[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75294-75302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-3679]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-898]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 16, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or Brian C. Smith, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3797, or 482-1766, respectively.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that chlorinated isocyanurates from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are being, or is likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as 
provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination. We will make our final determination not later than 135 
days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

Case History

    On May 14, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
received petitions for the imposition of antidumping duties on imports 
of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC and Spain, filed, in proper 
form, by Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation 
(hereafter known as the ``Petitioners''). On May 24 and 28, 2004, the 
Petitioners filed amendments to their petition.
    On June 4, 2004, the Department initiated antidumping duty 
investigations on chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC and Spain. See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China and Spain, 69 FR 
32488 (June 10, 2004) (``Initiation Notice''). The Department set aside 
a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. See Initiation Notice, 69 FR at 32489. We received comments 
regarding product coverage from interested parties. For a detailed 
discussion of the comments regarding the scope of the merchandise under 
investigation, please see the ``Scope Comments'' section below.
    On June 4, 2004, the Department notified the International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') of the antidumping investigation initiation and 
the intent to publish in the Federal Register a notice of such 
initiation. On June 17, 2004, the Department issued initiation 
instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'').
    On June 28, 2004, the ITC issued its affirmative preliminary 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports from the PRC of chlorinated isocyanurates. See

[[Page 75295]]

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from China and Spain, 69 FR 40417 (July 2, 
2004).
    On September 16, 2004, the Petitioners made a timely request 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day postponement of the 
preliminary determination, or until December 10, 2004. On October 15, 
2004, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of 
postponement of the preliminary determination for this antidumping duty 
investigation. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination 
of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 
People's Republic of China (A-570-893) and Spain (A-469-814), 69 FR 
61202 (October 15, 2004).

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997), we 
set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 
20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice. See 
Initiation Notice, 69 FR 32488 (June 10, 2004).
    Arch Chemicals, Inc. (``Arch'') submitted comments on July 1, 2004, 
and rebuttal comments on July 12, 2004, and July 30, 2004, in which it 
argued that its patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet should be 
excluded from the scope of this investigation. The Petitioners 
submitted comments on June 30, 2004, and rebuttal comments on July 21, 
2004, in which they stated their opposition to excluding Arch's 
patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet from the scope. On October 
21, 2004, we met with Arch's representatives to discuss its scope 
exclusion request. See ex-parte memoranda to the file dated October 22, 
and 28, 2004.
    Based on the information presented by interested parties, the 
Department determines that Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates 
tablet is included within the scope of this investigation. See 
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, from Holly A. Kuga, Senior Office Director, 
Office 4, Re: Scope of the Antidumping Duty Investigations of 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China and 
Spain, dated December 10, 2004, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit (``CRU''), Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building, for a 
detailed discussion of comments submitted by Arch and the Petitioners, 
as well as the basis for the Department's decision that Arch's patented 
chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is included in the scope of this 
investigation.

CONNUM Comments

    On June 29, 2004, the Department provided all interested parties in 
this proceeding the opportunity to submit comments on its proposed 
matching control number (``CONNUM'') characteristics. From July 7 
through 26, 2004, the Department received comments on its proposed 
product-CONNUM characteristics (``CONNUM characteristics'') from the 
Petitioners and from the following PRC exporters of the subject 
merchandise: Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Jiheng''); Nanning 
Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (``Nanning''); Liaocheng Huaao Chemical 
Industry Co., Ltd. (``Huaao''); Shanghai Tian Yuan International 
Trading Co., Ltd., (``Tian Yuan''); and Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., 
Ltd. (``Clean Chemical'').
    On July 21, 2004, Jiheng placed on the record of the companion 
investigation involving chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain its July 
16, 2004, CONNUM comments submitted in this proceeding.

Quantity and Value Questionnaires

    On June 15, 2004, the Department requested quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') information from a total of 18 producers of chlorinated 
isocyanurates in the PRC which were identified in the Petition and 
other sources and for which the Department was able to locate contact 
information. On June 15, 2004, the Department also sent a letter to the 
Government of the PRC requesting assistance locating all known 
producers/exporters of chlorinated isocyanurates in the PRC which 
exported chlorinated isocyanurates to the United States during the 
period October 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004.
    On June 30, July 1 and 2, 2004, the Department received Q&V 
responses from seven PRC producers/exporters of chlorinated 
isocyanurates. The Department did not receive any type of communication 
from the Government of the PRC in response to its June 15, 2004, 
letter.
    On July 20, 2004, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum, selecting Jiheng and Nanning as mandatory respondents in 
this investigation. See Memorandum to Edward Yang, Director, from James 
Doyle, Program Manager, Re: Selection of Respondents for the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 
People's Republic of China (``Respondent Selection Memo'') at 4, dated 
July 20, 2004, which is on file in CRU. See the ``Selection of 
Respondents'' section below for further detail.

Mandatory Respondents

    On July 20, 2004, the Department issued its Section A questionnaire 
to Jiheng and Nanning. On July 20, 2004, we also issued a Section A 
questionnaire to the Government of the PRC (i.e., Ministry of 
Commerce).
    On July 22, 2004, the Department issued its Sections C and D 
questionnaire to Jiheng and Nanning. On July 23, 2004, the Department 
issued a Section E and a ``Non-market Economy'' version of the Section 
D questionnaire to Jiheng and Nanning because the Department had 
inadvertently issued a ``Market Economy'' version Section D 
questionnaire on July 22, 2004.
    On August 23, 2004, the Department granted Jiheng and Nanning a 
one-week extension of time until September 2, 2004, to submit their 
Section A questionnaire responses, which they submitted in a timely 
manner. Additionally, we provided a two-week extension to the two 
mandatory respondents to respond to sections C and D of our 
questionnaire, which they submitted on September 10 and 13, 2004, 
respectively.
    On September 2 and 9, 2004, the Department issued supplemental 
Section A questionnaires to Nanning and Jiheng, respectively. The 
Department granted a one-week extension to Nanning and Jiheng to submit 
their supplemental Section A questionnaire responses, which they 
submitted on September 17 and 23, 2004, respectively.
    On October 14 and 18, 2004, the Department issued supplemental 
Section A, C, and D questionnaires to Jiheng and Nanning, respectively. 
The Department granted a one-week extension to Nanning and Jiheng to 
submit their supplemental Section A, C, and D questionnaire responses, 
which they submitted on November 5 and 8, 2004, respectively.
    On November 5, 2004, Jiheng submitted revised business proprietary 
and public versions for its bracketing and public summarizations 
provided in its September 10, 2004, Section C and D questionnaire 
response.
    On November 10 and 12, 2004, the Department issued a second 
supplemental Section C and D questionnaire to Nanning and Jiheng, 
respectively. Nanning submitted its response on November 17, 2004. 
Jiheng submitted a portion of its response on

[[Page 75296]]

November 19, 2004 (and the remaining portion on December 10, 2004, in 
accordance with the Department's instructions).
    On November 23, 2004, Jiheng submitted, among other things, a 
revised U.S. sales database, previously unreported factors of 
production data for certain additional by-products which it now claims 
it self-produced, and proposed surrogate values for these by-products. 
On November 29, 2004, the Petitioners filed comments on Jiheng's 
November 23, 2004, submission. On December 7, 2004, Jiheng submitted 
rebuttal comments to the Petitioner's November 29, 2004, letter. 
Because Jiheng's November 23, 2004, submission was received so close to 
the date of the preliminary determination, we are unable to consider it 
for the preliminary determination. However, we intend to examine the 
information in the submission and will consider how to treat it for the 
final determination.

Section A Respondents

    In August 2004, the Department received an extension request from 
the following five companies who wished to submit voluntary Section A 
questionnaire responses (hereafter known as ``Section A Respondents''): 
Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation (``Sinochem Hebei''), 
Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation (``Sinochem Shanghai''), 
Clean Chemical, Huaao, and Tian Yuan. On August 23, 2004, the 
Department granted certain Section A Respondents a one-week extension 
to submit their Section A questionnaire responses. From August 26 to 
September 3, 2004, we received Section A questionnaire responses from 
all Section A Respondents.
    From September 3 through 9, 2004, the Department issued 
supplemental Section A questionnaires to Clean Chemical, Sinochem 
Shanghai, Sinochem Hebei, Huaao, and Tian Yuan, respectively. The 
Department granted a one-week extension to all Section A Respondents 
for submitting a response to its supplemental Section A questionnaire 
and received responses from all five Section A Respondents from 
September 17 to September 23, 2004.

Surrogate Country and Factors

    On July 1, 2004, the Department determined that India is among the 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development to use in this investigation. On July 12, 2004, the 
Department solicited comments on surrogate country selection from 
interested parties. On July 26, 2004, we received comments regarding 
our selection of a surrogate country from Jiheng, Nanning, Huaao, and 
Tian Yuan, and the Petitioners. See the ``Surrogate Country'' Section 
below for further detail.
    On August 23, 2004, we received requests from Jiheng, Nanning, 
Huaao, and Tian Yuan for a two-week extension until September 9, 2004, 
to submit surrogate-value information. In addition, on September 3, 
2004, the Petitioners requested an extension until September 17, 2004, 
to submit factor valuation information. On September 8, 2004, we 
extended the time period for all interested parties to provide 
surrogate values for the factors of production until September 15, 
2004.
    On September 15, 2004, we received surrogate-value information from 
Jiheng, Nanning, and the Petitioners. Jiheng and the Petitioners also 
submitted surrogate financial data from Indian companies. For a 
detailed discussion of the Department's selection of surrogate values 
and financial ratios, see ``Factor Valuation'' Section below. See also 
Memorandum from Steve Winkates, Case Analyst, to Brian C. Smith, 
Program Manager, Re: Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from 
the People's Republic of China--Factors Valuation for the Preliminary 
Determination (``Factor Valuation Memo''), dated December 10, 2004, 
which is on file in CRU.
    On November 24, 2004, Jiheng submitted additional surrogate-value 
information which the Department was unable to consider for use in the 
preliminary determination. We will consider it for the final 
determination.

Pre-Preliminary Determination Comments

    On November 29, 2004, the Petitioners requested that the Department 
reject Jiheng's November 23, 2004, submission as untimely unsolicited 
new factual information in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301 and remove it 
from the record of this proceeding. On December 7, 2004, Jiheng 
submitted rebuttal comments to the Petitioner's November 29, 2004, 
letter. As discussed above in the ``Mandatory Respondents'' section of 
this notice, because Jiheng's November 23, 2004, submission was 
received so close to the date of the preliminary determination, we are 
unable to consider it for the preliminary determination. However, we 
intend to examine the information in the submission and will consider 
how to treat it for the final determination.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a) of the Act provides that a final determination may 
be postponed until no later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise or, in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioners. In accordance with the Department's regulations, any 
requests by respondents for a postponement of a final determination 
must be accompanied by a request for an extension of the provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. See 19 
CFR 351.210(e)(2).
    On November 24 and 30, 2004, Nanning and Jiheng requested that, in 
the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until 
135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination. Both 
requests included a request to extend the provisional measures to not 
more than six months after the publication of the preliminary 
determination. Accordingly, because we have made an affirmative 
preliminary determination and the requesting parties account for a 
significant proportion of the exports of the subject merchandise, we 
have postponed the final determination until no later than 135 days 
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination and are 
extending the provisional measures accordingly as requested by Jiheng 
and Nanning.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2003, through 
March 31, 2004. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the Petition (May 14, 
2004). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated 
isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric 
acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three 
primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates: (1) 
Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3 (NCO)3), (2) 
sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) 
(NaCl2(NCO)3 [middot] 2H2O), and

[[Page 75297]]

(3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) 
(NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isocyanurates are 
available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. These investigations 
cover all chlorinated isocyanurates.
    Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under 
subheading 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS''). This tariff classification represents a basket 
category that includes chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds 
including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheading is 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
    As stated above in the ``Scope Comments'' Section of this notice, 
Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is also included in 
the scope of this investigation.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides the 
Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, however, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of 
such companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where 
it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of 
subject merchandise, this provision permits the Department to 
investigate either (1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of 
products that is statistically valid based on the information available 
to the Department at the time of selection or (2) exporters/producers 
accounting for the largest volume of the merchandise under 
investigation that can reasonably be examined. After considering the 
current available resources of the Department, the Department 
determined that it was not practicable in this investigation to examine 
all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise. See Respondent 
Selection Memo at 2. Instead, we limited our examination to the two 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the 
subject merchandise pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. 
Because the PRC producers/exporters, Jiheng and Nanning, accounted for 
a significant percentage of all exports of the subject merchandise from 
the PRC during the POI, the Department selected these two companies as 
mandatory respondents. See Respondent Selection Memo at 4.

Non-Market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, the Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses 
for the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME''). See Initiation Notice, 
69 FR at 32489. In every case conducted by the Department involving the 
PRC, the Department has treated the PRC as an NME country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. See also Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded 
Carbon Quality Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
60353, 60354 (October 8, 2004). When the Department is investigating 
imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base 
the normal value on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in 
an economically comparable market economy that is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. The sources of individual factor 
prices are discussed under the ``Factor Valuations'' section, below.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (``NV''), 
in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, 
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the NV section below.
    The Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, Morocco, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Program 
Manager, from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Re: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 
People's Republic of China (``Surrogate Country Memo''), dated July 10, 
2004, which is on file in CRU.
    On July 26, 2004, we received comments regarding our selection of a 
surrogate country from Jiheng, Nanning, Huaao, Tian Yuan, and the 
Petitioners. Jiheng stated that it is unable to find a suitable 
surrogate country for use in the Department's factors-of-production 
analysis for chlorinated isocyanurates. According to Jiheng, India is a 
deficient choice as surrogate country for a number of reasons: (1) 
India does not produce chlorinated isocyanurates; (2) although the 
petition proposed calcium hypochlorite as an appropriate comparable 
merchandise for chlorinated isocyanurates, the appropriateness of 
calcium hypochlorite as comparable merchandise to chlorinated 
isocyanurates has not been established; and (3) there is a lack of 
adequate appropriate Indian price data to value the factors of 
production of chlorinated isocyanurates. Although Jiheng did not 
propose another proper surrogate country, Jiheng contends that the 
search for an appropriate surrogate should not stop with India and it 
reserves the right to comment further on this issue during the course 
of this proceeding. Nanning, Huaao, and Tian Yuan state that none of 
the five countries proposed by the Department manufactures chlorinated 
isocyanurates. They claim that the only similarly situated country 
which produces the subject merchandise is Mexico. However, they did not 
propose that we use Mexico for this proceeding. The Petitioners state 
that India is the appropriate market-economy surrogate for the PRC in 
the chlorinated isocyanurates investigation and urge the Department to 
select India as the surrogate country. The Petitioners did not rebut 
Nanning, Huaao, and Tian Yuan's comment regarding the Mexico claim.
    We select an appropriate surrogate country based on the 
availability and reliability of data from the countries. See Department 
Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country 
Selection Process, dated March 1, 2004. In this case, we find that 
India is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act. See Surrogate Country Memo at 2. Although none of 
the six surrogate countries produces merchandise identical to 
chlorinated isocyanurates, data placed on the record of this 
investigation indicates that calcium hypochlorite is comparable to the 
subject merchandise because calcium hypochlorite, like chlorinated 
isocyanurates, has a similar chemical makeup (i.e., chlorine) and 
similar applications (i.e., both are used to sanitize swimming pools). 
See Initiation Notice and the Petitioners' May 14, 2004, antidumping 
duty petition at page

[[Page 75298]]

10 (which cites Calcium Hypochlorite from Japan SITC Inv. No. 731-TA-
189 (Final), Pub. No. 1672 at 2 (April 1985)). Furthermore, data placed 
on the record of this investigation also indicates that India is a 
significant producer of calcium hypochlorite. See also Surrogate 
Country Memo at Attachment 4. Therefore, we find that India is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise pursuant to section 
773(c)(4)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, we have preliminarily selected 
India as the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of 
production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate 
country selection.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The 
two mandatory respondents and the Section A Respondents have provided 
company-specific information and each has stated that it has met the 
standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    We have considered whether each mandatory and Section A Respondent 
noted above is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate 
rates test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type 
controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, 
particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping). The 
test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and 
output decisionmaking process at the individual firm level. See Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); 
and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test established in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
and later expanded upon in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance 
with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates 
in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de 
jure and de facto government control over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    Our analysis shows that the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on 
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 
Director, from Hallie Zink, Case Analyst, Re: Chlorinated Isocyanurates 
from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates for Producers/
Exporters that Submitted Questionnaire Responses (``Separate Rates 
Memo''), dated December 10, 2004, which is on file in CRU.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or are 
subject to the approval of, a government agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    We determine that, for the mandatory respondents and Section A 
Respondents, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding 
of de facto absence of government control based on record statements 
and supporting documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter 
sets its own export prices independent of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the 
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has 
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 
(4) each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation 
by the mandatory respondents and Section A Respondents demonstrates an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under investigation, 
in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we have granted separate, company-specific rates to the 
mandatory respondents and Section A Respondents which shipped 
chlorinated isocyanurates to the United States during the POI (see 
Separate Rates Memo for a full discussion of this issue and list of 
Section A Respondents).

PRC-Wide Rate

    Information on the record indicates that there are more known 
exporters of chlorinated isocyanurates from the PRC during the POI than 
those exporters who responded to our Q&V questionnaire. See Respondent 
Selection Memo. Although we issued the Q&V questionnaire to eighteen 
known PRC exporters of subject merchandise (as identified in the 
petition), we received seven Q&V questionnaire responses, including 
those from the two mandatory respondents. Also, on July 20, 2004, we 
issued a Section A questionnaire to the Government of the PRC (i.e., 
Ministry of Commerce). Although all known exporters were given an 
opportunity to

[[Page 75299]]

provide information showing they qualify for separate rates, not all of 
these other exporters provided a response to the Department's Section A 
questionnaire. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond to 
the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, the Department preliminarily 
determines that there were exports of the merchandise under 
investigation from other PRC producers/exporters, which have not 
demonstrated that they are separate from the government and, therefore, 
are considered part of the NME entity.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party: 
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act; (C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following 
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there are numerous producers/exporters of chlorinated isocyanurates in 
the PRC. As described above, all exporters were given the opportunity 
to respond to the Department's Section A questionnaire. Based upon 
information on the record concerning the volume of imports of subject 
merchandise from the PRC and the fact that the information indicates 
that the responding companies did not account for all imports into the 
United States from the PRC, we have preliminary determined that certain 
PRC exporters of chlorinated isocyanurates failed to respond to our 
questionnaires. As a result, use of adverse facts available (``AFA'') 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act is appropriate. 
Additionally, in this case, the Government of the PRC did not respond 
to the Department's questionnaire, thereby necessitating the use of AFA 
to determine the PRC-wide rate. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 35312, 35321 (June 24, 2004) (``Bedroom 
Furniture'').
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may employ adverse inferences if an 
interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see also ``Statement of 
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 
870 (1994) (``SAA''). We find that, because the NME entity did not 
respond to our request for information, it failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds 
that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference 
is warranted.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use AFA 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. As AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-
wide entity a margin based on a calculated margin derived from 
information obtained in the course of the investigation and placed on 
the record of this proceeding. In this case, we have applied a rate of 
179.48 percent. Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping 
rate--the PRC-wide rate--to producers/exporters that failed to respond 
to the Q&V questionnaire or Section A questionnaire. This rate will 
also apply to exporters which did not demonstrate entitlement to a 
separate rate. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of 
the merchandise under investigation except for entries from the two 
mandatory respondents and the Section A Respondents. Because this is a 
preliminary margin, the Department will consider all margins on the 
record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of 
determining the most appropriate final PRC-wide margin. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin 
from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 79049, 79054 (December 27, 
2002), and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of the Final Determination: Magnesium Metal From the 
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 59187, (October 4, 2004).

Margins for Section A Respondents

    The exporters which submitted responses to Section A of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire and had sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI but were not selected 
as mandatory respondents in this investigation (i.e., the Section A 
Respondents) have applied for separate rates and provided information 
for the Department to consider for this purpose. Therefore, for the 
Section A Respondents which provided sufficient evidence that they are 
separate from the NME entity, we have established a weighted-average 
margin based on the rates we have calculated for the two mandatory 
respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on AFA. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name 
in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that ``in 
identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like 
product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as 
recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal 
course of business.'' Nanning reported the invoice date as the date of 
sale. After examining the sales documentation placed on the record by 
Nanning, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date is the most 
appropriate date of sale for Nanning. Jiheng reported the shipment date 
as the date of sale because it claims that, for its U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise made during the POI, the material terms of sale 
were established on the shipment date and its shipment date was on or 
before the invoice date. We have preliminarily determined that the 
shipment date is the most appropriate date to use as Jiheng's date of 
sale in accordance with our long-standing practice. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products From Brazil, 67 FR 31200 (May 9, 2002); Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams 
From Luxembourg, 67 FR 35488 (May 20, 2002); and Notice of Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat 
and

[[Page 75300]]

Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, 68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of chlorinated isocyanurates to the 
United States of the two mandatory respondents were made at LTFV, we 
compared export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for the 
two mandatory respondents because the subject merchandise was 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, and 
because the use of CEP was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP based on the packed FOB, C&F, or FCA price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. 
We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses (e.g., 
foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, 
domestic brokerage and handling charges, and international freight) in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Because foreign inland 
freight and foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC 
service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on 
surrogate rates from India. See ``Surrogate Country'' section above for 
further discussion of our surrogate-country selection. To value foreign 
inland trucking charges, we used Indian truck freight rates published 
in Chemical Weekly and distance information obtained from the following 
Web sites: http://www.infreight.com, and http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php. To value foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, we relied on 1999-2000 public information reported in the 
LTFV investigation on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from India and placed on the record of this case. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 67 FR 50406 (October 3, 2001). 
For a detailed description of all adjustments, see the company-specific 
analysis memoranda dated December 10, 2004.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does 
not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. 
The Department will base NV on the factors of production because the 
presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under its normal methodologies.
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued the PRC factors of 
production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of 
production include, but are not limited to, hours of labor required, 
quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, including 
depreciation. See Section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In examining surrogate 
values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which 
was an average non-export value, representative of a range of prices 
within the POI or most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, 
and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic 
of China, 69 FR 42654, 42666 (July 16, 2004) (``Warmwater Shrimp''). We 
used the usage rates reported by the respondents for materials, energy, 
labor, by-products, and packing. See Factor Valuation Memo for a more 
detailed explanation of the methodology used in calculating various 
surrogate values.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production reported by the respondents for the 
POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor 
quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except where 
noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. See also 
Warmwater Shrimp, 69 FR at 42666. As appropriate, we adjusted input 
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory, where appropriate. This adjustment is in 
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision 
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Due 
to the extensive number of surrogate values it was necessary to assign 
in this investigation, we present a discussion of the main factors. For 
a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, 
see Factor Valuation Memo. For a detailed description of all actual 
values used for market-economy inputs (i.e., Nanning's market-economy 
purchases of sodium chloride during the POI), see also the December 10, 
2004, Nanning analysis memorandum.
    Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using 
October 2003-March 2004 weighted-average Indian import values derived 
from the World Trade Atlas online (``WTA'') (see also Factor Valuation 
Memo). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the WTA were 
published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were 
reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with the POI. Indian 
surrogate values denominated in foreign currencies were converted to 
U.S. dollars using the applicable average exchange rate for India for 
the POI. The average exchange rate was based on exchange rate data from 
the Department's Web site. Where we could not obtain publicly available 
information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value factors, 
we adjusted the surrogate values for inflation using Indian wholesale 
price indices (``WPIs'') as published in the International Monetary 
Fund's International Financial Statistics.
    Furthermore, with regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate 
values and the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices 
that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have 
reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, 
South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in 
other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to 
conclude that there is reason to believe or suspect all exports to all 
markets from these countries are subsidized. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From 
The People's Republic, 61 FR 66255 (February 12, 1996), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We are also 
directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal 
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. 
Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to 
base its

[[Page 75301]]

decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes 
its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these 
countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate 
values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances 
where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located 
in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to 
value the input. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
69 FR 70644 (Dec. 7, 2004). Our practice of excluding subsidized prices 
has been upheld in China National Machinery Import and Export 
Corporation v. United States and the Timken Company, 293 F. Supp. 2d 
1334 (CIT 2003), aff'd, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Because 
Nanning's reported purchase prices for sodium chloride during the POI 
were paid solely to suppliers located in a market-economy country which 
we have no reason to believe or suspect have been subsidized, we have 
used Nanning's reported market-economy purchase prices for this input 
in the preliminary determination.
    Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because 
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an 
NME or a country with general export subsidies.

Cyanuric Acid Surrogate Value

    We used an October 2003-March 2004 Indian import value from WTA 
because we find that the Indian import data from WTA, unlike the 
Infodrive India data and Indian price quotes submitted for this input 
by the parties, ensures that the margins we calculate are as accurate 
as possible. See Bedroom Furniture, 69 FR at 35312, and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.

Other Surrogate Values

    To value chlorine gas and magnesium oxide, we used a January 2003-
December 2003 weighted-average value based on imports of these inputs 
into the Philippines and Sri Lanka from WTA, because we find that the 
import value for these inputs into India and other possible surrogate 
countries is aberrational.
    To value calcium chloride, hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid, we 
used an average Indian domestic price based on October 2003-March 2004 
data contained in Chemical Weekly. Because the domestic prices for 
calcium chloride and sulfuric acid from Chemical Weekly included Indian 
excise taxes, we adjusted those prices by subtracting excise taxes to 
derive tax-exclusive prices for these two inputs. See Factor Valuation 
Memo for further discussion.
    To value water, we used the water tariff rate for the greater 
Municipality of Mumbai, India (``Mumbai Municipality''), that was 
formerly available on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's Web 
site and was used in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 
69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). See also http://www.mcgm.gov.in/Stat%20&%20Fig/Revenue.htm. The latest available data covers the period 
from February 2001 through November 2002. The cost of water during this 
period ranged from 1.0 to 35.00 Rs/1,000 liters (1,000 liters of water 
is equivalent to 1 cubic meter of water and 1 cubic meter of water is 
equivalent to 1 metric ton of water). We used the highest value from 
the water price range data from the Mumbai Municipality.
    We valued electricity using the 2000 total average price per 
kilowatt hour for ``Electricity for Industry'' as reported in the 
International Energy Agency's publication, Energy Prices and Taxes, 
Second Quarter, 2002.
    Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the 
use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor 
input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC 
published by Import Administration on our Web site. The source of the 
wage rate data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, published by 
the International Labour Office (``ILO''), (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: 
Wages in Manufacturing. See the Import Administration Web site: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/02wages/02wages.html.
    Both respondents reported certain by-products in producing the 
subject merchandise which each either re-sold or re-used to produce the 
subject merchandise during the POI. Therefore, in those instances where 
the respondent provided documentation to support its by-product claim, 
we allowed a recovery/by-product credit. Our treatment of by-products 
in this proceeding is in accordance with the Department's practice. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, 66 
FR 49632 (September 28, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 3.
    To value packing materials, we used October 2003-March 2004 
weighted-average Indian import values derived from WTA.
    To value PRC inland freight for inputs shipped by truck, we used 
Indian freight rates published in the October 2003-March 2004 issues of 
Chemical Weekly and obtained distances between cities from the 
following Web sites: http://www.infreight.com and http://www.sitaindia.com/Packages/CityDistance.php.
    To value factory overhead (``FOH''), selling, general & 
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit for Jiheng and Nanning, 
we used data from the 2002-2003 financial reports of Bihar Caustic & 
Chemicals Ltd. (``Bihar'') and Kanoria Chemicals Industries 
(``Kanoria''). The companies are Indian producers of caustic soda 
(i.e., an intermediate product used to produce chlorinated 
isocyanurates based on the information reported by the respondents in 
this proceeding in response to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire). The Department is using these companies' expenses and 
profit because there are no Indian producers of the subject merchandise 
and because we were unable to obtain financial reports for Indian 
producers of calcium hypochlorite, which we consider merchandise 
comparable to chlorinated isocyanurates as discussed above in the 
``Surrogate Country'' section of this notice. We derived the FOH, SG&A, 
and profit ratios by averaging the factory overhead costs, SG&A 
expenses, and profits, respectively, of both companies, Bihar and 
Kanoria.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

      Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the PRC Mandatory Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd..............................      125.97
Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd..........................      179.48
PRC-Wide Rate...............................................      179.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 75302]]


      Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the PRC Section A Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd...........................      140.27
Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd..................      140.27
Shanghai Tian Yuan International Trading Co., Ltd...........      140.27
Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation..................      140.27
Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation...............      140.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise, entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct 
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated 
above for Jiheng, Nanning, the five Section A Respondents, and the NME 
entity. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until 
further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination of sales 
at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make a 
final determination before the later of 120 days after the date of the 
Department's preliminary determination or 45 days after the 
Department's final determination whether the domestic industry in the 
United States is materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of imports of chlorinated isocyanurates, or sales (or 
the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise. 
Because we have postponed the deadline for our final determination to 
135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary 
determination, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days 
of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date of the final verification report issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs, 
no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A list 
of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after 
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 
20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days 
before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to 
section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 10, 2004.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E4-3679 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P