The purpose of the meeting is to recommend opening dates and selling schedules, and discuss other related issues for the 2004-2005 burley tobacco marketing season.

The meeting is open to the public. Persons, other than members, who wish to address the Committee at the meeting should contact John P. Duncan III, Deputy Administrator, Tobacco Programs, AMS, USDA, STOP 0280, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0280, prior to the meeting. Written statements may be submitted to the Committee before, at or after the meeting. If you need any accommodations to participate in the meeting, please contact the Tobacco Programs at (202) 205-0567 by September 10, 2004, and inform us of your needs.

Title: Exotic Newcastle Disease in Birds and Poultry; Chlamydiosis in Poultry.

OMB Number: 0579-0116.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products, and conducts various other activities to protect the health of our Nation's livestock and poultry.

In connection with this mission, APHIS regulates the interstate movement of certain poultry, birds, and other items from premises and areas that may be quarantined because of exotic Newcastle disease (END) and chlamydiosis. The regulations contained in 9 CFR part 82 restrict the interstate movement of poultry, birds, and other items (such as eggs, carcasses, vehicles, containers, and coops) to help prevent the spread of END and chlamydiosis and require the use of certain information collection activities, including the completion of permit applications attesting to the health status of the birds or poultry being moved, the number and types of birds or poultry being moved in a particular shipment, the shipment's point of origin, the shipment's destination, and the reason for the interstate movement.

These documents also provide useful traceback information in the event infected birds or poultry are discovered and an investigation must be launched to determine where the birds or poultry originated. The information provided by these documents is critical to our ability to prevent the interstate of END and chlamydiosis, which are highly contagious and capable of causing significant economic harm to the U.S. poultry industry.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning this information collection activity. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.574074 hours per response.

Respondents: U.S. producers and shippers, and State animal health protection authorities.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 64.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.

Estimated annual number of responses: 54.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 31 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Agenda topics for this meeting include a review of projects proposed for funding as authorized under Title II of Public Law 106-393, and public comment. If the meeting location is changed, notice will be posted in local newspapers, including The Montana Standard.

The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain in-shell raw pistachios (pistachios) from Iran on July 17, 1986. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain In Shell Pistachios from Iran, 51 FR 25922 (July 17, 1986). On July 2, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pistachios from Iran, 68 FR 39511. On July 30, 2003, Nima, an exporter of subject merchandise during the period of review, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales to the United States covered by the antidumping duty order. On August 22, 2003, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pistachios from Iran for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, in order to determine whether merchandise imported into the United States was sold at less than fair value by Nima. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Requests for Revocations in Part, 68 FR 50750 (Administrative Review Initiation).

On August 29, 2003, the Department issued Nima an antidumping duty questionnaire. On September 19, 2003, Nima filed its response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. We received Nima's response to Section C of the Department's questionnaire on October 14, 2003.

On October 24, 2003, petitioner, California Pistachio Commission, filed comments on Nima's Section A and C questionnaire responses and filed a request that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the period of review by Nima. See “Duty Absorption” section below. We received comments on Nima's Section A and C questionnaire responses from Cal Pure Pistachios, Inc. (Cal Pure), an interested party in this proceeding, on November 6, 2003.

On November 7, 2003, the Department issued a Section D antidumping duty questionnaire soliciting information from Nima's supplier of pistachios, Razi Domghan Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Company (Razi Farm). On November 20, 2003, we issued Nima a supplemental questionnaire covering its Section A and C responses. On November 25, 2003, petitioner requested that the Department conduct a verification of Nima's questionnaire responses. We received Nima's first supplemental Section A and C questionnaire response on December 4, 2003.

On December 11, 2003, petitioner requested that the Department extend the deadline for new factual information until 30 days before issuance of the preliminary results. In response to petitioner's request, on December 16, 2003, the Department extended the deadline for submitting new factual information in this proceeding until 60 days prior to issuance of the preliminary results.

On December 31, 2003, Razi Farm filed its Section D questionnaire response. Petitioner and Cal Pure filed comments on Nima's first supplemental questionnaire response on January 9, 2004. On January 16, 2004, the Department issued Nima a second supplemental Section A and C questionnaire. We received comments on Razi Farm's Section D questionnaire response from petitioner and Cal Pure on January 20, 2004. On January 27, 2004, Razi Farm filed original copies of certificates of representation and of facts. On January 28, 2004, petitioner submitted factual information regarding current conditions in Iran. On January 30, 2004, petitioner submitted factual information with respect to Nima's pistachio supplier in Iran.

On February 2, 2004, we issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire to Razi Farm. On February 5, 2004, the Department fully extended its deadline for the preliminary results of this review. See Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios from Iran; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 69 FR 5487.

On February 6, 2004, we received Nima's second supplemental Section A and C questionnaire response. We received Razi Farm's first supplemental Section D questionnaire response on March 1, 2004. Petitioner filed comments on Nima's second supplemental Section A and C questionnaire response on March 1, 2004.

On March 19, 2004, petitioner and interested parties ( i.e. , Cal Pure and Western Pistachios Association) filed comments on Razi Farm's first supplemental Section D questionnaire response. The Department issued a second supplemental Section D questionnaire to Razi Farm on March 23, 2004. On April 2, 2004, petitioner withdrew its January 30, 2004, filing that included factual information with respect to Nima's pistachio supplier in Iran. We received Razi Farm's second supplemental Section D questionnaire response on April 19, 2004. On May 3, 2004, Cal Pure filed comments on Razi Farm's supplemental response. On May 12, 2004, we issued Razi Farm a third supplemental Section D questionnaire response.

On May 18, 2004, petitioner filed factual information regarding Razi Farm's knowledge that the pistachios it sold to Nima were destined for the United States. On May 21, 2004, we solicited information from Razi Farm as to the types of documents that would be available during our cost verification. On May 24, 2004, we received from petitioner a request to rescind the instant review in which petitioner alleged that Razi Farm knew or should have known that the goods it sold to Nima were for export to the United States.

On May 25, 2004, Razi Farm filed its third supplemental Section D questionnaire response. On the same day, Nima also filed a copy of its 2002 tax return. We issued our agendas for verification to Nima and Razi Farm on June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, and June 4, 2004, we received pre-verification comments from petitioner and Cal Pure. On June 4, 2004, Cal Pure requested that the Department cancel verification. On July 7, 2004, we received comments from petitioner for consideration in these preliminary results.

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003.

The product covered by the antidumping duty order is raw, in-shell pistachio nuts from which the hulls have been removed, leaving the inner hard shells, and edible meats from Iran. This merchandise is currently provided for in item 0802.50.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and section 351.307 of the Department's regulations, we conducted verification of U.S. sales and cost questionnaire responses submitted by Nima and Razi Farm from June 7, 2004, through June 9, 2004 in Yerevan, Armenia. Although the verification was conducted off-site, we used standard verification procedures, including the examination of relevant sales, cost, and financial records, and a selection of original documentation. Our verification results are outlined in the Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Office 6, Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios from Iran: Verification of U.S. Sales Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Tehran Negah Nima Trading Company, Ltd. (Nima), dated June 29, 2004 (Sales Verification Report); and Memorandum to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios from Iran: Verification Report on Cost of Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted by Razi Farm, dated June 29, 2004 (Cost Verification Report). 1

As noted in the “Background” section above, on October 24, 2003, petitioner requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR by Nima. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that the Department, if requested, determine during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer.

Because the antidumping duty order was published seventeen years prior to the initiation of this review, we determine that petitioner's request is unwarranted by section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Moreover, neither the foreign producer nor the exporter subject to the instant order is affiliated with the U.S. importer. Therefore, we find that section 751(a)(4) of the Act is not applicable to this review, and accordingly, we did not determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR by Nima.

Based on questionnaire responses submitted by Nima, and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that Nima's sale to the United States constitutes a bona fide commercial transaction. We note that in the recent new shipper review of Nima the Department faced similar facts and concluded that the sale of a relatively small quantity of pistachios shipped via air freight was a bona fide arm's-length transaction. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios from Iran, 68 FR 353 (January 3, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

Based on our examination of the questionnaire responses and verification findings, we preliminarily determine, in accordance with the Department's established practice, that Razi Farm neither knew nor should have known that the merchandise under review was for export to the United States at the time of the sale.

Under section 772(a) of the Act, the basis for export price is the price at which the first party in the chain of distribution who has knowledge of the U.S. destination of the merchandise sells the subject merchandise, either directly to a U.S. purchaser or to an intermediary such as a trading company. The party making such a sale, with knowledge of the destination, is the appropriate party to be reviewed. See Certain Pasta from Italy: Termination of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 66602 (December 19, 1997) (Pasta from Italy). The Department's test for determining knowledge is whether the relevant party knew or should have known that the merchandise was destined for the United States.

In determining whether a party knew or should have known that its merchandise was destined for the United States, the Department's well-established practice is to consider such factors as: (1) Whether that party prepared or signed any certificates, shipping documents, contracts or other papers stating that the destination of the merchandise was the United States; (2) whether that party used any packaging or labeling which stated that the merchandise was destined for the United States; (3) whether any unique features or specifications of the merchandise otherwise indicated that the destination was the United States; and (4) whether that party admitted to the Department that it knew that its sales were destined for the United States. See, e.g. , Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke the Order in Part, 64 FR 69694 (December 14, 1999); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 69723 (December 14, 1999) (unchanged in final determination); and Pasta from Italy, 62 FR 66602 (December 19, 1997). Because at the time of the sale none of the above factors appears to be present in the instant case, the Department preliminarily determines that Razi Farm neither knew nor should have known that the pistachios it sold to Nima were destined for the United States.

Based upon the Department's analysis of record documentation, we conclude that there is no evidence that Razi Farm prepared or signed any documentation relevant to the shipping, handling, and packing of the merchandise for export during the POR. Instead, the record clearly indicates that Nima, not Razi Farm, prepared and signed all certificates, shipping documents, contracts or other papers identifying the destination of the merchandise as the United States. See Nima's September 19, 2003, Section A questionnaire response at Exhibit 6. Moreover, the record is void of evidence that Razi Farm used any packaging or labeling which stated that the merchandise was destined for the United States. Rather, the record indicates that Nima re-packed the merchandise for shipment to the United States. See Nima's December 4, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response at 6. Further, there were no unique features or specifications of the merchandise that would otherwise indicate that it was destined for the United States.

In addition, as noted above, the Department analyzed Nima's response recounting conversations that it had with Razi Farm around the time of the sale. In particular, Nima informed Razi Farm that it might receive a questionnaire from some foreign government, including the U.S. government (U.S. Department of Commerce). See Nima's December 4, 2003 supplemental questionnaire response at 3 and 10. We find that while Nima's statements indicate that these pistachios would be used for an export sale, Nima did not clearly indicate to which market the pistachios would be shipped. The statements alone are inconclusive in determining whether Razi Farm knew or should have known at the time of sale that the pistachios it sold to Nima were destined for the United States.

Furthermore, during verification, the general manager of Razi Farm stated that he first learned that the pistachios he sold to Nima were exported to the United States in May 2004, approximately a year after the date of the sale. See Sales Verification Report at 4. It is clear from the statements made by Razi Farm's general manager during verification that Razi Farm did not admit to the Department that it knew that its sales were destined for the United States at the time of its sale to Nima. Therefore, contrary to petitioner's and Cal Pure's claims, we do not find that Nima's account of conversations it had with Razi Farm during the POR compel the Department to find that Razi Farm had knowledge as defined in section 772(a) of the Act. Moreover, there is no evidence currently on the record that meets the factors, described above, considered by the Department in its knowledge test. We also note that unsubstantiated conversations and hearsay placed on the record by petitioners are not evidence sufficient for this analysis. In summary, in considering the totality of current record information, we preliminarily determine that Razi Farm neither knew nor should have known at the time of sale that the pistachios it sold to Nima were destined for the United States.

In light of the significance of this issue, the Department will allow parties to submit written comments and any additional documentary evidence based on factual information that indicate that Razi Farm did or did not have knowledge that the goods in question were destined for the United States at the time of the sale, in accordance with the types of factors listed above. Comments and factual evidence with respect to this issue are due no later than 14 calendar days after the publication date of these preliminary results.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by the respondent covered by the description in the “Scope of Antidumping Duty Order” section above and sold in the comparison market during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. As there were no home market foreign like products to compare to a U.S. sale, we used constructed value (CV).

For Nima, we based the United States price on export price (EP), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We deducted inland freight expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication of the subject merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, interest, profit, and U.S. packing costs. In particular, we calculated CV based on the producer's (Razi Farm's) costs of materials and fabrication of the subject merchandise, G&A, and interest, plus the exporter's (Nima's) SG&A expenses and an amount for profit.

The producer's costs were submitted in three supplemental section D responses as well as a copy of a production cost study compiled by the Iranian Ministry of Finance based on production of pistachio farms in Iran. The producer provided copies of company ledgers maintained for the farm and sales invoices. See Razi Farm's May 25, 2004, third supplemental questionnaire response. We verified the producer's data and information provided in Razi Farm's responses in June 2004. See Cost Verification Report.

Because there were no viable home market sales or third country sales made by Nima during the POR, we cannot calculate CV profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act allows the Department to use amounts incurred and realized for profits based on any other reasonable method, as long as that profit does not exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or producers in connection with the sale for consumption in the foreign country of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise. Using the methodology established in a prior segment of this proceeding, we based profit on a home market sale made by an Iranian pistachio farmer in Nima's new shipper review pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. See Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios from Iran: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 50863 (August 6, 2002) (unchanged in the final results). The profit rate is a profit realized in connection with a sale for consumption in the foreign country of subject merchandise. There is no evidence on the record that indicates this profit rate is aberrational or not representative of home market profit rates of subject merchandise. However, we may revisit this rate calculation in computing CV for our final results. See Memorandum from Gina K. Lee through Michael P. Martin to Neal M. Halper, Constructed Value Adjustments for Preliminary Results, dated July 30, 2004 (CV Prelim Memo).

For these preliminary results, we have relied on the submitted CV, except where noted below:

1. We recalculated depreciation expense to correct an error.

2. We revised the reported pesticide expenses for a clerical error.

3. We increased the electricity expenses to reflect the costs for an entire year.

4. We calculated a profit rate based on publicly available information.

We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank or by Dow Jones Reuter Business Interactive, LLC (trading as Factiva).

We preliminarily determine that an antidumping duty margin does not exist for the following exporter:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to all interested parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit written comments and/or case briefs on these preliminary results. Comments and case briefs must be submitted no later than thirty days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments and briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, and must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs and comments. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, within thirty days of the date of publication of this notice, an interested party may request a public hearing on the arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs and comments. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless otherwise specified, the 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, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case and rebuttal briefs and comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Nima will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or de minimis , i.e. , less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the “all others” rate of 184.28 percent established in the LTFV investigation. This rate reflects the amount of export subsidies found in the final countervailing duty determination in the investigation subtracted from the dumping margin found in the LTFV determination. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order; In-Shell Pistachios From Iran, 51 FR 8344 (March 11, 1986). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this administrative 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.

The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).

PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g. , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the investigation excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g. , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.

Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside the scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

On August 2, 2004, the International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination pursuant to section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that the industry in the United States producing PRCBs is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of PRCBs from the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of PRCBs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after January 26, 2004, the date on which the Department published its Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 3544 (January 26, 2004).

Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to not more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of exports of PRCBs, we extended the four-month period to not more than six months. See 69 FR at 3545-46. In this investigation, the six-month period began on the date of the publication of the preliminary determination and ended on July 24, 2004. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of PRCBs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2004, and before the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation will continue on or after this date.

With the exception of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Hang Lung Plastic Manufactory, Ltd. (Hang Lung) and Nantong Huasheng Plastic Products Co., Ltd (Nantong), on or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the Federal Register , CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, cash deposits for the subject merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping margins listed below. Because we found de minimis margins for Hang Lung and Nantong, we are excluding merchandise manufactured and exported by Hang Lung and Nantong from this order. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise except for entries from the companies that are identified individually below.

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to PRCBs from the PRC, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.

The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).

PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g. , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the investigation excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g. , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.

Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside the scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

On August 2, 2004, the International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination pursuant to section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that the industry in the United States producing PRCBs is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from Malaysia. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of PRCBs from Malaysia. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of PRCBs from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after January 26, 2004, the date on which the Department published its Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia , 69 FR 3557 (January 26, 2004).

Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to not more than six months. At the request of an exporter that accounts for a significant proportion of exports of PRCBs, we extended the four-month period to not more than six months. See 69 FR at 3558. In this investigation, the six-month period began on the date of the publication of the preliminary determination and ended on July 24, 2004. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of PRCBs from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2004, and before the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation will continue on or after this date.

On or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the Federal Register , CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, cash deposits for the subject merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping margins listed below for all companies except Bee Lian Plastic Industries Sdn. Bhd (Bee Lian). Because we found a de minimis margin for Bee Lian, we are excluding merchandise manufactured and exported by this company from this order. The all-others rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise except for entries from the companies that are identified individually below.

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to PRCBs from Malaysia, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.

The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).

PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g. , grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the investigation excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g. , garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.

Imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading also covers products that are outside the scope of this investigation. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

On August 2, 2004, the International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination pursuant to section 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that the industry in the United States producing PRCBs is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from Thailand. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the U.S. price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of PRCBs from Thailand. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of PRCBs from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after January 26, 2004, the date on which the Department published its Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand , 69 FR 3552 (January 26, 2004).

Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to not more than six months. At the request of an exporter that accounts for a significant proportion of exports of PRCBs, we extended the four-month period to not more than six months. See 69 FR at 3553. In this investigation, the six-month period began on the date of the publication of the preliminary determination and ended on July 24, 2004. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of PRCBs from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2004, and before the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register . Suspension of liquidation will continue on or after this date.

On or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the Federal Register , CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, cash deposits for the subject merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping margins listed below. The all-others rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise except for entries from the companies that are identified individually below.

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to PRCBs from Thailand, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.

On July 2, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS from Italy. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 68 FR 39511. On July 31, 2003, TKAST and petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. On August 22, 2003, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS from Italy with regard to TKAST. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 50750.

On September 8, 2003, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to TKAST. On October 3, 2003, TKAST requested that the Department waive its filing requirements, and submitted its response to Section A of the questionnaire. In response to TKAST's request, on October 6, 2003, the Department waived its filing requirements ( i.e. , number of copies to be submitted) for this review.

On October 30, 2003, TKAST filed its response to Sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire. In its Section B response at page B-1, TKAST requested that it not be required to report the downstream sales of certain affiliated parties. On November 18, 2003, the Department sent TKAST a letter in which it allowed TKAST to exclude certain downstream sales.

On December 18, 2003, we received comments from petitioners on TKAST's questionnaire responses. On January 12, 2004, the Department requested that TKAST respond to Section E of the antidumping duty questionnaire dated September 8, 2003. On January 22, 2004, we rescinded our request that TKAST respond to Section E of the Department's questionnaire.

The Department issued TKAST a supplemental Section A, B, C, and D questionnaire on January 30, 2004. On February 9, 2004, the Department extended the deadline for issuing the preliminary results of this review by 60 days. See Extension of Time Limit of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, 69 FR 3590 (March 1, 2004).

On March 1, 2004, TKAST filed its supplemental Section A, B, C, and D questionnaire response. We received comments on TKAST's supplemental questionnaire response from petitioners on April 2, 2004.

On May 3, 2004, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this administrative review by an additional 60 days. See Extension of Time Limit of the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy, 69 FR 25564 (May 7, 2004). On May 25, 2004, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to TKAST.

On June 2, 2004, the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to TKAST. We issued our verification agenda to TKAST on June 3, 2004. On June 4, 2004, TKAST filed its second supplemental questionnaire response. We received TKAST's third supplemental questionnaire response on June 7, 2004.

The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department conducted a sales and cost verification of the information provided by TKAST from June 14, 2004, through June 17, 2004, using standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales, cost, and financial records, and a selection of relevant original documentation. Our verification results are outlined in the Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, Verification of Home Market Sales and Cost Questionnaire Responses Submitted by ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A., dated July 9, 2004 (Sales and Cost Verification Report).

Where necessary, we adjusted TKAST's reported home market, downstream, and U.S. sales databases to account for pre-verification corrections and findings. See Sales and Cost Verification Report at 1-3. See also Memorandum to the File through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results, dated July 29, 2004 (Prelim Analysis Memo). Public versions of the verification report and analysis memorandum are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Herbert C. Hoover Department of Commerce building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc. ) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81, 2 7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 7220.90.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this review are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

Flapper valve steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This product is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this review. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 3

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 4

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this review. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 5

Finally, also excluded from the scope of this review are three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( e.g. , carpet knives). 6 This steel is similar to American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” 7 The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5”  8 steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 9

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the “Scope of the Review” section above, which were produced and sold by TKAST in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of SSSS. We relied on nine characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of preference): (1) Grade; (2) hot/cold rolled; (3) gauge; (4) surface finish; (5) metallic coating; (6) non-metallic coating; (7) width; (8) temper; and (9) edge trim. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions listed in the Department's questionnaire. See Appendix V of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to TKAST dated September 8, 2003.

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

As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department will use the respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer establishes the essential terms of sale. TKAST reported the invoice date as the date of sale for both the U.S. market and the home market because the date of invoice reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were finalized. We used invoice date as the date of sale in the investigation and prior reviews. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy , 64 FR 30750 (June 8, 1999) (LTFV Investigation) and Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review ('01-'02): Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy , 68 FR 69382 (December 12, 2003).

For purposes of this review, TKAST classified all of its export sales of SSSS to the United States as CEP sales. During the POR, TKAST made sales to the United States through its U.S. affiliate, TKAST USA. See TKAST's Section A questionnaire response dated October 3, 2003 at A-31. Based on record information, we preliminarily find that all of TKAST's U.S. sales are appropriately classified as CEP sales. In particular, TKAST reported that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States through two channels ( i.e. , channel one and channel two).

With respect to channel one sales, TKAST reported that these sales are shipped directly from the factory in Italy to the U.S. customer. However, TKAST's U.S.-based affiliated reseller (TKAST USA) serves as the principal point of contact for the U.S. customer. For channel one sales, customers place their orders with TKAST USA and in turn, TKAST USA places the order with TKAST. Upon confirmation from TKAST, TKAST USA issues a separate invoice to the U.S. customer. TKAST USA is solely responsible for collecting payment from the U.S. customer, and separately responsible for paying TKAST for the merchandise.

Channel two sales are made from the inventory of TKAST USA. Accordingly, the Department preliminarily determines that TKAST's channel one and two sales were made “in the United States” within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act, and therefore, should be treated as CEP transactions, consistent with AK Steel Corp. v. United States , 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed prices to the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments to the starting price (gross unit price) for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, alloy surcharges, skid surcharges, and freight revenue, where applicable. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we deducted the following movement expenses, where appropriate, from the starting price: foreign inland freight from the plant to port of exit, international freight, U.S. inland freight from warehouse to the unaffiliated U.S. customer, other U.S. transportation expenses, and U.S. Customs duties. See also 19 CFR 351.401(e). In addition, because TKAST reported CEP sales, pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price selling expenses associated with economic activities that occurred in the United States during the POR, including direct U.S. selling expenses ( i.e. , credit and warranty expenses), U.S. inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses incurred in the United States (including technical service expenses).

After testing home market viability, as discussed below, we calculated normal value (NV) as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” section of this notice.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared TKAST'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 section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and section 351.404(b) of the Department's regulations, because TKAST's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determine that sales in the home market provide a viable basis for calculating NV. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record supporting a particular market situation in the exporting company's country that would not permit a proper comparison of home market and U.S. prices. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

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

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

While TKAST made sales to affiliated parties in the home market during the POR, the Department determined that TKAST only needed to report certain affiliated customers' downstream sales. See the “Background” section above. In its March 1, 2004 and June 7, 2004, supplemental questionnaire responses, TKAST explained that it was unable to compel certain affiliates to report their downstream sales to the Department. Pursuant to the Department's current practice, because we find that TKAST has cooperated to the best of its ability and was unable to obtain downstream sales from the affiliated parties as requested by the Department, we will not use adverse facts available for those sales. See Modification to Affiliated Party Sales at 69188. For downstream sales by affiliated parties reported by TKAST where the sale between TKAST and the affiliate failed the arm's-length test, we included the downstream sale in our calculation of NV. See TKAST's March 1, 2004, supplemental questionnaire response for its reporting of certain downstream sales.

In the most recently completed segment, the Department determined that TKAST made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of production (COP) and, therefore, excluded such sales from its calculation of NV. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review '01-'02: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy , 68 FR 69382 (December 12, 2003). Therefore, the Department has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that TKAST made sales in the home market at prices below the COP for this POR. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether TKAST's sales in the home market were made at prices below the COP.

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

At verification, we discovered that TKAST had terminated its old accounting system ( i.e. , BULL system) at the end of fiscal year 2003. TKAST explained that the information detailing how it derived the total standard costs reported for each phase of production for each grade of SSSS was only recorded in the BULL system. See Sales and Cost Verification Report at 27. Therefore, we were unable to substantiate how TKAST allocated its standard material and processing costs by grade produced and sold during the POR. 10 Because the Department was unable to verify this information, we cannot rely on TKAST's reported standard costs and, in effect, its reported total cost of manufacturing for each control number.

Because we were unable to fully verify the standard cost component used by TKAST to calculate total cost of manufacturing by grade, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review for TKAST. See Sales and Cost Verification Report at 27.

According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as 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 (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore, “an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States , 337 F. 3d 1373, 2003 Fed. Cir. ( Nippon Steel ) (“Compliance with the ‘best of its ability’ standard is determined by assessing whether respondent has put forth its maximum effort to provide Commerce with full and complete answers to all inquiries * * *”).

In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that TKAST failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. In particular, as one of the requesting parties, well-versed in the Department's antidumping duty procedures, TKAST has an obligation to maintain company records that contain the relevant information it relied upon when responding to our questionnaire responses, which is necessary for verification thereof and which may be used in our analysis. In Nippon Steel, the Federal Circuit stated that, “{w}hile the standard does not require perfection and recognizes that mistakes sometimes occur, it does not condone inattentiveness, carelessness, or inadequate record keeping.” See Nippon Steel at 1382.

As explained above, TKAST did not cooperate to the best of its ability when it failed to properly maintain records and provide the Department with standard cost records used during the POR, and therefore, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of TKAST in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that TKAST will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had it cooperated fully in this review.

An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary results, as facts otherwise available, we used TKAST's costs to calculate the average total cost of manufacturing (TCOMH) and variable cost of manufacturing (VCOMH), weighted by production quantity on a grade-specific basis. Where the reported total cost of manufacturing (TOTCOM) for the control number (CONNUM) was higher than the weighted-average TCOMH for that CONNUM's grade, we relied upon the CONNUM-specific data for TOTCOM and VCOMH. Otherwise, we used the weighted-average TCOMH by grade in our calculation of TOTCOM and VCOMH. See Prelim Analysis Memo for programming details.

We compared TKAST's weighted-average COPs to its home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable discounts, movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

As stated in the “Background” section above, TKAST reported downstream sales data with respect to two affiliated resellers. See TKAST's March 1, 2004 and June 4, 2004, supplemental questionnaire responses. In reviewing TKAST's cost database, the Department discovered that TKAST did not provide the costs of manufacturing associated with the downstream sales of subject merchandise. Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides that the Department may use facts otherwise available if necessary information is not available on the record. Because the cost information necessary to properly perform our cost test with respect to these sales is not on the record of this review, we must rely on facts otherwise available. Therefore, for the purposes of our cost test, we are preliminarily applying the weighted-average total cost of manufacturing, as neutral facts available, to downstream sales with no reported cost information in accordance with section 776(a)(1). See Prelim Analysis Memo for programming details.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than 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 the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than COP, we determined that the below-cost sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. Because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we determined that the below-cost prices did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Prelim Analysis Memo for programming details.

For those sales at prices above COP, we based NV on home market prices to affiliated (when made at prices determined to be arm's-length) or unaffiliated parties, in accordance with section 351.403 of the Department's regulations. Home market starting prices were based on packed prices to affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market net of discounts. We made adjustments, where applicable, for packing and movement expenses, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. For comparison to CEP, we deducted home market direct selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and section 351.410(c) of the Department's regulations.

Because we were unable to fully verify the packing expenses TKAST reported it incurred on subject merchandise sold in the United States and Italy, we find it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review for TKAST. See Sales and Cost Verification Report at 34-35.

Moreover, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that TKAST failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Prior to verification, the Department requested to review how TKAST derived its reported packing expenses. See the Department's Letter to TKAST dated June 3, 2004 at 9. However, TKAST was unable to meet the Department's request at verification. In particular, as noted above, we were unable to fully verify the packing information presented to Department officials at verification and provided for the record of this review. Moreover, after the errors were pointed out to TKAST at verification, TKAST did not provide the Department with the necessary information to adjust the incorrectly reported packing expenses, and thereby did not put forth its maximum effort to our verification inquiries. Although TKAST is familiar with our antidumping duty procedures, TKAST did not take reasonable steps to clarify this error and offer any explanation for the discrepancies to Department officials at verification. Therefore, TKAST did not act to the best of its ability in providing the Department with accurate and verifiable packing expenses. Because we cannot rely on TKAST's reported packing expenses and do not have information necessary to correct for the discrepancies found at verification, we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the interests of TKAST in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that TKAST will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had it cooperated fully in this review.

As stated above, an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act. For purposes of these preliminary results, as facts otherwise available, we applied the lowest reported packing expense in our calculation of NV and the highest reported packing expense in our calculation of CEP. See Prelim Analysis Memo for programming details.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. See also 19 CFR 351.412. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, the level of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, the U.S. LOT is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the affiliated importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1). As noted in the “Constructed Export Price” section above, we preliminarily find that all of TKAST's U.S. sales are appropriately classified as CEP sales.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes from Canada , 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002); see also 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).

For the CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and CEP profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology Inc. v. United States , 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We expect that, if claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review , 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000).

In the current review, TKAST requested a CEP offset. To determine whether a CEP offset was necessary, in accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the Italian and U.S. markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.

TKAST reported one LOT in the home market, with two channels of distribution: (1) Direct factory sales to end-users, manufacturers, service centers and distributors; and (2) warehouse sales to end-users, service centers and distributors. TKAST performed the same selling functions for sales in both home market channels of distribution, including production guidance, price negotiations, sales calls and services, arranging for freight and delivery, technical assistance and general selling activities. See TKAST's October 3, 2003 Section A questionnaire response.

The only differences are that for warehouse sales, TKAST initiates the sale (whereas direct sales are initiated by either party), and conducts inventory maintenance, and the amount of warranty services on warehouse sales is usually low because these sales are not made to order. See Sales and Cost Verification Report at 12. Accordingly, because these selling functions are substantially similar for both channels of distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.

TKAST reported two channels of distribution for the U.S. market: (1) Direct factory sales through TKAST USA to end-users and service centers; and (2) warehouse sales from the inventory of TKAST USA to end-users and service centers. We reviewed the selling functions and services performed by TKAST in the U.S. market, as described by TKAST in its October 3, 2004, section A questionnaire response. We have determined that the selling functions for the two U.S. channels of distribution are similar because TKAST provides almost no selling functions to either U.S. channel of distribution. TKAST reported that the only services it provided for the CEP sales were very limited freight and delivery arrangements and very limited warranty services. See TKAST's October 3, 2003 Section A questionnaire response at pages A-27 to A-29 and TKAST's March 1, 2004 first supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit A-43. Accordingly, because these selling functions are substantially similar for the two channels of distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.

In order to determine whether NV was established at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chains of distribution between TKAST and its home market customers. We compared the selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP transaction, after deductions for economic activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, to determine if the home market levels of trade constituted more advanced stages of distribution than the CEP level of trade. See TKAST's October 3, 2003 Section A questionnaire response at pages A-27 to A-29 and TKAST's March 1, 2004 first supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit A-43. TKAST reported that it provided virtually no selling functions for the CEP level of trade and that, therefore, the home market level of trade is more advanced than the CEP level of trade. To determine whether a CEP offset was necessary, in accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the Italian and U.S. markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.

Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and selling functions performed for sales in the home market and CEP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that the home market LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution when compared to TKAST's CEP sales because TKAST provides many more selling functions in the home market ( i.e. , production guidance, price negotiations, sales calls and services, arranging for freight and delivery, technical assistance and general selling activities) as compared to selling functions performed for its CEP sales ( i.e. , very limited freight and delivery arrangements and very limited warranty services). We were unable to quantify the LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, as we found that the LOT in the home market did not match the LOT of the CEP transactions and there was only one LOT in the home market and no other basis on which to determine a LOT adjustment. Accordingly, we did not calculate a LOT adjustment. Instead, we applied a CEP offset to NV for CEP comparisons.

To calculate the CEP offset, we deducted the home market indirect selling expenses from NV for home market sales that were compared to U.S. CEP sales. As such, we limited the home market indirect selling expense deduction by the amount of the indirect selling expenses deducted in calculating the CEP as required under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to the parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments and/or case briefs on these preliminary results. Comments and case briefs must be submitted no later than thirty days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments and briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, and must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs and comments. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the Department's regulations.

Also, pursuant to section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations, within thirty days of the date of publication of this notice, an interested party may request a public hearing on the arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs and comments. Unless otherwise specified, the 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, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case and rebuttal briefs and comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

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

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or de minimis , i.e. , less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 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 review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the “all others” rate of 11.23 percent, which is the rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Italy , 64 FR 40567 (July 27, 1999). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this administrative 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 July 21, 1999, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on SSSS from Taiwan. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, Taiwan and South Korea, 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999). On July 2, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request the fourth administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 68 FR 39511 (July 2, 2003). On July 24, 2003, respondent Chia Far requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales of subject merchandise. On July 30, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), petitioners requested an administrative review of thirteen manufacturers/exporters of SSSS from Taiwan: Chia Far, YUSCO, Tung Mung, Goang Jau Shing, PFP Taiwan, Yieh Loong, Tang Eng, Yieh Trading, Chien Shing, Ta Chen, China Steel, Yieh Mau, and Chain Chon. On August 22, 2003, the Department published a notice of initiation of the instant administrative review, covering twelve of the thirteen respondents cited above for the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 50750 (August 22, 2003). On September 30, 2003, the Department published a notice initiating the instant administrative review of Chia Far for the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 (Chia Far was inadvertently omitted from the earlier notice of initiation). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 68 FR 56262 (September 30, 2003).

On September 11, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to each of the thirteen manufacturers/exporters listed above. In October 2003, Ta Chen, Chain Chon, and China Steel responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire by noting that they did not sell or ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 2 In October and November 2003, Chia Far and YUSCO responded to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. Subsequently, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Chia Far and YUSCO. Chia Far and YUSCO responded to all of the Department's questionnaires in a timely manner. Throughout this administrative review, petitioners have submitted comments regarding the respondents' questionnaire responses.

On February 5, 2004, the Department extended the deadline for issuing the preliminary results in this administrative review until May 31, 2004. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 5497 (February 5, 2004).

On February 24, 2004, the Department notified the following companies that failure to respond to the Department's requests for information by March 9, 2004, would possibly result in the use of AFA in determining their dumping margins: Tang Eng, Goang Jau Shing, Chien Shing, China Steel, PFP Taiwan, Yieh Trading, Yieh Mau, and Yieh Loong. Yieh Mau responded by stating that it did not sell subject merchandise in the United States during the POR. In addition, on March 9, 2004, the Department placed on the record China Steel's October 2, 2003 questionnaire response indicating that it did not sell subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On June 7, 2004, the Department notified Tung Mung that it must report, by June 15, 2004, whether it sold or shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, otherwise the Department may use AFA in determining the company's dumping margin. Tung Mung responded by letter on June 15, 2004, stating that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

On December 18, 2003, petitioners submitted comments alleging that there has been a substantial shift in U.S. imports of merchandise from Taiwan away from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings for stainless steel “coiled sheet” to HTS subheadings for “other” flat-rolled stainless steel products, a subheading that may include both subject coiled and non-subject non-coiled products. Accordingly, petitioners requested that the Department obtain information regarding imports under certain “other” HTS subheadings for flat-rolled stainless steel products. The Department subsequently requested information from CBP regarding selected entries under various “other” HTS subheadings for flat-rolled stainless steel products. See Memorandum from Edward Yang to Michael S. Craig, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Request for U.S. Entry Documents, dated April 9, 2004 (April 9, 2004 Data Request). On April 20, 2004, petitioners asked the Department to obtain and place on the record additional information regarding entries under certain “other” HTS subheadings for flat-rolled stainless steel products. On June 14, 2004, the Department placed certain CBP data on the record of this proceeding. See Memorandum From Melissa Blackledge To The File, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data Query Results, dated June 14, 2004. The documents obtained from CBP for selected entries under various “other” HTS subheadings for flat-rolled stainless steel products do not indicate that the merchandise entering the United States is subject merchandise. See Memorandum from Karine Gziryan to the File regarding documentation provided by CBP, dated July 30, 2004.

On March 31, 2004, the Department again extended the deadline for issuing the preliminary results in this administrative review until July 30, 2004. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 18053 (April 6, 2004).

The products covered by the order on SSSS from Taiwan are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise de-scaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc .) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTS at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise de-scaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

In response to comments by interested parties, the Department also determined that certain specialty stainless steel products were excluded from the scope of the investigation and the subsequent order. These excluded products are described below.

Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company.

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (“UNS”) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( e.g. , carpet knives). This steel is similar to AISI grade 420, but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only. “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.

Five respondents, Ta Chen, Yieh Mau, Chain Chon, Tung Mung, and China Steel, certified to the Department that they did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department subsequently obtained CBP information in order to substantiate the respondents' claims. See Memorandum From Melissa Blackledge To The File, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data Query Results, dated June 14, 2004. On June 21, 2004, petitioners submitted comments on the CBP information. During June and July 2004, the Department requested additional information from Ta Chen, Yieh Mau, and CBP regarding certain U.S. entries during the POR (CBP entry documentation relating to Chain Chon had already been requested in the Department's April 9, 2004 Data Request). See Memoranda from Tom Futtner to William R. Scopa, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Request for U.S. Entry Documents, dated June 29, 2004, July 1, 2004, and July 7, 2004 (“CBPRED Memoranda”). On July 19, 2004, Yieh Mau submitted a letter stating it had reviewed its records and found no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On July 21, 2004, Ta Chen submitted documentation supporting its claim of no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

CBP data call into question the no shipment claim of Yieh Mau and the company failed to demonstrate that it did not sell subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined not to rescind this administrative review with respect to Yieh Mau. Rather, as explained below, the Department has preliminarily assigned a dumping margin to Yieh Mau that is based on total AFA. The Department is awaiting additional information from CBP regarding certain entries of Yieh Mau's merchandise during the POR. The Department will consider this additional information in reaching its final determination with respect to Yieh Mau.

Thus, the evidence on the record does not indicate that Ta Chen, Chain Chon, Tung Mung, or China Steel exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Ta Chen, Chain Chon, Tung Mung and China Steel. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Columbia; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 14, 1997).

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides that if any interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping investigation; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in making its determination.

Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.

The evidence on the record of this review establishes that, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of total facts available is warranted in determining the dumping margin for Tang Eng, PFP Taiwan, Yieh Loong, Yieh Trading, Goang Jau Shing, Chien Shing, and Yieh Mau because these companies failed to provide requested information. Specifically, these companies failed to respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. On February 24, 2004, the Department informed these companies that failure to respond to its requests for information by March 9, 2004, would possibly result in the use of AFA in determining their dumping margins. Six of these manufacturers/exporters did not respond to the Department's February 24, 2004 letter. Although Yieh Mau responded to the Department's February 24, 2004 letter by claiming not to have sold subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, record evidence indicates that such sales may have taken place and yet, Yieh Mau did not provide any of the requested information that would allow the Department to calculate a dumping margin for these sales. See Yieh Mau's March 6, 2004 response to the Department's February 24, 2004 letter and July 13, 2004 response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.

Because these respondents failed to provide any of the necessary information requested by the Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we have based the dumping margins for these companies on the facts otherwise available.

Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” See also Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) of the Act goes on to note that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in the investigation under this title; (3) any previous review under section 751 or determination under section 753, or (4) any other information on the record.

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 SAA at 870; Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (CIT 1998); Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 1999). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003), provided an explanation of the “failure to act to the best of its ability” standard, holding that the Department need not show intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but merely that a “failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's ability” existed, i.e. , information was not provided “under circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has been shown.” Id.

The record shows that Tang Eng, PFP Taiwan, Yieh Loong, Yieh Trading, Goang Jau Shing, Chien Shing, and Yieh Mau failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. As noted above, Tang Eng, PFP Taiwan, Yieh Loong, Yieh Trading, Goang Jau Shing, and Chien Shing failed to provide any response to the Department's requests for information. Yieh Mau responded to the Department's requests for information but, preliminarily, the Department has determined that it inaccurately reported that it did not sell subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the Department to assume that these companies possessed the records necessary to participate in this review; however, by not supplying the information the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities. As these companies have failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities, we are applying an adverse inference in determining their dumping margin pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA, we have assigned these companies a dumping margin of 21.10 percent, which is the highest appropriate dumping margin  3 from this or any prior segment of the instant proceeding. This rate was the highest petition margin and was used as AFA in a number of segments of the instant proceeding. See e.g. Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682 (February 13, 2002) ( 1999-2000 AR of SSSS from Taiwan ). See also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Notice of Court Decision, 67 FR 63887 (October 16, 2002).

The Department notes that while the highest dumping margin calculated during this or any prior segment of the instant proceeding is 36.44 percent, as argued by petitioners, this margin represents a combined rate applied to a channel transaction in the investigative phase of this proceeding and it is based on middleman dumping by Ta Chen. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, (Nov. 29, 2000) affirmed by 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1345 (CIT 2002), aff'd 354 F. 3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where circumstances indicate that a particular dumping margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine another more appropriate one as facts available. See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest dumping margin for use as AFA because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an unusually high dumping margin). Because a dumping margin based on middleman dumping would be inappropriate, given that the record does not indicate that any of Tang Eng's, PFP Taiwan's, Yieh Loong's, Yieh Trading's, Goang Jau Shing's, Chien Shing's, or Yieh Mau's exports to the United States during the POR involved a middleman, the Department has, consistent with previous reviews, continued to use as AFA the highest dumping margin from any segment of the proceeding for a producer's direct exports to the United States, without middleman dumping, which is 21.10 percent.

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. As noted in 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), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information.

The rate of 21.10 percent constitutes secondary information. The Department corroborated the information used to establish the 21.10 percent rate in the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation in this proceeding, finding the information to be both reliable and relevant. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan, 64 FR 30592, 30592 (June 8, 1999) ( Final Determination ); see also 1999-2000 AR of SSSS from Taiwan, 67 FR 6682, 6684 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 28. Nothing on the record of this instant administrative review calls into question the reliability of this rate. Furthermore, with respect to the relevancy 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. As discussed above, in selecting this margin, the Department considered whether a margin derived from middleman dumping was relevant to Tang Eng's, PFP Taiwan's, Yieh Loong's, Yieh Trading's, Goang Jau Shing's, Chien Shing's, or Yieh Mau's commercial experience, and determined the use of this margin was inappropriate. The Department has determined that there is no evidence on the record of this case, however, which would render the 21.10 percent dumping margin irrelevant. Thus, we find that the rate of 21.10 percent is sufficiently corroborated for purposes of the instant administrative review.

On September 22, 2003, petitioners requested that the Department determine whether the thirteen respondents absorbed antidumping duties during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act, provides for the Department, if requested, to determine, during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated importer. Because Chia Far is the only respondent to report sales of subject merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United States through an affiliated importer, and because this review was initiated four years after the publication of the order, we will make a duty absorption determination with respect to Chia Far in this segment of the proceeding within the meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.

On July 12, 2004, the Department requested that Chia Far provide evidence demonstrating that unaffiliated U.S. purchasers will pay any antidumping duties ultimately assessed on entries during the POR. In its response, submitted to the Department on July 19, 2004, Chia Far provided a statement from the unaffiliated customer of its U.S. affiliated importer as evidence that it has not absorbed antidumping duties. In determining whether Chia Far absorbed antidumping duties during the POR, the Department presumes that duties will be absorbed for those sales that have been made at less than NV. This presumption can be rebutted with evidence ( e.g. , an enforceable agreement between the affiliated importer and unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise.

Although Chia Far claims that the unaffiliated U.S. customer paid antidumping duties, it did not provide sufficient evidence that the unaffiliated U.S. customer always pays antidumping duties nor did Chia Far provide an agreement with its unaffiliated purchaser stating that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Chia Far absorbed antidumping duties on all U.S. sales made through its affiliated importer. The Department will notify the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of its finding regarding such duty absorption for the ITC to consider in conducting a five-year review of the order on SSSS from Taiwan under section 751(c) of the Act.

Petitioners contend that YUSCO is affiliated with two other companies named as respondents in this review, China Steel (and its affiliates), and Yieh Loong, companies that YUSCO did not identify as its affiliates. See petitioners' January 6, 2004 submission to the Department. In the previous administrative review of SSSS from Taiwan, covering the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, petitioners also contended that YUSCO was affiliated with China Steel and Yieh Loong. However, the Department determined in that review that these companies were not affiliated with YUSCO. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 5960 (February 9, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. Because petitioners have not provided any new evidence indicating a change in the relationship between these companies, we continue to find that YUSCO is not affiliated with China Steel or Yieh Loong.

Petitioners contend that, in the instant administrative review, YUSCO failed to acknowledge certain affiliations that it identified in the prior two administrative reviews of SSSS from Taiwan. According to petitioners, some of the unnamed, potentially affiliated parties appear on customer lists provided by YUSCO in the instant administrative review. Specifically, petitioners identify three companies that they claim are affiliated with YUSCO and urge the Department to find YUSCO's sales to these companies to be affiliated-party sales (petitioners note that none of these affiliated parties reported downstream sales of SSSS). See petitioners' July 15, 2004 submission to the Department at 4 and 5.

For these preliminary results, we have not found the three companies at issue to be affiliated with YUSCO. As an initial matter, there is no evidence on the record that YUSCO sold SSSS to two of the companies identified by petitioners as potential affiliates of YUSCO. Additionally, in their July 15, 2003 submission, petitioners make certain assertions regarding stock ownership by individuals and investment companies without providing support for their assertions.

Section 773 (a)(1)(B) of the Act defines NV as the price at which foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home market), 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 export price (“EP”) or constructed export price (“CEP”). In implementing this provision, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) has found that sales should be reported as home market sales if the producer “knew or should have known that the merchandise {it sold} was * * * for home consumption based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the sales.” See Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. & Yieh United Steel Corp. v. United States and Allegheny Ludlum Corp. et al. , Slip Op. 01-83 (CIT 2001); citing INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. Supp. 251 (1997). Conversely, if the producer knew or should have known the merchandise that it sold to home market customers was not for home market consumption, it should exclude such sales from its home market sales database. Even though a producer may sell merchandise destined for exportation by a home market customer, if that merchandise is used to produce non-subject merchandise in the home market, it is consumed in the home market and such sales will be considered to be home market sales. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37182 (July 9, 1993).

The issue of whether respondents have properly reported home market sales has arisen in each of the prior segments of the instant proceeding. It is also an issue in the instant administrative review.

In its October 31, 2003 response to section B of the Department's antidumping questionnaire, YUSCO stated that it included in its home market sales database “all sales that the Department may find relevant in light of the Department's final determination in the original investigation, and the U.S. Court of International Trade's decision in Allegheny Ludlum v. United States, Slip Op. 00-170 (Dec. 28, 2000)” ( Allegheny Ludlum ). 4 Specifically, YUSCO included in its home market sales database sales that it classified in its books and records as domestic sales, indirect export sales, and sales to a home market customer's bonded warehouse. YUSCO also reported downstream sales of its Taiwanese affiliate.

Throughout the instant administrative review, petitioners have questioned the accuracy of YUSCO's home market sales database. Specifically, petitioners claim that YUSCO has not properly applied the knowledge test to each sale at the time of sale and has relied on a flawed internal order system in classifying and reporting its sales. As a result, petitioners maintain that the Department cannot rely upon the sales databases submitted by YUSCO and must base the company's dumping margin on total AFA. See petitioners' July 15, 2004 submission to the Department at 8 and 9.

For these preliminary results, we have not rejected YUSCO's sales databases in favor of total AFA because we have determined that there is information on the record indicating whether YUSCO knew, or should have known, the merchandise that it sold was for consumption in the home market based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the sales. Thus, there is information on the record that allows the Department to identify YUSCO's home market sales. Specifically, YUSCO reported that it sold SSSS to a certain home market customer who was planning to further process the SSSS and then export the merchandise. Further, YUSCO delivered the merchandise to this customer at a location that had facilities to further process the SSSS. See YUSCO's June 10, 2004 supplemental questionnaire response at 9. Because the record indicates that YUSCO knew at the time of sale that this merchandise would be consumed in the home market, the Department has preliminarily considered these “indirect export” sales to be home market sales. For all other “indirect export” sales, YUSCO stated “it arranged the vessel and shipped the merchandise to assigned foreign seaports and/or shipped the merchandise directly to the dock, along side ship and/or to {an associated facility}.” See id. at 11. Sample sales documentation indicates that YUSCO knew it was to make such arrangements at the time of sale. Thus, for the preliminary results, the Department has not considered these “indirect export” sales to be home market sales. YUSCO also reported its Taiwanese affiliate's “indirect export” sales. The record indicates that most of these “indirect sales” were delivered to the port, and thus it appears that the Taiwanese affiliate knew at the time of sale that these sales were not going to be consumed in the home market. Therefore, for the preliminary results, the Department has not considered these “indirect export” sales to be home market sales. Lastly, with respect to YUSCO's sales to a home market customer's bonded warehouse, as was the case in the prior administrative review of this order, YUSCO established that the legal purpose of a bonded warehouse is to further process and then export merchandise and there is no evidence on the record that the SSSS sold to the bonded warehouse was eventually exported as subject merchandise or sold in the home market as subject merchandise. Therefore, consistent with the approach taken in the prior administrative review of this order, we have considered YUSCO's sales to the bonded warehouse of one of its home market customers to be home market sales.

In its April 29, 2004 supplemental questionnaire response, Chia Far stated that it has reason to believe that some of the home market customers to whom it sold SSSS during the POR may have exported the merchandise. Specifically, Chia Far indicated that it normally delivers SSSS by loading it onto a truck; however, for certain customers, it packed the SSSS in ocean containers which it delivered to a container yard or which the customer picked up. See Chia Far's April 29, 2004 supplemental response at 1 and its October 31, 2003 response to sections B through D of the antidumping questionnaire at 2. Also, Chia Far noted that many of the customers for whom it packed SSSS in containers are end users with production facilities in mainland China. Although Chia Far stated that it does not definitively know whether the SSSS in question will be exported, the Department has preliminarily determined that, based on the circumstances surrounding the sales, Chia Far should have known that the SSSS in question was not for consumption in the home market. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily excluded these sales from Chia Far's home market sales database.

To determine whether YUSCO and Chia Far's sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the EP and CEP, as appropriate, to NV, as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP and CEP transactions.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products covered by the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, supra, and sold by YUSCO and Chia Far in the comparison market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSSS sold in the United States. In determining which sales of foreign like product to compare to U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we relied on the following nine product characteristics, listed in order of importance: grade, hot or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous U.S. and comparison-market sales of products that are identical with respect to the product characteristics listed above. Where we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales of product to the most similar foreign like product based on the above characteristics and the reporting instructions in the September 11, 2003 antidumping questionnaire. Where there were no appropriate sales of foreign like product to compare to a U.S. sale, we compared the price of the U.S. sale to constructed value (“CV”).

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.

For purposes of the instant administrative review, YUSCO classified its U.S. sales as EP sales, stating that it sold SSSS to unaffiliated customers in the United States during the POR. We based U.S. price on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, outside the United States by YUSCO to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We calculated EP using packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for inland freight (from YUSCO's plant to the port of exportation), international freight, brokerage and handling charges, container handling fees, certification fees, fumigation fees, and marine insurance expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. We made no changes or corrections to the U.S. sales information reported by YUSCO in calculating YUSCO's dumping margin.

For purposes of the instant administrative review, Chia Far classified its sales as either EP or CEP sales. We based U.S. price on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, for sales of subject merchandise that were sold, prior to importation, outside the United States by Chia Far to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We calculated EP using packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses including: foreign inland freight expense (from Chia Far's plant to the port of exportation), brokerage and handling expense, international ocean freight expense, marine insurance expense, container handling charges, and harbor construction fees. Additionally, we added to the starting price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

We based U.S. price on CEP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, for sales of subject merchandise that were sold, after importation, by Lucky Medsup, Chia Far's affiliated reseller, to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We calculated CEP using packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses including: foreign inland freight expense (from Chia Far's plant to the port of exportation), brokerage and handling expense, international ocean freight expense, marine and inland insurance expense, container handling charges, harbor construction fees, other U.S. transportation expenses and U.S. duty. Additionally, we added to the starting price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct and indirect selling expenses.

We deducted from the starting price the profit allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of the Act in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed profit based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses for both the U.S. and home market.

After testing home market viability, whether home market sales to affiliates were at arm's-length prices, and whether home market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the “Price-to-Price Comparisons” and “Price-to-CV Comparisons” sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we separately compared the aggregate volume of YUSCO's and Chia Far's home market sales of the foreign like product to the aggregate volume of their U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Because the aggregate volume of YUSCO's and Chia Far's home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of their U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we determined that the home market is viable for each of these respondents and have used the home market as the comparison-market.

YUSCO reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated and unaffiliated end users and distributors/retailers. The Department may calculate NV based on sales to an affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the prices charged to the affiliated party are comparable to the prices at which sales were made to parties not affiliated with the producer, i.e. , sales at arm's-length. See section 773(f)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where the home market prices charged to an affiliated customer were, on average, found not to be arm's-length prices, sales to the affiliated customer were excluded from our analysis. To test whether YUSCO's sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c), and in accordance with the Department's practice, when the prices charged to affiliated parties were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we determine that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). YUSCO's affiliated home market customer did not pass the arm's-length test. Therefore, we have considered the downstream sales from this affiliate to the first unaffiliated customer.

In the previous administrative review in this proceeding, the Department determined that YUSCO and Chia Far sold foreign like product in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. Based on the results of the previous administrative review, the Department has determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that during the instant POR, YUSCO and Chia Far sold foreign like product in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the Department initiated a cost of production inquiry for both YUSCO and Chia Far.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each unique foreign like product sold by a respondent during the POR, we calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the respondent's materials and fabrication costs, home market selling general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, including interest expenses, and packing costs. Except as noted below, we relied on the COP data submitted by YUSCO in its cost and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For these preliminary results, we revised the COP information submitted by YUSCO as follows: We increased the reported cost of major inputs to reflect the higher of the transfer price or market price as required by section 773(f)(2) of the Act. We adjusted YUSCO's reported interest expense ratio by subtracting net foreign exchange gains from interest expenses. We adjusted YUSCO's reported G&A expense ratio to exclude exchange gains incurred on accounts payable and to include employee bonuses and director's remuneration. See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan—Yieh United Steel Corp., Ltd. (July 30, 2004) (“YUSCO Preliminary Analysis Memorandum”).

We relied on the COP data submitted by Chia Far in its cost and supplemental cost questionnaire responses, and for purposes of these preliminary results, we have made no changes to Chia Far's COP data in conducting the cost test. See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan—Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (July 30, 2004) (“Chia Far Preliminary Analysis Memorandum”).

In order to determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP, on a product-specific basis we compared each respondent's weighted-average COPs, adjusted as noted above, to the prices of its home market sales of foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, in determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than the COP we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared the COP to home market sales prices, less any applicable movement charges and discounts.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made 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.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities” and within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. In such cases, because we used POR average costs, we also determined, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.

Where it was appropriate to base NV on prices, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in Taiwan, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the comparison EP or CEP sale.

We based NV on the prices of home market sales to unaffiliated customers and to affiliated customers to whom sales were made at arm's-length prices. We made price adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price rebates, warranty expenses, movement expenses, home market packing costs, credit expenses and other direct selling expenses and added U.S. packing costs and, for NVs compared to EPs, credit expenses, and other direct selling expenses. In accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of manufacturing the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV when we were unable to compare the U.S. sale to a home market sale of an identical or similar product. For each unique SSSS product sold by the respondent in the United States during the POR, we calculated a weighted-average CV based on the sum of the respondent's materials and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, including interest expenses, packing costs, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in Taiwan. We based selling expenses on weighted-average actual home market direct and indirect selling expenses. In calculating CV, we adjusted the reported costs as described in the COP section above.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sales. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. The Department adjusts the CEP, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as articulated by 19 CFR 351.412. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d, 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information from YUSCO and Chia Far regarding the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by YUSCO and Chia Far for each channel of distribution. Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller at each level should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar.

In the present review, neither YUSCO nor Chia Far requested a LOT adjustment (in addition, Chia Far did not request a CEP offset). However, in order to determine whether an adjustment was necessary, in accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and home markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and selling expenses.

YUSCO reported that it sold foreign like product in the home market through one channel of distribution and at one LOT. See YUSCO's October 31, 2003 Questionnaire Response at B-29. In this channel of distribution, YUSCO provided the following selling functions: inland freight, invoicing, packing, warranty services, and technical advice. Because there is only one sales channel in the home market involving similar functions for all sales, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.

In addition, YUSCO reported that it sold subject merchandise to customers in the United States through one channel of distribution and at one LOT. See YUSCO's October 21, 2003 Questionnaire Response at A-12. In this channel of distribution, YUSCO provided the following selling functions: arranging freight and delivery, invoicing, and packing. YUSCO did not incur any expenses in the United States for its U.S. sales. Because there is only one sales channel in the United States involving similar functions for all sales, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the United States.

Based upon our analysis of the selling functions performed by YUSCO, we preliminarily determine that YUSCO sold foreign like product and subject merchandise at the same LOT. Despite the fact that YUSCO provided technical advice and warranty services in the home market, but not the U.S. market, these services were rarely provided in the home market and thus, there is no significant difference between the selling functions performed in the home and U.S. markets. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that a LOT adjustment is not warranted.

Chia Far reported in its responses that, during the POR, it sold subject merchandise in the home market directly to two types of customers, distributors and end users, through one channel of distribution. Chia Far provided the same selling functions for home market sales, such as providing technical advice, making freight and delivery arrangements, processing orders, providing after-sale warehousing, providing after-sale packing services, performing warranty services, and post-sale processing. See Chia Far's Section A Questionnaire Response (AQR) at Exhibit A-6 (October 1, 2003). Based on the similarity of the selling functions and the fact that one channel of distribution serviced the two types of customers, we determine that the respondent's home market sales constitute one LOT.

For the U.S. market, Chia Far reported that they made sales to unaffiliated distributors directly and through its U.S. affiliate, Lucky Medsup. Since the Department bases the LOT of CEP sales on the price in the United States after making CEP deductions under section 772(d) of the Act, we based the LOT of Chia Far's CEP sales on the price after deducting selling expenses.

Chia Far performed the same selling functions, such as arranging freight and delivery, providing after-sale packing services, processing orders, providing technical advice, and performing warranty services for all U.S. customers, including Lucky Medsup. See AQR at Exhibit A-6. Therefore, based on the similarity of selling functions to the same customer type, we preliminarily determine that Chia Far's U.S. sales constitute one LOT.

Because there is only one LOT in the home market, any difference in the NV and U.S. LOTs cannot be quantified. Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not possible.

Because a LOT adjustment is not possible, the Department examined whether to adjust NV pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). In order to determine whether NV is at a more advanced LOT than the CEP transactions, the Department compared home market selling activities with those for CEP transactions after deducting the expenses identified in section 772(d) of the Act. The expenses identified in section 772(d) of the Act are associated with selling activities occurring in the United States. After making these deductions, the Department determined that the differences between the home and U.S. market selling activities do not support a finding that Chia Far's sales in the home market were made at a more advanced LOT than the CEP sales. Specifically, Chia Far engaged in the following selling activities in both the home and U.S. markets: Providing technical advice, warranty services, freight and delivery arrangements, packing, and order processing. See AQR at Exhibit A-6 and A-7. In the U.S. market, Chia Far arranged international freight and delivery and marine insurance, a function it did not perform in the home market. Additionally, because of the additional activity required to ship subject merchandise to U.S. customers and to Lucky Medsup, Chia Far engaged in arranging freight and delivery of subject merchandise to the U.S. market at a greater level of intensity than it did in the home market. On the other hand, Chia Far engaged in post-sale processing and post-sale warehousing in the home market, but not the U.S. market. While Chia Far may have engaged in certain selling activities in the home market that it did not perform in the U.S. market, according to Chia Far the significance of these activities is minimal. Chia Far stated in its questionnaire response that it was not requesting a CEP offset. See AQR at A-12. Given the similarities in selling functions between the home and U.S. markets and the minimal difference in the level at which Chia Far performed certain selling functions unique to the home market, the Department preliminarily finds that there is not sufficient evidence on the record indicating that home market sales were made at a more advanced LOT than U.S. sales. Thus, the Department has not granted Chia Far a CEP offset.

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 dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003:

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. According to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where possible, the Department calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess the importer-specific rate uniformly on the entered customs value of all entries of subject merchandise made by the importer during the POR. For the respondents receiving dumping margins based upon AFA, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA ad valorem rate. For the respondents for whom the review was rescinded, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of the entry. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed in the final results of this review (except if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (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 review 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 subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.61 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination 64 FR 30592. These required cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

According to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose any calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results of review within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary results of review. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Also, interested parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs. The Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we request that parties submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on the final results of this review.

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

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

The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA) submitted an initial application for an EFP on June 7, 2004. The application was complete on July 14, 2004. The experimental fishing application requests authorization for activities to determine the reproductive life history of cod on the western portion of GB by sampling and mapping the distribution and transport of larval and juvenile cod. This project has three distinct phases, two of which would be covered under this EFP.

In the first phase, fishermen would sample adult cod on the western portion of GB and Great South Channel areas from September to December to assess reproductive status and approximate spawning time for cod. Fin clips of adult cod would be taken for genetic analysis. This phase would involve the use of rod and reel to target up to 750 ripe and running cod on no more than 25 1-day sampling trips. Researchers hope to sample 15 ripe and running cod per site per trip (two sites would be identified for each trip). Any juvenile cod or those that are at or near spawning time (e.g., ripe and/or running) would be returned to the sea immediately. All other cod caught during the sampling trip that meet the minimum size requirements would be allowed to be landed to defray a portion of the costs associated with the research. This phase of the project would only involve fishermen enrolled in the Cape Cod Hook Sector Plan (Sector). As such, cod landed in this phase would be counted against the Sector's total allowable catch (TAC), as specified in the GB Cod Hook Sector Operations Plan and Agreement (Sector Agreement). All vessels permitted under this phase of the EFP would be required to abide by the Sector Agreement, with the exception of the following: vessels permitted under this phase of the EFP would be exempt from using Category A DAS. The reason for this exemption is that only cod would be permitted to be landed on these EFP trips; no other fish would be permitted to be landed. Because the cod landings would be counted against the Sector quota, the DAS effort-control measures are not necessary. If non-quota species were permitted to be landed, which they are not, then there would be a need to have the participating vessels fish under the DAS program. As such, the total fishing mortality associated with this portion of the EFP is fully accounted for under the provisions of the FMP. Additionally, bycatch mortality under this EFP would be minimized as there is no incentive to catch anything other than cod. Participating fishermen would be expected to make every effort to avoid concentrations of non-target species.

The second phase of this project does not require any regulatory exemptions and is not part of this EFP.

Phase three of this project would begin once the larvae have begun to mature into juvenile cod. This phase of the sampling project would utilize an otter trawl rigged with small-mesh intended to catch “fingerling” juvenile cod on up to 16 fishing days. Tows would be short in duration (10-15 minutes) at speeds between 4-10 knots. Fin clips, for genetic analysis, would be taken from the juvenile cod. The researchers plan to obtain 20 samples from two different sites on each fishing day, for a total of 380 samples. No fish would be permitted to be landed for sale under this portion of the EFP. Exemptions from DAS, minimum mesh size, the GB Seasonal Closure Area, and the Nantucket Lightship Habitat Closure Area (not including the Nantucket Lightship Groundfish Closure Area) are requested. Because these are short tows seeking a small sample size of juvenile fish, it is anticipated that these exemptions would have no more than a negligible impact on the cod resource.

The entire research study, all three phases, would occur between September 1, 2004, and June 30, 2005, in 30-minute squares 114, 99, 98, 82, and 81.

This EFP would allow for exemptions from the FMP as follows: the DAS notification requirements specified at § 648.10; the effort-control program (DAS) as specified at § 648.82(a); the minimum mesh size for the GB Regulated Mesh Area at § 648.80(a)(4); the Nantucket Lightship Habitat Closure Area specified at § 648.81(h)(1)(vi); the GB Seasonal Closure Area specified at § 648.81(g); and minimum fish size restrictions specified at § 648.83(a) for the temporary retention of undersized fish for data collection purposes.

The CBTPA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns or fabrics formed in the United States. The CBTPA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and directed CITA to establish procedures to ensure appropriate public participation in any such determination. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests. (66 FR 13502).

Research and Development proposals and continuing projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M will be reviewed.

This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

The National Security Agency's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on July 30, 2004, to the House Committee on government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

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

The purpose of the SAB QRC meetings is to conduct a public review and discussion of the two SAB draft reports. The focus of the discussion will be on whether: (i) The original charge questions to the SAB review panel have been adequately addressed, (ii) there are any technical errors or omissions in the report or issues that are inadequately dealt with in the report, (iii) the report is clear and logical, and (iv) any conclusions drawn, or recommendations provided, are supported by the body of information in the review report. The outcome of the QRC review will be one of the following: (i) Recommend SAB approval of the report, (ii) return the report to the review panel for further work, (iii) reject the work of the review panel and request a reconsideration and a revised report in the future, or (iv) recommend that the SAB constitute an entirely new review panel.

Availability of Review Material for the Board Meeting: Documents that are the subject of this meeting are available on the SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/.

Procedures for Providing Public Comment: The SAB Staff Office accepts written public comments of any length, and accommodates oral public comments whenever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects that public statements presented at SAB meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a teleconference meeting will usually be limited to no more than three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen minutes total. Interested parties should contact the DFO noted above in writing via e-mail at least one week prior to the meeting in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the meeting. Speakers should provide an electronic copy of their comments for distribution to interested parties and participants in the meeting. Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the committee for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access these meetings, should contact the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

The subject memorandum may be viewed and downloaded from EPA's Web site, http://www.epa.gov/OWM/mab/smcomm/104g/104secur.pdf under “Wastewater Security Grant Guidance.”

OMB Control Number: 3060-0370.

Title: Part 32, Uniform System of Accounts for Telecommunications Companies.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 239.

Estimated Time per Response: 104-26,195 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,516,702 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Uniform System of Accounts is a historical financial accounting system which reports the results of operational and financial events in a manner which enables both management and regulators to assess these results within a specified accounting period. Subject respondents are telecommunications companies. In the Report and Order, FCC 04-149, the Commission adopted the Joint Conference's recommendations to reinstate Part 32, Class A accounts which includes: Account 5230, Directory Revenue; Account 6621, Call Completion Services; Account 6622, Number Services; Account 6623, Customer Services; Account 6561, Depreciation Expense-Telecommunications Plant In Service; Account 6562, Depreciation Expense-Property Held for Future Telecommunications Use; Account 6563, Amortization Expense-Tangible; Account 6564, Amortization Expense-Intangible; Account 6565, Amortization Expense-Other. These accounting changes are mandatory only for non-mid-sized Class A Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). The reinstatement of these accounts, however, will not impose any additional burden on non-mid-sized Class A ILECs because the Commission's prior action to aggregate the accounts has been suspended. Similarly, the Commission's reinstatement of the sheath kilometer reporting requirement in the ARMIS 43-07 will not impose any additional burden on non-mid-sized Class A ILECs. Entities having annual revenues from regulatory telecommunications operations of less than $123 million are designated as Class B and are subject to a less detailed accounting system than those designated as Class A companies.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on June 28, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20554.

1. In this Order, we ask the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) to review the Commission's rules relating to the high-cost universal service support mechanisms for rural carriers and to determine the appropriate rural mechanism to succeed the five-year plan adopted in the Rural Task Force Order , ( RTF Order ). In particular, we ask the Joint Board to make recommendations to the Commission on a long-term universal service plan that ensures that support is specific, predictable, and sufficient to preserve and advance universal service. We ask the Joint Board to ensure that its recommendations are consistent with the goal of ensuring that consumers in rural, insular, and high-cost areas have access to telecommunications and information services at rates that are affordable and reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas. We also ask the Joint Board to consider how support can be effectively targeted to rural telephone companies serving the highest cost areas, while protecting against excessive fund growth. In conducting its review, the Joint Board should take into account the significant distinctions among rural carriers, and between rural and non-rural carriers. We expect that the Joint Board will consider all options for determining appropriate support levels for rural carriers. We anticipate that the Joint Board will seek public comment on the issues described below.

2. On June 30, 2006, the RTF Order will have been in place for five years. It therefore is time to undertake a review of what measures should succeed the RTF plan and, more generally, how the rural and non-rural high-cost support mechanisms function together. Fundamental changes are occurring in the industry, necessitating a thorough review of how to preserve and advance universal service. We are committed to maintaining predictable and sufficient universal service support in this dynamic marketplace.

3. We ask the Joint Board to consider what form of universal service support for rural telephone companies serves the goals of the Act most efficiently and effectively. Specifically, we ask the Joint Board to consider whether a universal service mechanism for rural carriers based on forward-looking economic cost estimates or embedded costs would most efficiently and effectively achieve the Act's goals. In making its recommendations, the Joint Board should consider which mechanism would best ensure that services in rural areas, including both the quality and the rates for those services, are reasonably comparable to services available in urban areas. Moreover, the Joint Board should consider both the benefits of maintaining distinct support mechanisms for rural and non-rural carriers and the extent to which this creates administrative burdens, incentives for arbitrage, or other inefficiencies. In the event that the Joint Board recommends retaining a separate support mechanism for rural carriers, we ask the Joint Board to consider how to ensure that the distinct mechanisms for rural and non-rural carriers operate efficiently and in a coordinated fashion.

4. If the Joint Board recommends that rural carriers should move to a support mechanism based on forward-looking costs, we ask the Joint Board to provide recommendations on how that goal should be achieved. The Joint Board should consider whether the current forward-looking economic cost model, used in calculating high-cost support for non-rural telephone companies, is appropriate for some or all rural telephone companies, or if some other method for estimating forward-looking economic costs would be better suited for some or all rural telephone companies. The Joint Board should also consider whether the current model could be made more effective for rural telephone companies by using different inputs than are currently used for non-rural telephone companies. The Joint Board should consider implementation issues related to any modified mechanism that it recommends, including whether it would be appropriate for rural telephone companies to begin receiving high-cost support based on forward-looking economic costs immediately upon expiration of the plan adopted in the RTF Order or if some further transitional stages would be beneficial.

5. If the Joint Board recommends maintaining an embedded cost mechanism for rural carriers, the Joint Board should consider whether modifications to the current high-cost loop support mechanism and LSS would better serve the Act's goals. For example, the Joint Board should consider whether using average annual line counts rather than year-end line counts would provide rural carriers with a more appropriate level of high-cost loop support. We request that the Joint Board consider whether high-cost loop support can be more effectively targeted to the highest-cost rural carriers. We also note that LSS currently targets support to study areas with fewer than 50,000 access lines without regard to whether those study areas experience high switching costs. The Joint Board should consider if another methodology would better target support to areas with high switching costs. The Joint Board should also consider whether there is a continued need to maintain separate loop and switching support mechanisms, and whether support calculations for rural carriers can be simplified in any fashion.

6. In conjunction with considering whether maintaining a different support mechanism for rural carriers best serves the goals of the Act, we ask the Joint Board to consider whether to modify the definition of “rural telephone company.” As noted above, we recognize the great diversity among rural telephone companies. This diversity may suggest that not all rural telephone companies have similar support requirements. Recognizing the great diversity among rural telephone companies, we ask the Joint Board to consider whether support based on some form of forward-looking economic costs would be appropriate for some subset of rural telephone companies. For example, the Joint Board should consider whether it would be appropriate to use forward-looking economic cost estimates to determine high-cost support for rural telephone companies with more than 50,000 lines in a state, while smaller rural telephone companies would continue to use embedded costs on an interim or permanent basis. The Joint Board should consider whether a modified definitional framework that permits finer distinctions among carriers of different sizes or characteristics would be useful. We also ask the Joint Board to consider the relevance of the fact that many rural telephone companies are, in fact, the operating subsidiaries of larger holding companies, which may provide them economies of scale that are not realized by other non-affiliated rural telephone companies.

7. Because eligibility for certain types of high-cost universal service support is determined at the study area level, we ask the Joint Board to consider whether multiple study areas within a state should be consolidated for universal service support calculation purposes, when those study areas have common ownership. A study area is a geographic segment of an incumbent local exchange carrier's telephone operations and generally corresponds to an incumbent local exchange carrier's entire service territory within a state. For various reasons, however, an incumbent local exchange carrier may have more than one study area within a state. The Joint Board should consider whether we should modify the definition of “study area” to limit a holding company to one study area per state. By operating in multiple study areas in a given state, certain carriers may receive more high-cost universal service support than they would if their study areas within the state were combined. The Joint Board should consider whether requiring consolidation of study areas would better reflect the appropriate economies of scale of the service provider.

8. Finally, we ask that the Joint Board consider whether, in the event we retain two distinct mechanisms for rural and non-rural carriers, we should retain or further modify § 54.305 of the Commission's rules, which provides that carriers that acquire exchanges receive support for those exchanges based on the exchanges' pre-transfer level of support. In adopting § 54.305, the Commission intended to discourage carriers from transferring exchanges merely to increase their share of high-cost support. The Joint Board should consider the costs and benefits of retaining § 54.305 in its present form, and evaluate whether alternatives exist that would more effectively prevent carriers from acquiring exchanges in order to maximize the amount of universal service support that they receive. The Joint Board should also consider whether the safety valve mechanism contained in § 54.305 provides sufficient incentives for investment in acquired exchanges.

9. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 214(e), 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214(e), 254, and 410, that this Order is adopted.

10. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 214(e), 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 214(e), 254, and 410, that the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service is requested to review the Commission's rules relating to high-cost universal service support for rural telephone companies and other related issues described herein and provide recommendations to the Commission.

September 20, 2004, is the final deadline for filing FCC Form 466 for rural health care providers seeking discounts for Funding Year 2003 under the rural health care universal service support mechanism. Form 466 informs the Rural Health Care Division (RHCD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company that the health care provider has entered into an agreement with a tele­communi­cations carrier for a service eligible for universal service support. Those entities that have applied for support for Funding Year 2003 (July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004) must have their completed FCC Form 466 packet postmarked by September 20, 2004.

The completed FCC Form 466 must include the following:

(1) FCC Form 466 (Services Ordered and Certification Form), completed by the health care provider;

(2) contract document or tariff designation, provided by either the health care provider or telecommunications carrier; and

(3) if the health care provider is seeking support based on an urban/rural rate comparison, documentation must be included to show the rate for the selected service(s) in the nearest city of 50,000 or more within the state.

The forms and accompanying instructions may be obtained at the RHCD Web site http://www.rhc.universalservice.org/forms/default.asp#2003 . Parties with questions or in need of assistance with the filing of their applications should contact RHCD's Customer Service Support Center at 1-800-229-5476.

On May 17, 2004, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Smokeless Tobacco Rule, 16 CFR Part 307 (Control Number: 3084-0082). See 69 FR 27926 (May 17, 2004); 69 FR 31823 (June 7, 2004) (corrected notice). No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations that implement the PRA (5 CFR part 1320), the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule.

Description of the collection of information and proposed use: The Smokeless Tobacco Act requires that manufacturers, packagers, and importers of smokeless tobacco products include one of three specified health warnings on packages and in advertisements. The Act also requires that each manufacturer, packager, and importer of smokeless tobacco products submit a plan to the Commission specifying the method to rotate, display, and distribute the warning statement required to appear in advertising and labeling. The Commission is required by the Act to determine that these plans provide for rotation, display, and distribution of warnings in compliance with the Act and implementing regulations. To the best of the Commission's knowledge, all of the affected companies have previously filed plans. However, the plan submission requirement continues to apply to a company that amends its plan, or to a new company that enters the market.

Estimated annual hours burden: 1,000 hours (rounded). The FTC is retaining its existing burden estimate of 1,000 hours. This amount is based on the burden previously estimated for 14 smokeless tobacco companies to prepare and submit amended compliance plans, and to permit at least three new companies to submit initial compliance plans. Though staff's calculations underlying the estimate totaled 790 hours, staff then conservatively rounded up its estimate to 1,000 hours. Staff firmly believes that this prior rounded estimate will fully incorporate any incremental effects of an additional three companies submitting plans.

Virtually all affected companies long ago filed their plans with the Commission. Additional annual reporting burdens would occur only if those companies opt to change the way they display the warnings required by the Smokeless Tobacco Act. Although it is not possible to predict whether any of these companies will seek to amend an existing approved plan (and possibly none will), staff conservatively assumes that each of the 14 smokeless tobacco companies will file one amendment per year. This estimate is conservative because, over the past three years, the Commission has reviewed amended plans from only two companies, 2 and the Commission has not changed the relevant regulations. 3 The estimated time to prepare the amended plans submitted by these companies is less than 40 hours each. The only major amendment of an approved plan, occurring more than three years ago, required only 40 hours to prepare, which is considerably less time than individual companies spent preparing their initial plans. Commission staff believes it reasonable to assume that each of the 14 smokeless tobacco companies would spend no more than 40 hours to prepare an amended plan.

Commission staff also estimates that one smokeless tobacco manufacturer may file an initial plan, for an additional burden of approximately 150 hours. When the regulations were first proposed in 1986, representatives of the Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc. indicated that the six companies it represented would require approximately 700 to 800 hours in total (133 hours each) to complete the initial required plans, involving multiple brands and multiple brand varieties. Staff assumed that other companies would require a little more time, on average, to complete their plans. Staff estimated that one smokeless tobacco company may file an initial plan, and it would require approximately 150 hours to complete the plan, and it believes this estimate remains reasonable.

In addition to the estimates above, the staff anticipates that in the next three years, up to two small importers or small single brand companies may submit initial plans, for an additional burden of approximately 80 hours. The Commission has received such plans in the past. Because these plans involved only a limited number of brands and no advertising, the estimated time to prepare the plans was very modest. Staff estimates that the two importers or small single brand companies who may submit initial plans will spend no more than 40 hours each to prepare the plans.

Based on these assumptions, the total annual hours burden should not exceed 1,000 hours. [(14 companies × 40 hrs. each) + (one company × 150 hrs.) + (2 companies × 40 hrs.) = 790 total hours, rounded to one thousand hours.]

Estimated annual labor cost burden: $103,000.

The total annualized labor cost to these companies should not exceed $103,000. This is based on the assumption that management or attorneys will account for 80% of the estimated 1,000 hours required to rewrite or amend the plans, at an hourly rate of $125, and that clerical support will account for the remaining time (20%) at an hourly rate of $15. [Management and attorneys' time (1,000 hrs. × 0.80 × $125 = $100,000) + clerical time (1,000 hrs. × 0.2 × $15 = $3,000).]

Estimated annual non-labor cost burden: $0 or minimal.

The applicable requirements impose minimal start-up costs. The companies may keep copies of their plans to ensure that labeling and advertising complies with the requirements of the Smokeless Tobacco Act. Such recordkeeping would require the use of office supplies, e.g. , file folders and paper, all of which the companies should have on hand in the ordinary course of their business.

While companies submitting initial plans may incur one-time capital expenditures for equipment used to print package labels in order to include the statutory health warnings or to prepare acetates for advertising, the warnings themselves disclose information completely supplied by the federal government. As such, the disclosure does not constitute a “collection of information” as it is defined in the regulations implementing the PRA, nor by extension, do the financial resources expended in relation to it constitute paperwork “burden.” See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2). Moreover, any expenditures relating to the statutory health warning requirements would likely be minimal in any event. As noted above, virtually all affected firms have already submitted approved plans. For these companies, there are no capital expenditures. After the Commission approves a plan for the display of the warnings required by the Smokeless Tobacco Act, the companies are required to make additional submissions to the Commission only if there is a change in the way that they choose to display the warnings. Once the companies have prepared plates to print the required warnings on their labels, there are no additional set-up costs associated with the display of the warnings in labeling. Similarly, once the companies have prepared acetates of the required warnings for advertising and promotional materials, there are no additional set-up costs associated with printing the warnings in those materials.

Finally, capital expenditures for small importers are likely to be de minimis. Both firms that submitted plans over the past three years used stickers to place the warnings on their packages. The stickered warnings could be generated with office equipments and supplies such as computers and labels, all of which the companies should have on hand in the ordinary course of their business. Because neither firm engaged in any advertising, no costs associated with advertising were incurred.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for July 28, 2004), on the World Wide Web, at “ http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/07/index.htm. ” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Written comments must be submitted on or before August 26, 2004. Comments should refer to “Sanofi-Synthelabo, et al. , File No. 041 0031,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper (rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.”  1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments filed in electronic form should be sent to the following e-mail box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.

The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Sanofi-Synthélabo (“Sanofi”) and Aventis. The Consent Agreement contains an Order to Maintain Assets to preserve, among other things, the viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the assets to be divested pending their divestiture. The Consent Agreement also contains a Decision and Order that is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects of Sanofi's proposed acquisition of Aventis. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, the companies will be required to: (1) Divest all Arixtra® assets; (2) divest to Pfizer all United States intellectual property and key clinical trials, currently conducted by Aventis, related to Camptosar®; and (3) divest Aventis' royalty rights to Sepracor's Estorra®.

The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the agreement and any comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed Consent Order.

Pursuant to a tender offer launched January 26, 2004, Sanofi proposes to acquire Aventis. The offer accepted by Aventis' Board values Aventis at approximately $64 billion. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would constitute a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, in the markets for: (1) Factor Xa inhibitors; (2) cytotoxic drugs that treat colorectal cancer; and (3) prescription drugs that treat insomnia. The proposed Consent Agreement would remedy the alleged violations by replacing the lost competition that would result from the acquisition in each of these markets.

Factor Xa inhibitors are anticoagulant products that are used in acute settings to treat and prevent venous thromboembolism (“VTE”) and other conditions relating to excessive blood clot formation. Although unfractionated heparin was once the standard of care for the acute prevention and treatment of VTE and related complications, factor Xa inhibitors have become the treatment of choice due in large part to a better side effect profile and ease of use. Annual U.S. sales of factor Xa inhibitors totaled $1.35 billion in 2003.

The U.S. market for factor Xa inhibitors is highly concentrated. Aventis' market leading Lovenox® currently accounts for over 90 percent of factor Xa inhibitor sales in the United States. Sanofi markets Arixtra®, a more recent market entrant whose competitive significance is likely to expand as it receives Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval for new indications. Although other factor Xa inhibitors are available in the United States—including Pfizer's Fragmin® and Pharmion's Innohep®—they have not been successful competitors in the market.

As with most pharmaceutical products, entry into the manufacture and sale of factor Xa inhibitors is difficult, expensive and time consuming. In order to enter the market, a firm must incur substantial sunk costs to research, develop, manufacture and sell factor Xa inhibitors. In addition, the approval for multiple indications is critical to the success of a new factor Xa inhibitor. Gaining FDA approval for each indication takes a significant amount of time because of the need to conduct clinical trials in support of each indication. New or expanded entry sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition likely would not occur in a timely manner. New entry is unlikely to occur in the face of a 5 to 10 percent increase in the price of these drugs, and current factor Xa inhibitors also would be unlikely to counteract such a price increase. The only firm that is likely to launch a product in the United States in the foreseeable future is AstraZeneca, which recently filed a New Drug Application with the FDA for its own factor Xa inhibitor, Exanta®. However, Exanta® is a direct thrombin inhibitor rather than a factor Xa inhibitor. Further, AstraZeneca is seeking approval for only one of the indications that factor Xa inhibitors are approved for. Therefore, it is unlikely that entry by Exanta® would have a sufficient, timely effect on competition to resolve the competitive effects of the proposed acquisition.

The proposed acquisition would cause significant anticompetitive harm in the U.S. market for factor Xa inhibitors by eliminating the actual, direct, and substantial competition between Sanofi and Aventis. This loss of competition likely would result in higher prices.

The proposed Consent Order maintains competition in the factor Xa inhibitor market by requiring that: (1) Sanofi divest Arixtra® to GlaxoSmithKline; (2) Sanofi transfer to GlaxoSmithKline the manufacturing facilities used by Sanofi to produce Arixtra® in final finished form; (3) Sanofi contract manufacture the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) and certain intermediate step ingredients until such time as GlaxoSmithKline obtains the necessary regulatory approvals and supply sources that will allow it to manufacture the API independently; (4) Sanofi assist GlaxoSmithKline in completing three key clinical trials; (5) Sanofi provide incentives to certain employees to continue in their positions until the divestiture is accomplished; (6) for a period of time after the assets are divested, Sanofi provide GlaxoSmithKline an opportunity to enter into employment contracts with individuals who have experience relating to Arixtra®; and (7) Sanofi take steps to maintain the confidentiality of confidential information related to Arixtra®.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States for both men and women. Approximately 146,940 new cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed in 2004 and 56,730 people will die from the disease. Cytotoxic colorectal cancer drugs have been shown to be more effective than older, generic drug treatments. The U.S. market for cytotoxic colorectal cancer therapies currently generates approximately $1 billion in annual sales.

The U.S. market for cytotoxic colorectal cancer drugs is highly concentrated. Two major cytotoxic products approved by the FDA for the treatment of colorectal cancer are Sanofi's product, Eloxatin®, and Camptosar®, a product developed by Yakult Honsha (“Yakult”) and marketed in the U.S. by Pfizer. Combined, the two products have over 80 percent of the U.S. cytotoxic colorectal cancer drug market. Roche is the only other provider in the market with more than a 1 percent market share.

Entry into the market for cytotoxic colorectal cancer drugs is difficult, time consuming, and costly because of the lengthy development periods, the need for FDA approval, and the substantial sunk costs required to research, develop, manufacture and sell these drugs.

Although Aventis does not directly market a cytotoxic colorectal cancer drug in the United States, there are significant contractual entanglements between Aventis and Pfizer that affect the U.S. market. Pfizer licenses irinotecan (under the brand name Camptosar®) from Yakult for sales in the United States. Aventis licenses irinotecan (under the brand name Campto®;) from Yakult for sales in other territories. Under a data transfer agreement, Pfizer and Aventis share the results of key clinical trials. Aventis also possesses a number of U.S. patents relating to Camptosar®. These entanglements allow Aventis to impact the Camptosar® business. The proposed acquisition thus creates an overlap in the U.S. market between Sanofi's Eloxatin® and Aventis' contractual ties to Camptosar®. This overlap affords the combined firm (1) access to competitively sensitive information from its main competitor, Pfizer, and (2) control over key clinical trials that Pfizer relies on for FDA applications that would expand Camptosar® indications in the United States. Therefore, the proposed acquisition would cause significant anticompetitive harm in the U.S. market for cytotoxic colorectal cancer drugs by reducing the actual, substantial competition between Sanofi and Pfizer.

The proposed Consent Agreement eliminates the potential anticompetitive effects of the acquisition in the U.S. cytotoxic colorectal cancer drug market by requiring the parties to: (1) Divest to Pfizer key clinical studies for Campto® that are currently conducted by Aventis, together with certain U.S. patents and other assets pertaining to territories where Pfizer currently markets Camptosar®; (2) provide Pfizer with the opportunity to enter into employment contracts with certain employees involved in the key clinical trials; (3) deliver to Pfizer all confidential business information regarding Camptosar® that Aventis has in its possession; and (4) commit to maintain the assets to be divested in a manner that preserves the integrity, viability, and value of the assets, until the divestitures are accomplished.

More than 50 million people in the United States suffer from insomnia, the perception or complaint of inadequate sleep. The U.S. insomnia treatment market is estimated to have generated approximately $1.65 billion in 2003 sales and is projected to increase to $3.36 billion by 2010.

Sanofi dominates the market for prescription drugs that treat insomnia with its well known product, Ambien®. Sanofi's market share in the United States exceeded 85 percent in 2003. Sepracor is developing a product called Estorra®, which is expected to be launched in the beginning of 2005 and is likely to become a significant competitor to Ambien®. Although Aventis does not market a prescription sleep drug in the United States, there are financial and informational entanglements between Aventis and Sepracor relating to the Estorra® product. Therefore, the acquisition creates an overlap between Ambien® and Aventis' royalty rights to Estorra®.

The proposed acquisition would create anticompetitive effects in the market for prescription drugs that treat insomnia by diluting competition between Sanofi and Sepracor. Although several new products are expected to enter the market in the next five years, it is unlikely that the entry of these products, alone or in combination, could counteract the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Accordingly, allowing Sanofi to acquire Aventis' rights to Estorra would reduce Sanofi's incentives to compete against Sepracor in the prescription sleep drug market and would be likely to lead to higher prices.

The proposed Consent Agreement remedies the acquisition's anticompetitive effects by requiring the parties to divest their contractual rights to Estorra®. No later than 90 days after the Order becomes final, the parties are required to divest their rights to Estorra® royalties in a manner that receives Commission approval, either to Sepracor or to a third party approved by the Commission.

The Commission has appointed Francis J. Civille as Interim Monitor to oversee the asset transfers and to ensure Sanofi's and Aventis' compliance with all of the provisions of the proposed Consent Order. Mr. Civille has over 35 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry and is well-respected in the industry. In order to ensure that the Commission remains informed about the status of the proposed divestitures and the transfers of assets, the proposed Consent Order requires Sanofi and Aventis to file reports with the Commission periodically until the divestitures and transfers are accomplished.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.

The PCPID acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services, and supports for persons with intellectual disabilities. The Committee, by Executive Order, is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of current practices in programs, services and supports for persons with intellectual disabilities, and for reviewing legislative proposals that impact the quality of life that is experienced by citizens with intellectual disabilities and their families.

FDA is sponsoring a 2-day public workshop on plasma standards. A major objective of the workshop is to gather information on current industry practices that are in place for the manufacture of plasma, including information on the following issues and topics:

• What are appropriate freezing and storage temperatures for the components?

• What is the appropriate time to freezing?

• Should freezing and storage conditions be dependent on the final product?

• What should the recovered plasma component be called?

• What should be the expiration dating period for recovered plasma?

• Should recovered plasma be distinguished from Source Plasma? If so, how?

Following the workshop, FDA intends to develop standards for the preparation, labeling, storage, and shipping of non-cellular blood components for transfusion and for further manufacture to ensure the safety, purity, and potency of the products.

Transcripts : Transcripts of the public workshop may be requested in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a cost of 10 cents per page. In addition, the transcript will be placed on FDA's Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/workshop-min.htm .

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and collect and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout Southern California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and collect and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) the tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) in conjunction with surveys in Santa Cruz County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (capture and release) the Pahrump poolfish ( Empetrichthys latos ), the Moapa dace ( Moapa coriacea ), the White River springfish ( Crenichthys baileyi baileyi ), the Hiko White River springfish ( Crenichthys baileyi grandis ) the Pahranagat roundtail chub ( Gila robusta jordani ), and the White River spinedace ( Lepidomeda albivallis ) in conjunction with surveys in Clark, White Pine, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, Nevada, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, larval sample, and release) the California tiger salamander ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) in conjunction with surveys in Sonoma and Santa Barbara Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (band) the California least tern ( Sterna antillarum browni ) and the western snowy plover ( Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus ) in conjunction with monitoring in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the bald eagle. However, the Service, under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22.

A pair of bald eagles were discovered in December of 1999 nesting on the east shore of Lake Woodlands, an amenity lake created for The Woodlands development. A Habitat Conservation Plan was developed and approved that addressed the measures the Applicant proposed to minimize and mitigate for the anticipated take and an incidental take permit was issued on August 23, 2002.

In early 2004, the Permittee discovered that the nesting pair of bald eagles that was the subject of the original permit action had constructed a second nest site approximately 1/4 mile south of the previous nest in an area of existing and ongoing development activity. Water lines, sanitary sewer lines, and storm sewer lines were installed within 200-300 feet of the new nest site presumably while the eagles were building the nest. The new nest is also located approximately 700 feet from Woodlands Parkway, which is used by 48,000 cars per day. As of May 2004, two eaglets had fledged from the new nest and have been seen perching in trees overlooking the on-going construction activity.

There was no construction activity or other known disturbance within 1500 feet of the old nest tree, which may have caused the pair of eagles to move to a new site. A hole was observed in the existing nest at the end of the 2003 nesting season.

Applicant: The Woodlands is a 28,000-acre master-planned new community development, located approximately 30 miles north of Houston, Montgomery County, Texas. The current population of The Woodlands is approximately 63,000 residents. At build-out, the total population is expected to reach 110,000 residents. This action may result in the abandonment of the nest site. The Permittee proposes to compensate for this incidental take by agreeing to provide buffers between forested areas and development as well as funding a bald eagle research project.

Pursuant to the June 10, 2004, order in Spirit of the Sage Council v. Norton , Civil Action No. 98-1873 (D. D.C.), the Service is enjoined from approving new section 10(a)(1)(B) permits or related documents containing “No Surprises” assurances until such time as the Service adopts new permit revocation rules specifically applicable to section 10(a)(1)(B) permits in compliance with public notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. This notice concerns a step in the review and processing of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and any subsequent permit issuance will be in accordance with the Court's order. Until such time as the Service's authority to issue permits with “No Surprises” assurances has been reinstated, the Service will not approve any incidental take permits or related documents containing “No Surprises” assurances.

The location of Air Navigation Site No. 151 is within a Mineral Survey that has been conveyed out of Federal ownership.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000) it is ordered as follows:

The Secretarial Order dated January 24, 1941, as modified, which withdrew public land for air navigation purposes, is hereby revoked in its entirety as it affects the following described land:

All of the lands being retained by the Department of the Navy, and approximately 26,977 acres included in this revocation are within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The remaining 47,271 acres have been conveyed out of Federal ownership pursuant to Public Law 107-239. This revocation is for record-clearing purposes.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:

Public Land Order No. 1949, which withdrew public lands for use by the Department of Navy for military purposes, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described lands:

The area described contains approximately 74,248 acres.

Management of grazing, wildlife habitat and mitigation areas, recreation, fire protection, public access, cultural resources, and realty actions on the withdrawn lands will be under terms and conditions that have been agreed upon between the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Land Management and which may be revised by consent of both parties.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands are hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (2000)), and jurisdiction is transferred to the United States Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, and reserved for uses in support of the Chief Joseph Dam Additional Units Project: