently registered for use as a pre-plant seed treatment for cotton, sugarbeets, soy beans, and beans. It is also registered on commercial turf and ornamentals. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number.

During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the May 25, 2007 Federal Register notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the request for voluntary cancellation to terminate certain uses of chloroneb.

Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellation to terminate certain uses of chloroneb registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be considered a violation of FIFRA.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such a request.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The cancellation order issued in this notice includes the following existing stocks provisions.

Registrant may sell and distribute existing stocks for one year from the date of the use termination request and allow persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use existing stocks of cancelled products until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled product. The order will specifically prohibit any use of existing stocks that is not consistent with such previously approved labeling.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this 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. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 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. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the registrant Becker Underwood to cancel one denatonium benzoate product registration. Becker Underwood's product, Tree Guard, is used to repel deer from feeding on conifers and deciduous, non-bearing trees, shrubs, flowers and other ornamental plants. In a letter dated October 16, 2007, Becker Underwood requested EPA to cancel the registration for its product Tree Guard, EPA Reg. No. 66676-1. The terms of the cancellation include the following:

1. Beginning with the 2007 calendar year, Becker Underwood shall limit the total amount of Tree Guard that it distributes or sells in the United States in any given calendar year to 300 pounds of the active ingredient denatonium benzoate;

2. The voluntary cancellation of all uses of Tree Guard will be effective December 1, 2009. The registrant's request will terminate the last pesticide product registered in the United States containing denatonium benzoate as an active ingredient.

This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from Becker Underwood to cancel their denatonium benzoate product registration. The affected product and the registrant making the request are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.

Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:

1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or

2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.

The denatonium benzoate registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.

Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an order will be issued canceling the affected registrations.

Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the product listed in Table 1 of this unit.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such a request.

A registrant who chooses to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , postmarked before December 7, 2007. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If the product has been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling.

Existing stocks are those stocks of once-registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action.

In any order issued in response to this request for amendment to terminate products, the Agency proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products identified or referenced in Table 1 in Unit III. For EPA Registration No. 66676-1, sale by the registrant of existing stocks will be allowed for a period of 24 months, starting from the effective voluntary cancellation date, December 1, 2009.

If the request for voluntary cancellation is granted as discussed in this unit, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that will allow persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use existing stocks of cancelled products until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled product. The order will specifically prohibit any use of existing stocks that is not consistent with such previously approved labeling. If, as the Agency currently intends, the final cancellation order contains the existing stocks provision just described, the order will be sent only to the affected registrants of the cancelled products. If the Agency determines that the final cancellation order should contain existing stocks provisions different than the ones just described, the Agency will publish the cancellation order in the Federal Register .

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this 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. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 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. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrants Helena Chemical Company (Company #5905), Drexel Chemical Company (Company #19713), and Cheminova A/S to cancel product registrations 5905-533, 5905-534, 19713-511, 19713-512, and Special Local Need (SLN) WA000019, respectively. In addition, this notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrants Cheminova A/S (Company #4787), Cheminova, Inc. (Company #67760), and Cerexagri, Inc. (Company #4581) to amend to terminate uses from Cheminova Declare (EPA Reg. No. 4787-48), Cheminova Methyl Parathion 4EC (EPA Reg. No. 67760-43), and Penncap-M (EPA Reg. No. 4581-393) methyl parathion product registrations. Methyl parathion is an insecticide/miticide for use on various terrestrial food and feed crops to control many types of pests, including mites, thrips, weevils, aphids, and leafhoppers. In letters dated August 30, 2007 (Helena Chemical Company), June 12, 2006 (Drexel Chemical Company), and October 14, 2005 (Cheminova A/S) each registrant requested EPA to cancel affected product registrations. Also, in letters dated May 3, 2007 (Cerexagri, Inc.) and June 5, 2007 (Cheminova A/S and Cheminova, Inc.) registrants requested EPA to amend to terminate uses of pesticide product registrations identified in this notice (Tables 1 and 2). Specifically, Helena Chemical Company, Drexel Chemical Company, and Cheminova A/S have agreed to voluntarily cancel all methyl parathion product registrations which include: 4lb Methyl Parathion (EPA Reg. No. 5905-533), Malathion-Methyl Parathion Emulsifiable Liquid (EPA Reg. No. 5905-534), Drexel Methyl Parathion 4 (EPA Reg. No. 19713-511), Drexel Methyl Parathion 4E (EPA Reg. No. 19713-512), Cheminova Declare (EPA Reg. No. 4787-48), and SLN #WA-0000194 (Parent EPA No. 4787-48).

In addition, Cerexagri, Inc., Cheminova A/S, and Cheminova, Inc. have requested voluntary cancellation of the following uses from their methyl parathion end product registrations: Cabbage, dried beans, dried peas, hops, lentils, pecans, and sugar beets. The registrants' requests will not terminate the last methyl parathion products registered in the United States; however, it does terminate pesticide products registered in the United States for these uses.

This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrants to cancel and/or amend to terminate uses of methyl parathion product registrations. The affected products and the registrants making the requests are identified in Tables 1-3 of this unit.

Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:

1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or

2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.

The methyl parathion registrants have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.

Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an order will be issued canceling and amending the affected registrations.

Table 3 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for the registrants of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register . Thereafter, following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such a request.

Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , postmarked before December 7, 2007. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action.

If the request for voluntary cancellation and/or use termination is granted as discussed above, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that will allow persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use existing stocks of cancelled products until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled product. The order will specifically prohibit any use of existing stocks that is not consistent with such previously approved labeling. If, as the Agency currently intends, the final cancellation order contains the existing stocks provision just described, the order will be sent only to the affected registrants of the cancelled products. If the Agency determines that the final cancellation order should contain existing stocks provisions different than the ones just described, the Agency will publish the cancellation order in the Federal Register .

This action is directed to the public in general. You may be affected by this action if you are a pesticide registrant. This action may be of particular interest to those persons who are required to register pesticides. 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 the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0946. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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 .

On August 16, 2006, the Agency published a Final Rule titled “Pesticide Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide Containers and Containment” (71 FR 47330) (FRL 8076-2) that established standards for pesticide containers and containment structures. Among other things, the final rule established requirements for label language to include the following: A statement identifying the container as refillable or nonrefillable; instructions to facilitate the removal of pesticides from containers prior to disposal or recycling; and, for nonrefillable containers, instructions for managing the container. This notice provides instructions to pesticide registrants on revising their product labels in order to implement the new requirements. Most registrants may be able to make the necessary label amendments by notification; however, in some cases an application for amendment and EPA approval may be required. By August 17, 2009, all pesticide products distributed or sold by a registrant must have labels that comply with the new requirements (40 CFR 156.159).The Agency is releasing this PR Notice as a final document and not for comment because it implements final regulations currently in place. The container and containment rule was released for public comment before the final rule was published.

The PR Notice discussed in this document is intended to provide guidance to EPA personnel and decision makers and to pesticide registrants. While the requirements in the statutes and Agency regulations are binding on EPA and the applicants, this PR Notice is not binding on pesticide registrants.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) established a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Task Force and is implementing recommendations to modernize the implementation of NEPA and make the NEPA process more effective and efficient. More information about the task force is posted on the task force Web site at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf. CEQ requested public comments on the proposed handbook on March 26, 2007, 72 FR 14103. Comments received are posted at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf/implementation.html.

The handbook suggests ways in which Federal agencies can use collaboration and environmental conflict resolution strategies when preparing NEPA analyses and documentation. Collaboration is encouraged during the NEPA process as a whole and toward that end the handbook emphasizes engaging a balanced set of affected and interested parties in seeking agreement at one or more stages of the NEPA process by cultivating shared vision, trust, and communication. Acknowledging that collaboration during the NEPA process can vary considerably depending on the phase of the process and the roles by the lead agency assigns to each party, the handbook notes that providing opportunities for participation on the part of stakeholders, supplemented with outreach efforts, may be appropriate.

The phases for collaboration outlined in the handbook begin with the assessment and planning phase, often referred to as “conflict” or “situation” assessments, when agencies clarify the issues and assess the opportunity for collaboration. This is followed by the convening and initiation phase when the lead agency brings parties together to inform them about the process and to develop a plan for how they can work together. Sharing interests, exchanging information, and identifying gaps in knowledge is then followed by the phase where participants seek agreement through deliberation and negotiation. That is often considered the heart of the collaborative process. The fifth and final phase is the decision-making and implementation phase.

“Collaboration in NEPA” links those phases for collaboration to the stages of the NEPA process, including developing the proposed action, establishing the purpose and need, conducting scoping, developing alternatives, and analyzing impacts. The handbook concludes with a discussion of the challenges facing collaboration and providing tools for practitioners such as strategies for preventing conflicts, attitudes and behaviors to enhance collaboration, case studies, a compendium of resources, and examples of memoranda of agreement.

In response to comments on the draft handbook the final handbook was improved in several ways. The discussion of collaboration at the various stages of the NEPA process was consolidated and the guide that provides examples and identifies options and tools for collaboration was augmented. Appendices were reorganized, references and case studies updated, roles of the lead agencies and applicants clarified, and the compendium of resources expanded.

The Committee provides advice on matters pertaining to the continuance and improvement of functions within the authority of HHS directed toward protections for human subjects in research. Specifically, the Committee provides advice relating to the responsible conduct of research involving human subjects with particular emphasis on special populations such as neonates and children, prisoners, the decisionally impaired, pregnant women, embryos and fetuses, individuals and populations in international studies, investigator conflicts of interest and populations in which there are individually identifiable samples, data, or information.

In addition, the Committee is responsible for reviewing selected ongoing work and planned activities of the OHRP and other offices/agencies within HHS responsible for human subjects protection. These evaluations may include, but are not limited to, a review of assurance systems, the application of minimal research risk standards, the granting of waivers, education programs sponsored by OHRP, and the ongoing monitoring and oversight of institutional review boards and the institutions that sponsor research.

Nominations: The Office for Human Research Protections is requesting nominations to fill five positions for voting members of SACHRP. The five positions will become vacant at scheduled intervals during the 2008 calendar year. Nominations of potential candidates for consideration are being sought from a wide array of fields, including, but not limited to: Public health and medicine, behavioral and social sciences, health administration, and biomedical ethics. To qualify for consideration of appointment to the Committee, an individual must possess demonstrated experience and expertise in any of the several disciplines and fields pertinent to human subjects protection and/or clinical research.

The individuals selected for appointment to the Committee can be invited to serve a term of up to four years. Committee members receive a stipend and reimbursement for per diem and any travel expenses incurred for attending Committee meetings and/or conducting other business in the interest of the Committee.

Nominations should be typewritten. The following information should be included in the package of material submitted for each individual being nominated for consideration: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., specific attributes which qualify the nominee for service in this capacity), and a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee; (2) the nominator's name, address and daytime telephone number, and the home and/or work address, telephone number, and email address of the individual being nominated; and (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae. Federal employees should not be nominated for consideration of appointment to this Committee.

The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that individuals from a broad representation of geographic areas, women and men, ethnic and minority groups, and the disabled are given consideration for membership on HHS Federal advisory committees. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.

Documentation must be included in the nomination to indicate that the nominated individual is willing to serve as a member of SACHRP. Individuals who are selected to be considered for appointment will be required to provide detailed information regarding their financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts. Disclosure of this information is necessary in order to determine if the selected candidate is involved in any activity that may pose a potential conflict with the official duties to be performed as a member of SACHRP.

In accordance with Public Law 105-392, the ACMH was established to provide advice to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health in improving the health of each racial and ethnic minority group and on the development of goals and specific program activities of the Office of Minority Health.

Topics to be discussed during this meeting will include Integrating Racially and Ethnically Diverse Communities into Emergency Preparedness and other strategies to improve the health of racial and ethnic minority populations through the development of health policies and programs that will help eliminate health disparities, as well as other related issues.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person at least fourteen business days prior to the meeting. Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comments will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Individuals who would like to submit written statements should mail or fax their comments to the Office of Minority Health at least five business days prior to the meeting. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to ACMH committee members should submit their materials to Garth N. Graham, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Secretary, ACMH, Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852, prior to close of business November 23, 2007.

The holders of the applications listed in the table in this document have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications. The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing.

Therefore, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and under authority delegated to the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, by the Commissioner, approval of the applications listed in the table in this document, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective December 7, 2007.

On September 15, 1997, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) published a notice in the Federal Register describing pilot programs that were required by section 403 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). On December 20, 2004, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the extension of one of these programs, the Basic Pilot, to November 30, 2008. Renamed E-Verify, the current program constitutes an online modification of the Basic Pilot and allows participating employers to confirm the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees regardless of citizenship to help maintain a stable, legal workforce. E-Verify is operated jointly by USCIS and the Social Security Administration. An evaluation of the current E-Verify program is being conducted by Westat, Inc. This notice announces a public meeting to seek stakeholder input regarding the E-Verify program.

• Introductions and Purpose.

• Update on E-Verify.

• Overview of the Key Findings of the FY2007 evaluation and the current evaluation goals.

• Break-out group discussions to address topics such as using biometrics for verification, resolving tentative confirmations, timing of employee verifications, and focusing on specific types of employers (i.e., designated agents, employers using designated agents, employment agencies and temporary help agencies, inactive employers).

• Reports from break-out groups.

• Questions and comments.

The meeting is open to the public, but advance notice of attendance is requested to ensure adequate seating. In the event that requests for attendance exceed available space, it may not be possible to honor all requests. Persons planning to attend should notify Ms. Lyons at least 5 days prior to the meeting.

The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-613 on September 11, 2007, based on a complaint filed by InterDigital Communications Corporation of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and InterDigital Technology Corporation of Wilmington, Delaware (collectively, “InterDigital”). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain 3G mobile handsets and components thereof by reason of infringement of various claims in United States Patent Nos. 7,117,004 and 7,190,966. The complaint named Nokia Corporation of Finland and Nokia Inc. of Irving, Texas as respondents.

On September 28, 2007, InterDigital filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of unfair trade practices in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain 3G mobile handsets and components thereof by reason of infringement of various claims in United States Patent No. 6,973,579 (“the ‘579 patent”). The Commission investigative attorney supported the motion.

On October 11, 2007, the ALJ granted InterDigital's motion, finding that, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.14(b)(1)), there was good cause to add the allegations based on the ‘579 patent. No petitions for review were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ALJ's ID.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).

All MACOSH meetings and workgroup meetings are open to the public. All interested persons are invited to attend the MACOSH and workgroup meetings at the times and places listed above. Each workgroup may discuss one or more of the topics listed for that workgroup as time permits. The meeting times for each workgroup are approximate and subject to change without advance notice.

The Longshoring workgroup will meet from 8:15 a.m. until 10:15 a.m. in conference room C-5515-A. Discussions may include the traffic safety in marine terminals guidance document, roll-on roll-off cargo guidance document, and the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) initiative on cargo-lashing safety.

The Shipyards workgroup will meet from 8:15 a.m. until 10:15 a.m. in conference room C-5515-B. Discussions may include spray paint standards and hot work on coatings.

The Cranes and Falls workgroup will meet from 10:15 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. in conference room C-5515-A. Discussions may include working over water from aerial work platforms and the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendation to OSHA on the Athena 106 investigation.

The Outreach and Safety Culture workgroup will meet from 1:15 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. in conference room C-5515-A. Discussions may include leading indicators, e-tools, non-English worker issues, new technology and safety, updating the OSHA Training Institute shipyard and longshoring courses, the new maritime outreach training course, and an update from the Mobile Area OSHA maritime alliance on the 10-hour and 30-hour outreach courses.

The Health workgroup will meet from 3:15 p.m. until 5:15 p.m. in conference room C-5515-A. Discussions will include radiation exposure in marine terminals.

MACOSH agenda: The agenda will include: An OSHA activities update, report on Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Guidelines for Shipyards, reports from each workgroup, an update on the NIOSH maritime hearing-protection study, a briefing on the NIOSH National Occupational Research Agenda (“NORA”), an update on OSHA's electrical standard, and a review of the minutes from the previous meeting.

Public Participation: Written data, views, or comments for consideration by MACOSH on the various agenda items listed above should be submitted to Vanessa L. Welch at the address listed above. Submissions received by November 20, 2007, will be provided to Committee members and will be included in the record of the meeting. Requests to make oral presentations to the Committee may be granted as time permits. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Committee on any of the agenda items listed above should notify Vanessa L. Welch by November 20, 2007. The request should state the amount of time desired, the capacity in which the person will appear, and a brief outline of the content of the presentation.

Authority: Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by Sections 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1912.

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a request to amend Materials License SNM-124, issued to Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) (the licensee), to authorize an increase in the possession limit of high-enriched uranium (HEU). The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action. Based upon the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared.

The NFS facility in Erwin, Tennessee is authorized, under License SNM-124, to manufacture high-enriched nuclear reactor fuel. In addition, NFS is authorized to blend HEU with natural uranium and manufacture low-enriched nuclear reactor fuel. License SNM-124 limits the amount of HEU that NFS may possess for these operations. On May 15, 2007, NFS requested a license amendment to increase its possession limit of HEU (Ref. 5).

The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed license amendment. It does not approve the request. This EA is limited to the proposed possession limit increase and any cumulative impacts to existing plant operations. The existing conditions and operations at the Erwin facility were evaluated, by the NRC, for environmental impacts in a 1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license (Ref. 1), and a 2002 EA related to the first amendment for the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) Project (Ref. 2). The 2002 EA assessed the impact of the entire BLEU Project, using the information available at that time. A 2003 EA (Ref. 3) and a 2004 EA (Ref. 4), related to additional BLEU Project amendments confirmed the FONSI issued in 2002. This assessment presents information and an analysis for determining that the issuance of a FONSI is appropriate and that an EIS will not be prepared.

The proposed action is to amend NRC Materials License SNM-124, to authorize an increase in the possession limit for uranium enriched up to 100 weight percent in the uranium-235 isotope (Ref. 5). The proposed action is limited to possession and storage only. No changes to processing operations are requested, and no construction of new facilities are requested.

The proposed action is being requested because a larger inventory of HEU is needed to support NFS operations. Two factors are driving this need. One factor is a request from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that NFS establish an inventory of HEU that would allow continuous operations for six to twelve months of processes that support DOE programs. This would allow NFS to continue operating if an increased threat level or other incidents required shipments of HEU to be interrupted or curtailed. Another factor is the lower-than-planned processing rate at the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Preparation Facility (BPF). BPF operations support commercial programs that are separate from DOE programs. Difficulties with BPF equipment and operations have caused delays and low processing rates. This has created a backlog of material in storage because material is being received faster than it is being processed.

The alternatives available to the NRC are:

1. Approve the license amendment as described; or

2. No action (i.e., deny the request).

The affected environment for the proposed action and the alternative is the NFS site. The affected environment is identical to the affected environment assessed in the 2002 EA that is related to the first amendment for the BLEU Project (Ref. 2). A full description of the site and its characteristics is given in the 2002 EA. Additional information can be found in the 1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license (Ref. 1). The NFS facility is located in Unicoi County, Tennessee, about 32 km (20 mi) southwest of Johnson City, Tennessee. The plant is about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) southwest of the Erwin city limits. The site occupies about 28 hectares (70 acres). The site is bounded to the northwest by the CSX Corporation (CSX) railroad property and the Nolichucky River, and by Martin Creek to the northeast. The plant elevation is about 9 m (30 ft) above the nearest point on the Nolichucky River.

The area adjacent to the site consists primarily of residential, industrial, and commercial areas, with a limited amount of farming to the northwest. Privately owned residences are located to the east and south of the facility. Tract size is relatively large, leading to a low housing density in the areas adjacent to the facility. The CSX railroad right-of-way is parallel to the western boundary of the site. Industrial development is located adjacent to the railroad on the opposite side of the right-of-way. The site is bounded by Martin Creek to the north, with privately owned, vacant property and low-density residences.

A full description of the effluent monitoring program at the site is provided in the 2002 EA, related to the first amendment for the BLEU Project (Ref. 2). Additional information is available in the 1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license (Ref. 1). The NFS Erwin plant conducts effluent and environmental monitoring programs to evaluate potential public health impacts and comply with the NRC effluent and environmental monitoring requirements. The effluent program monitors the airborne, liquid, and solid waste streams produced during operation of the NFS plant. The environmental program monitors the air, surface water, sediment, soil, groundwater, and vegetation in and around the NFS plant.

Airborne, liquid, and solid effluent streams that contain radioactive material are generated at the NFS plant and monitored to ensure compliance with the NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. Each effluent is monitored at or just before the point of release. The results of effluent monitoring are reported to the NRC on a semi-annual basis, in accordance with 10 CFR 70.59.

Airborne and liquid effluents are also monitored for nonradiological constituents in accordance with State discharge permits. For the purpose of this EA, the State of Tennessee is expected to set limits on effluents, under its regulatory control, that are protective of health and safety and the local environment.

The proposed action is limited to increasing the authorized amount of HEU in storage. No construction of new facilities is proposed and no changes to processing operations have been requested. Based on the information provided by NFS, the safety controls to be employed for the proposed action, appear to be sufficient to ensure that planned operations will have no significant impact on the environment.

Radiological Impacts: The proposed action involves no changes to processing operations. No increase is expected in effluent air emissions discharged through stacks at the site. In addition, no increase is expected in liquid effluents discharged to the sanitary sewer. Therefore, the proposed action will have no impact on the total annual dose estimate for the maximally exposed individual from all planned effluents. The dose to workers may increase slightly because more radioactive material will be stored at the site. However, occupational dose is monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable NRC regulations; therefore, no adverse impacts are expected. Surface water quality at the NFS site is currently protected by enforcing release limits and monitoring programs. No change in surface water impacts is expected. The proposed action will not discharge any effluents to the groundwater; therefore, no adverse impacts to groundwater are expected.

The proposed action involves transportation of radioactive feed material to the NFS site, which will lead to transportation of radioactive products and waste material from the NFS site. All transportation will be conducted in accordance with the applicable NRC and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations; therefore, no adverse impacts from transportation activities are expected.

Land Use: The proposed action involves storage of radioactive material at existing facilities. No new facilities will be constructed; therefore, no adverse impact to land use is expected.

Cultural Resources: The proposed action involves storage of radioactive material at existing facilities. The NRC staff considers this a type of activity that does not have the potential to affect historic properties. No adverse impact to cultural resources is expected.

Biotic Resources: The proposed action will not change current land use or effluents at the site. Therefore, the NRC finds that the proposed action will not affect any Federally endangered or threatened species.

The proposed action will not result in any new or modified accident sequences. The Integrated Safety Analysis performed by NFS already considers all authorized storage locations to be filled to maximum capacity with HEU. The NRC finds that the safety controls to be employed in the proposed action are sufficient to ensure planned activities will be safe.

The NRC has considered the impacts of the proposed action together with the known impacts of the existing facility. After reviewing the information provided, the NRC concludes that the cumulative impacts represent an insignificant change to the existing conditions in the area surrounding the NFS site.

Under the no action alternative, NFS would not be able to increase its inventory of HEU to support current operations. This would require NFS to stop receiving HEU shipments until enough material has been processed and removed from the site before another shipment could be received. Failure to fulfill its role in government and commercial programs could cause NFS's customers to select other alternatives that may be less cost effective and incur greater environmental impacts. If NFS is unable to fulfill its contractual obligations, customers may transfer work to other facilities.

Based on its review, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are not significant and, therefore, do not warrant denial of the proposed license amendment. The NRC has determined that the proposed action, the approval of the license amendment as described, is the appropriate alternative for selection. Based on an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed license amendment, the NRC has determined that the proper action is to issue a FONSI.

On September 21, 2007, the NRC staff contacted the Deputy Director of the Division of Radiological Health at the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) concerning this EA. On October 1, 2007, the Deputy Director responded that TDEC reviewed the draft EA and had no comments (Ref. 6).

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff has considered the environmental consequences of amending NRC Materials License SNM-124 to increase the possession limit for the NFS facility. On the basis of this assessment, the Commission has concluded that environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would not be significant and the Commission is making a finding of no significant impact. Accordingly, the preparation of an EIS is not warranted.

Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are listed in the references above. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions.

• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.

The Birth Affidavit is submitted in conjunction with an application for a U.S. passport and used by Passport Services to collect information for the purpose of establishing the citizenship of a passport applicant who has not submitted an acceptable United States birth certificate with his/her passport application.

When needed, a Birth Affidavit is completed at the time a U.S. citizen applies for a U.S. passport.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions.

• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.

The Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name is submitted in conjunction with an application for a U.S. passport. It is used by Passport Services to collect information for the purpose of establishing that a passport applicant who has adopted a new name without formal court proceedings or by marriage has publicly and exclusively used the adopted name over a period of time (at least five years).

When needed, the Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name is completed at the time a U.S. citizen applies for a U.S. passport.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions.

• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.

Abstract of proposed collection: Exemption from customs duties is a privilege enjoyed by foreign diplomatic and consular personnel on assignment in the Unites States under the provision of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations and the terms of various bilateral agreements. Under the Foreign Missions Act of 1982 (as amended), 22 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. , the Department of State's Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) is given the authority to grant privileges and benefits, based on reciprocity. Form DS-1504 “Request for Customs Clearance of Merchandise” provides OFM with the necessary information to provide and administer the benefit effectively and efficiently.

Methodology: Paper copies of the Form DS-1504 are either hand carried or mailed to OFM. Foreign Missions can access this from on the OFM Web site in Portable Document Format (PDF), which provides a data-input and print feature for clean and legible paper copies. An electronic submission option is expected to be made available to respondents in 2008.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 213 meeting. The agenda will include:

• November 27th.

• Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review).

• Review SC-213 Objectives, Action Items, and SC-213 website content.

• Review initial reports from WG 1, and WG 2.

• Presentations.

• WG 1 and WG 2 meetings:

• Review/edit most recent MASPS.

• Consensus of draft MASPS among WG 1.

• Incorporate helicopter issues.

• WG 2A:

• Review/edit draft MASPS.

• WG 2B:

• Continue to formulate plan performance criteria.

• November 28th.

• Continuation of WG 1 and WG 2 meetings.

• November 29th.

• Review of action items.

• Define next steps for continued MASPS development.

• Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Establish date and time for next meeting, Adjourn).

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

Background: Title 49 U.S.C. 504(b)(2) provides the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with authority to require carriers, lessors, associations, or classes of them to file annual, periodic, and special reports containing answers to questions asked by the Secretary. The Secretary may also prescribe the form of records required to be prepared or compiled and the time period during which records must be preserved (See §§ 504(b)(1) and (d)). The FMCSA will use this data to administer its safety programs by establishing a database of entities that are subject to its regulations. This database necessitates that these entities notify the FMCSA of their existence. For example, under 49 CFR 390.19(a), FMCSA requires all motor carriers beginning operations to file a Form MCS-150 entitled, “Motor Carrier Identification Report.” This report is filed by all motor carriers conducting operations in interstate or international commerce within 90 days after beginning operations. It asks the respondent to provide the name of the business entity that owns and controls the motor carrier operation, address and telephone of principal place of business, assigned identification number(s), type of operation, types of cargo usually transported, number of vehicles owned, term leased and trip leased, driver information, and certification statement signed by an individual authorized to sign documents on behalf of the business entity.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 (DOT Appropriations Act) (Pub. L. 107-87, 115 Stat. 833 (December 18, 2001) directed the agency to issue an interim final rule (IFR) to ensure that new entrant motor carriers are knowledgeable about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and standards. The IFR was published on May 13, 2002 (67 FR 31983). The Form MCS-150A associated with this rule is entitled, “Safety Certification for Application for U.S. DOT Number,” and is used to help ensure that new entrants are knowledgeable about the Federal motor carrier safety regulations and standards before being granted registration authority to operate in interstate commerce (Intrastate carriers are not considered new entrants since they do not operate in interstate commerce; and thus do not need to complete or file the Form MCS-150A.). Under the Form MCS-150A, as required by 49 CFR 385.305, the new entrant must certify that it has a system(s) in place to ensure compliance with applicable requirements covering driver qualifications, hours-of-service, controlled substance and alcohol testing, vehicle condition, accident monitoring and hazardous materials (HM) transportation. The certification reminds the new entrant of its statutory and regulatory responsibilities, which if neglected or violated, may subject the applicant to civil penalties and lead to the revocation of the new entrant registration.

On June 30, 2004, the agency issued another final rule entitled, “Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Hazardous Materials Safety Permits,” (69 FR 39350) which required all HM carriers (both interstate and intrastate) to complete and file the Form MCS-150B entitled, “Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit Application,” to obtain a safety permit to transport hazardous materials. The safety program under 49 CFR 390.19(a) also requires all HM permitted carriers to complete Form MCS-150B in place of the current Form MCS-150 to “renew” both their permit and their DOT numbers according to the DOT number renewal schedule.

Accordingly, FMCSA seeks to revise this currently-approved information collection to update the records and forms associated with its safety programs identified above; and to identify the regulated entities currently engaged in these activities.

Title: Motor Carrier Identification Report.

OMB Control Number: 2126-0013.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently-approved information collection.

Respondents: Motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 472,470.

Estimated Time per Response: To complete Form MCS-150—20 minutes; and for Form MCS-150A—9 minutes. To complete Form MCS-150B (HM Permit Application)—6 minutes for interstate carriers that have already completed the Form MCS-150; and for intrastate carriers that have never completed a Form MCS-150—they will need about 16 minutes to complete the permit renewal.

Expiration Date: January 31, 2008.

Frequency of Response: One-time for Form MCS-150; biennially for MCS-150A; and MCS-150B.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 119,270 hours [108,825 hours for Form MCS-150 + 10,305 hours for Form MCS-150A + 140 hours for Form MCS-150B = 119,270 hours].

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FMCSA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The Notice was published on September 13, 2007. The comment period ended on October 15, 2007.

FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these commercial motor vehicle drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its evaluation of the 25 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal vision exemptions for Linda L. Billings, John A. Chizmar, Ronald D. Danberry, Weldon R. Evans, Richard L. Gagnebin, Orasio Garcia, Leslie W. Good, Chester L. Gray, James P. Guth, Rayford R. Harper, Britt D. Hazelwood, Joseph V. Johns, Robert C. Leathers, Michael S. Maki, Mark D. Page, Kenneth A. Reddick, Leonard Rice, Jr., Juan M. Rosas, Richard C. Simms, James T. Sullivan, Thomas J. Sweeny, Jr., Steven C. Thomas, Edward A. Vanderhei, Larry J. Waldner, and Kevin L. Wickard.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.