20990 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices 

Exporter Supplier WA margin 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................ Datong Tri-Star & Power Carbon Plant ..................................... 67.14 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................ Fu Yuan Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .......................................... 67.14 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................ Jing Mao (Dongguan) Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ..................... 67.14 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd ............................ Xi Li Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................. 67.14 

Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd ............................................................ Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .............................. 67.14 

Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd ............................................................ Ningxia Guanghua Chemical Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .......... 67.14 

Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd ............................................................ Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ................................. 67.14 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation .................................. Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd ........................ 67.14 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation .................................. Datong Tianzhao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ............................. 67.14 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation .................................. Ningxia Huinong Xingsheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ........... 67.14 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation .................................. Ningxia Yirong Alloy Iron Co., Ltd ............................................. 67.14 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation .................................. Ninxia Tongfu Coking Co., Ltd .................................................. 67.14 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation .................................. Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu Chemicals Co., Ltd ................................ 67.14 

Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd .............................................. Datong Guanghua Activated Co., Ltd ........................................ 67.14 

Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd .............................................. Ningxia Guanghua-Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ....... 67.14 

Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd .............................................. Ningxia Pingluo County YaoFu Activated Carbon Factory ....... 67.14 

Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd .......................... Ningxia Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ............ 67.14 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................ Datong Zuoyun Biyun Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ..................... 67.14 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................ Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd .......................... 67.14 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................ Ningxia Xingsheng Coal and Active Carbon Co., Ltd ............... 67.14 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd ................................................ Pingluo Yu Yang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ............................. 67.14 

Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd ................................................ Hegongye Ninxia Activated Carbon Factory ............................. 67.14 

Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd ................................................ Ningxia Pingluo County YaoFu Activated Carbon Plant ........... 67.14 

Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd ................................................ Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ........................... 67.14 

United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd ........................ Datong Fu Ping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd ............................... 67.14 

United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd ........................ Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemical Co. Ltd ........................... 67.14 

United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd ........................ Xinhua Chemical Company Ltd ................................................. 67.14 

Xi’an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd ......... DaTong Tri-Star & Power Carbon Plant .................................... 67.14 

Xi’an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd ......... Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company Limited ................ 67.14 

PRC-Wide Rate .......................................................................... .................................................................................................... 228.11 

This notice constitutes the 

antidumping duty order with respect to 

certain activated carbon 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. 

Dated: April 20, 2007. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8122 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–875 

Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the 

third administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on non–

malleable cast iron pipe fittings (‘‘NMP 

fittings’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) covering the period April 

1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. We 

preliminarily determine to apply 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) with 

respect to Myland Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Myland’’), and Buxin Myland 

(Foundry) Ltd. (‘‘Buxin’’), which failed 

to cooperate to the best of their ability 

and failed to demonstrate their 

eligibility for a separate rate. 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review (‘‘POR’’). Interested 

parties are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. We will issue the 

final results no later than 120 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan and Mark Manning, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4081 

and (202) 482–5253, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 7, 2003, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on NMP fittings 

from the PRC. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Non–

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Filings 

(Sic.)From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 16765 (April 7, 2003). On 

April 3, 2006, the Department published 

a notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on NMP fittings 

from the PRC for the period April 1, 

2005, through March 31, 2006. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 16549 

(April 3, 2006). On April 20, 2006, 

Myland and Buxin requested an 

administrative review of their sales of 

NMP fittings to the United States during 

the POR. No other party requested a 

review of shipments made by Myland or 

Buxin. On April 28, 2006, Ward 

Manufacturing, Inc. (‘‘Ward’’), a 

domestic producer of NMP fittings, 

requested an administrative review of 

the sales to the United States during the 

POR of subject merchandise produced 

and/or exported by Jinan Meide 

Corporation (‘‘JMC’’) and Shanghai 

Foreign Trade Enterprises Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘SFTEC’’). On May 31, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices 20991 

Register a notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of NMP fittings from the PRC for the 

period April 1, 2005, through March 31, 

2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 71 FR 30864 (May 31, 2006) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On July 25, 2006, Ward timely 

withdrew its request for an 

administrative review of NMP fittings 

from the PRC regarding subject 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by JMC and SFTEC. No other interested 

party requested a review of JMC and 

SFTEC. Therefore, the Department 

rescinded this review with respect to 

JMC and SFTEC, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Non–Malleable 

Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 55430 

(September 22, 2006). 

On July 24, 2006, the Department 

issued its antidumping questionnaire to 

Myland and Buxin. Myland and Buxin 

submitted a Section A questionnaire 

response on August 11, 2006, and 

Sections C and D responses on 

September 12, 2006. On December 7, 

2006, the Department published a notice 

in the Federal Register extending the 

time limit for the preliminary results of 

review until April 30, 2007. See Non–

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from 

the Peoples’(Sic.) Republic of China; 

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

70957 (December 7, 2006). From 

November 2006 to February 2007, the 

Department issued, and Myland and 

Buxin responded to, six supplemental 

questionnaires. 

The verification of the respondents’

responses was scheduled from March 12 

through March 17, 2007. On February 

23, 2007, the Department released the 

verification agenda to Myland and 

Buxin. From March 12 through March 

13, 2007, the Department conducted 

verification of Myland in Hong Kong. 

On March 14, 2007, the verification 

team arrived in Guangzhou, China, to 

continue verification at Buxin. On that 

day, Myland and Buxin refused to allow 

the verification team access to Buxin’s 

factory, refused to provide the 

information requested in the verification 

agenda, informed the verification team 

that they were unable to continue 

participating in the verification, and 

withdrew from the verification. See 

Memorandum from Karina Gziryan and 

Melissa Blackledge, to the File, ‘‘Non–

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from 

the People’s Republic of China - 

Administrative Review,’’ dated March 

27, 2007. Myland and Buxin destroyed 

the verification exhibits taken in Hong 

Kong, and did not serve those exhibits 

on the petitioner or the Department. Id. 

On March 21, 2007, Myland and Buxin 

filed a letter in which they withdrew 

their request to conduct the 

administrative review and consented to 

the assessment of antidumping duties at 

the PRC–wide rate. 

Period of Review 

The POR is April 1, 2005, through 

March 31, 2006. 

Scope of Order 

The products subject to this 

administrative review are finished and 

unfinished non–malleable cast iron pipe 

fittings with an inside diameter ranging 

from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether 

threaded or un–threaded, regardless of 

industry or proprietary specifications. 

The subject fittings include elbows, ells, 

tees, crosses, and reducers as well as 

flanged fittings. These pipe fittings are 

also known as ‘‘cast iron pipe fittings’’

or ‘‘gray iron pipe fittings.’’ These cast 

iron pipe fittings are normally produced 

to ASTM A–126 and ASME B.l6.4 

specifications and are threaded to 

ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most 

building codes require that these 

products are Underwriters Laboratories 

(‘‘UL’’) certified. The scope does not 

include cast iron soil pipe fittings or 

grooved fittings or grooved couplings. 

Fittings that are made out of ductile 

iron that have the same physical 

characteristics as the gray or cast iron 

fittings subject to the scope above or 

which have the same physical 

characteristics and are produced to 

ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM 

A–395 specifications, threaded to ASME 

B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified, 

regardless of metallurgical differences 

between gray and ductile iron, are also 

included in the scope of the order. 

These ductile fittings do not include 

grooved fittings or grooved couplings. 

Ductile cast iron fittings with 

mechanical joint ends (‘‘MJ’’), or push 

on ends (‘‘PO’’), or flanged ends and 

produced to the American Water Works 

Association (‘‘AWWA’’) specifications 

AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not 

included. 

Imports of subject merchandise are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers 

7307.11.00.30, 7307.11.00.60, 

7307.19.30.60 and 7307.19.30.85. 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Nonmarket Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a nonmarket 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), any determination that a 

foreign country is an NME country shall 

remain in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003) 

(unchanged in final results of review). 

None of the parties to this proceeding 

has contested such treatment. Therefore, 

we have treated the PRC as an NME 

country for purposes of these 

preliminary results. 

Request for Withdrawal of 

Administrative Review 

As noted above, Myland and Buxin 

submitted a letter to the Department 

withdrawing their request for an 

administrative review on March 21, 

2007. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

‘‘the Secretary will rescind an 

administrative review under this 

section, in whole or in part, if a party 

that requested a review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of notice of initiation of the 

requested review. The Secretary may 

extend this time limit if the Secretary 

decides that it is reasonable to do so.’’

The 90-day deadline for withdrawing 

from this administrative review expired 

on August 29, 2006. Therefore, 

Myland’s and Buxin’s request to 

withdraw from the administrative 

review was submitted after the deadline 

established by the Department. 

The Department reviewed and 

analyzed Myland’s and Buxin’s 

response to the Department’s original 

questionnaire. As a result of the 

respondents’ deficient and/or 

incomplete questionnaire responses, the 

Department sent six supplemental 

questionnaires in an attempt to gather 

necessary information from the 

respondents. Because of the need to 

issue an extensive number of 

supplemental questionnaires, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results. In March 2007, 

the Department attempted to verify 

Myland’s and Buxin’s responses in their 

offices in Hong Kong and China. See 

Background section of this notice, 

above. The Department expended 

considerable effort and resources in its 

analysis of Myland and Buxin prior to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
20992 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices 

their late withdrawal request during an 

advanced stage of the review. Therefore, 

the Department is not granting the 

respondents’ request to withdraw their 

request for review. This is consistent 

with past Department practice. See 

Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Singapore, and the United Kingdom: 

Preliminary Results Of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial 

Rescission Of Administrative Reviews, 

Notice Of Intent to Rescind 

Administrative Reviews, And Notice Of 

Intent To Revoke Order In Part, 69 FR 

5949, 5951 (February 9, 2004) 

(‘‘Although we have accepted untimely 

withdrawals of requests for review 

elsewhere, the circumstances 

surrounding the review of INA are 

different from other situations . . . 

{because} we had expended effort and 

resources in our analysis of INA prior to 

the untimely withdrawal such that we 

were quite advanced in the review’’) 

(unchanged in final results of review). 

See also, Petroleum Wax Candles From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the 2004–2005 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 35613 

(June 21, 2006) (unchanged in final 

results of review). 

Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if necessary 

information is not on the record or an 

interested party or any other person (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding, or (D) provides information 

that cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to section 782(e) 

of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and if the interested party acted to the 

best of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information if 

it can do so without undue difficulties. 

On March 14, 2007, Myland and 

Buxin refused to provide information 

requested in the verification agenda, 

and withdrew from verification. 

Moreover, Myland and Buxin destroyed 

the verification exhibits and did not 

serve these on the petitioner or the 

Department. Verification is integral to 

the Department’s analysis because it 

allows the Department to satisfy itself 

that the information upon which the 

Department relies in calculating a 

margin is accurate and, therefore, 

enables the Department to comply with 

its mandate to calculate the dumping 

margin as accurately as possible. By 

refusing the Department’s request for 

information in the verification agenda, 

failing to allow the Department to verify 

the reported data, and not serving the 

petitioner or Department with the 

verification exhibits taken in Hong 

Kong, Myland and Buxin withheld 

critical information to be used for the 

Department’s separate rate analysis and 

margin calculation, significantly 

impeded the review, and provided 

information that cannot be verified, as 

provided by section 782(i) of the Act. 

Therefore, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, the 

Department must apply facts available 

to Myland and Buxin. 

By failing to respond to the 

Department’s request for information 

contained in the verification agenda and 

by not allowing the Department to 

conduct verification, Myland and Buxin 

have not proven they are free of 

government control and are, therefore, 

not eligible to receive a separate rate. 

For this reason, the Department has 

denied Myland’s and Buxin’s requests 

for separate rates. In the Initiation 

Notice, the Department stated that if one 

of the companies on which we initiated 

a review does not qualify for a separate 

rate, all other exporters of NMP fittings 

from the PRC who have not qualified for 

a separate rate are deemed to be covered 

by this review as part of the single PRC–

wide entity of which the named 

exporter is a part. See Initiation Notice 

at footnote 2. For these preliminary 

results, Myland and Buxin will be part 

of the PRC–wide entity, subject to the 

PRC–wide rate. As a result, the 

Department determines that it is 

necessary to review the single PRC–

wide entity, including Myland and 

Buxin, in this segment of the 

proceeding. 

The PRC–wide entity, including 

Myland and Buxin, withheld 

information requested in the verification 

agenda, significantly impeded the 

review, and did not provide verifiable 

information to the Department. Pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of 

the Act, the Department must resort to 

the facts otherwise available with 

respect to the PRC–wide entity. 

Adverse Inferences 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. 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 Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870. 

Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes 

the Department to use as adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’), information derived 

from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

As explained above, the PRC–wide 

entity, including Myland and Buxin, 

refused to provide the Department with 

verification information and would not 

permit the Department to verify 

information placed on the record. 

Therefore, the PRC–wide entity did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Because the PRC–wide entity did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability in the 

proceeding, the Department finds it 

necessary, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, to use an adverse inference in 

applying facts available as the basis for 

these preliminary results of review for 

the PRC–wide entity. 

In this segment of the proceeding, in 

accordance with Department practice 

(see, e.g., Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Rescission 

of Second New Shipper Review and 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

First Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 

12, 1999)), as AFA, we have assigned to 

exports of the subject merchandise by 

the PRC–wide entity (including Myland 

and Buxin) a rate of 75.50 percent, 

which is the rate established for the 

PRC–wide entity in the less than fair 

value investigation. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices 20993 

Fair Value: Non–Malleable Cast Iron 

Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic 

of China, 68 FR 7765 (February 18, 

2003) (‘‘Final Determination’’). The 

respondents, Myland and Buxin, 

consented to the assessment of 

antidumping duties for the period of 

April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, at the 

PRC–wide rate. See Letter from Myland 

and Buxin to the Department, ‘‘Non–

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from 

the People’s Republic of China - 

Administrative Review,’’ dated March 

21, 2007. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is defined as 

information 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 accompanying the URAA at 870. 

Corroborate means that the Department 

will satisfy itself that the secondary 

information to be used has probative 

value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. The Department, 

however, need not prove that the 

selected facts available are the best 

alternative information. See SAA at 869. 

To satisfy itself that the secondary 

information has probative value the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used. See 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged 

in final results of review). Independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra–High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 

from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003) 

(unchanged in final determination); 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine 

From Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 

2005). 

The reliability of the AFA rate was 

determined in the final determination of 

the investigation. See Final 

Determination. The Department has 

received no information to date that 

warrants revisiting the issue of the 

reliability of the rate calculation itself. 

See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

the New Shipper Review and Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Third Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 41304, 41307–41308 (July 

11, 2003). No information has been 

presented in the current review that 

calls into question the reliability of this 

information. Thus, the Department finds 

that the information contained in the 

investigation is reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin in that 

case as adverse best information 

available (the predecessor to facts 

available) because the margin was based 

on another company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin. Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited. See D&L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that 

the Department will not use a margin 

that has been judicially invalidated). 

Nothing on the record of this review 

calls into question the relevance of the 

margin selected as AFA. Further, the 

selected margin is currently the PRC–

wide rate. Moreover, this rate has not 

been invalidated judicially. Thus, it is 

appropriate to use the selected rate as 

AFA in the instant review. Therefore, 

we determine that the rate from the 

Final Determination continues to be 

relevant for use in this administrative 

review. 

As the recalculated Final 

Determination rate is both reliable and 

relevant, we determine that it has 

probative value. As a result, the 

Department determines that the Final 

Determination rate of 75.50 percent, 

which is the highest rate from any 

segment of this administrative 

proceeding, has probative value and, 

thus, meets the corroboration 

requirement of section 776(c) of the Act. 

As noted above, Myland and Buxin 

consented to the assessment of 

antidumping duties for the period of 

April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, at the 

PRC–wide rate. 

Weighted–Average Dumping Margin 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following margin exists for the period 

April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Period Margin (percent) 

PRC–Wide Entity(including Myland Industrial Co., Ltd., and Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd.) ............ 4/1/2005 - 3/31/2006 75.50 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose all 

documents relied upon in these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Interested parties may submit case briefs 

and/or written comments no later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs 

and rebuttals to written comments, 

limited to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 35 

days after the date of publication. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties 

submitting written comments should 

provide the Department with an 

additional copy of those comments on 

diskette. The Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
20994 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this administrative review. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of review, we will 

direct CBP to assess the resulting rate 

against the entered customs value for 

the subject merchandise on each 

importer’s/customer’s entries during the 

POR. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

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, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash 

deposit rate for Myland and Buxin will 

be the rate listed in the final results of 

review; (2) for previously investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) the cash deposit 

rate for all other PRC exporters will be 

75.50 percent; and (4) the cash deposit 

rate for all non–PRC exporters will be 

the rate applicable to the PRC exporter 

that supplied that exporter. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

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 these 

preliminary results of review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.221(b). 

Dated: April 23, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8121 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–886) 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the People’s Republic of China; Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev 

Primor and Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4114 and (202) 

482–5831, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 29, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on 

polyethylene retail carrier bags from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 

2006). The period of review is August 1, 

2005, through July 31, 2006. The 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review are currently due 

no later than May 3, 2007. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

the Department shall make a 

preliminary determination in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping order within 245 days after 

the last day of the anniversary month of 

the date of publication of the order. 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further 

provides, however, that the Department 

may extend the 245-day period to 365 

days if it determines it is not practicable 

to complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. The Department 

determines that it is not practicable to 

complete this administrative review 

within the time limits mandated by 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act because 

this review involves examining a 

number of complex issues related to 

sales information and to factors of 

production. The Department requires 

additional time to issue and analyze 

supplemental questionnaires regarding 

these issues. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 

Department is extending the time period 

for completing the preliminary results of 

this administrative review until August 

31, 2007, which is 365 days from the 

last day of the anniversary month of the 

date of publication of the order. The 

deadline for the final results of the 

review continues to be 120 days after 

the publication of the preliminary 

results. 

This extension notice is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 23, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8130 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 042307G] 

Marine Mammals; File No. 814–1899 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

North Slope Borough Department of 

Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 69, 

Barrow, AK 99723 [Dr. Cheryl Rosa, 

Principal Investigator] has applied in 

due form for a permit to obtain and 

collect marine mammal parts/samples 

for the purpose of scientific research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

May 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and 

Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668; phone 

(907)586–7221; fax (907)586–7249. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES