Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Notices 8969 

B. Service of the Notice of Issuance of 

Charging Letter 

In the case, BIS served notice of 

issuance of the Charging Letter in 

accordance with § 766.3(b)(1) of the 

Regulations when it sent a copy of the 

Charging Letter by certified mail to 

Kovacs at his last known address on 

June 28, 2005. The notice of issuance of 

a charging letter was received and 

signed for by Kovacs on July 5, 2005. 

C. Summary of Violations Charged 

The Charging Letter issued by BIS 

included a total of six (6) charges related 

to the illegal export of a manufacturing 

furnace to the Beijing Research Institute 

of Materials and Technology (‘‘BRIMT’’) 

in the People’s Republic of China. The 

export of the furnace, which took place 

in 1999, required a license because the 

exporter, Elatec (Kovacs’ company), 

knew or had reason to know at the time 

of the export that the item would be 

used in the design, development, 

production, or use of missiles in or by 

China, as described in § 744.39a)(2) of 

the Regulations. A license application 

submitted for the export was explicitly 

denied by BIS before the export 

occurred, and no license for the export 

was over obtained. 

The Charging Letter alleged that 

Kovacs sold, transferred, forwarded 

and/or disposed of the furnace with 

knowledge that a violation would 

subsequently occur, that Kovacs 

conspired to export the furnace without 

a license, that Kovacs caused the 

furnace to be exported without a 

license, and that Kovacs took actions 

with the intent to evade the Regulations 

in connection with the furnace export. 

Furthermore, the Charging Letter alleged 

that Kovacs made two false statements 

to the U.S. Government during the 

investigation of the illegal export. 

D. Penalty Recommendation 

[Redacted Section] 

E. Conclusion 

Accordingly, I am referring this 

Recommended Decision and Order to 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Industry and Security for review and 

final action for the agency, without 

further notice to the Respondent, as 

provided in § 766.7 of the Regulations. 

Within 30 days after receipt of this 

Recommended Decision and Order, the 

Under Secretary shall issue a written 

order affirming, modifying, or vacating 

the Recommended Decision and Order. 

See 15 CFR 766.22(c). 

Dated: January 26, 2007. 

The Honorable Joseph N. Ingolia, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

[FR Doc. 07–905 Filed 2–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has received requests 

to conduct administrative reviews of 

various antidumping and countervailing 

duty orders and findings with January 

anniversary dates. In accordance with 

the Department’s regulations, we are 

initiating those administrative reviews. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28,2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Customs Unit, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–4697. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department has received timely 

requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2004), for administrative 

reviews of various antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders and findings 

with January anniversary dates. With 

respect to the antidumping duty order 

on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China, the 

initiation of the antidumping duty 

administrative review for that case is 

being published in a separate initiation 

notice. 

Initiation of Reviews: 

In accordance with section 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating 

administrative reviews of the following 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders and findings. We intend to issue 

the final results of these reviews not 

later than January 31, 2008. 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings Period to be Reviewed 

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Folding Gift Boxes1.

A–570–866 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 

Red Point Paper Products Co., Ltd./Red Point Paper Products.

Factory (Dongguan Shilong)/Silver Team Trading Ltd..

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Wooden Bedroom Furniture2.

A–570–890 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings.

None..

Suspension Agreements.

RUSSIA: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate.

A–821–808 ................................................................................................................................................................. 1/1/06 - 12/31/06 

Joint Stock Company Severstal.

1 If one of the above named companies does not qualify for a separate rate, allother exporters of Folding Gift Boxes from the People’s Republic of China who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC entity of which the 

named exporters are a part. 2The administrative review for the above referenced case will be published in a separate initiation notice. 

During any administrative review 

covering all or part of a period falling 

between the first and second or third 

and fourth anniversary of the 

publication of an antidumping duty 

order under section 351.211 or a 

determination under section 

351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or 

suspended investigation (after sunset 

review), the Secretary, if requested by a 

domestic interested party within 30 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the review, will 

determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 

2002), as appropriate, whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by an exporter or producer subject to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
8970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Notices 

review if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

importer that is affiliated with such 

exporter or producer. The request must 

include the name(s) of the exporter or 

producer for which the inquiry is 

requested. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

These initiations and this notice are 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 USC 

1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: February 22, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–3438 Filed 2–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

C–357–813 

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset 

Review: Countervailing Duty Order on 

Honey from Argentina 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

honey from Argentina, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and adequate substantive responses 

from respondent interested parties, the 

Department determined to conduct a 

full sunset review of this CVD order 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). As a result of 

our analysis, the Department 

preliminarily finds that revocation of 

the countervailing duty order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi 

Blum or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0197 or (202) 482–

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 1, 2006, the Department 

initiated the first sunset review of the 

CVD order on honey from Argentina, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 

See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews, 71 FR 64242 (November 1, 

2006). The Department received notices 

of intent to participate from the 

American Honey Producers Association 

(AHPA) and the Sioux Honey 

Association (SHA), the petitioners in the 

original investigation (collectively, 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within 

the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). AHPA and SHA 

claimed interested party status as trade 

or business associations a majority of 

whose members manufacture, produce 

or wholesale a domestic like product for 

the United States under section 

771(9)(E) of the Act; SHA also claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic 

producers of processed and raw honey 

in the United States engaged in the 

manufacture, production, or wholesale 

of honey in the United States. The 

Department received substantive 

responses from the domestic interested 

parties and the following respondent 

interested parties: the Government of 

Argentina (GOA), Nexco, S.A (Nexco), 

HoneyMax, S.A (HoneyMax), and the 

Asociacio ́n de Cooperativas Argentinas 

(ACA). 

On December 20, 2006, the 

Department determined that the 

participation of the respondent 

interested parties was adequate, and 

that it was appropriate to conduct a full 

sunset review. See Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Import Administration, Re: 

Adequacy Determination: Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Honey from Argentina dated 

December 20, 2006, and on file in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B–

099 of the main Commerce Building. 

Scope Of The Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is artificial honey containing more 

than 50 percent natural honeys by 

weight, preparations of natural honey 

containing more than 50 percent natural 

honeys by weight, and flavored honey. 

The subject merchandise includes all 

grades and colors of honey whether in 

liquid, creamed, combs, cut comb, or 

chunk form, and whether packaged for 

retail or in bulk form. The merchandise 

subject to this order is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

0409.00.00, 1702.90, and 2106.90.99 of 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise covered by this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis Of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Preliminary Issues and 

Decision Memorandum from Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration (Preliminary Decision 

Memorandum), dated concurrently with 

this notice and which is hereby adopted 

by this notice. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this review and the corresponding 

recommendation in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

CRU. In addition, a complete version of 

the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the 

Preliminary Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Preliminary Results Of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that revocation of the CVD 

order would likely lead to continuation 

or recurrence of a countervailable 

subsidy. The net countervailable 

subsidy likely to prevail if the order 

were revoked is 5.85 percent. 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and hearing requests no later than 

50 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Rebuttal briefs, which must 

be limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, may be filed not later than five 

days from the filing of the case briefs, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

If a hearing is requested, parties will be 

notified of the date, time and location. 

The Department will issue a notice of 

final results of this sunset review, which 

will include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such briefs, no later 

than June 29, 2007. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 20, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–3437 Filed 2–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES