6932 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Notices 

1We note that, on October 16, 2007, we rejected 

the petitioners’ case and rebuttal briefs because of 

the improper bracketing (i.e., claims for treatment 

as business proprietary information) of public 

information. See the September 26, 2007, 

memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood to the file 

entitled, ‘‘Conversation with Counsel for Chia Far 

industrial Factory Co., Ltd., Regarding the 

Bracketing of Information Contained in the 

Petitioners’ September 10, 2007, and September 17, 

2007, Submissions in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Taiwan.’’ The petitioners 

resubmitted properly-bracketed versions of both 

their case and rebuttal briefs on October 18, 2007. 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–2178 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–831] 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Taiwan: Final Results and 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 3, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSSC) 

from Taiwan (72 FR 43236). This review 

covers three producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States. The period of review (POR) is 

July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. We 

are rescinding the review with respect 

to nine companies because these 

companies had no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

certain changes in the margin 

calculations. Therefore, the final results 

differ from the preliminary results. The 

final weighted-average dumping 

margins for the reviewed firms are listed 

below in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3874. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This review covers three producers/ 

exporters. These companies are Chia Far 

Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far), 

PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PFP Taiwan) and 

Yieh Trading Corp. (also known as Yieh 

Corp.). 

On August 3, 2007, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on SSSSC from Taiwan. See Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Taiwan: Preliminary Results and 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 43236 

(Aug. 3, 2007) (Preliminary Results). 

We invited parties to comment on our 

preliminary results of review. In 

September 2007, we received case and 

rebuttal briefs from the petitioners 1 (i.e., 

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, United 

Auto Workers Local 3303 (formerly 

Butler Armco Independent Union), 

United Steelworkers of America, AFL–

CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco 

Independent Organization) and Chia 

Far, the sole respondent participating in 

this review. 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

certain stainless steel sheet and strip in 

coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel 

containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or 

less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more 

of chromium, with or without other 

elements. The subject sheet and strip is 

a flat-rolled product in coils that is 

greater than 9.5 mm in width and less 

than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is 

annealed or otherwise heat treated and 

pickled or otherwise descaled. The 

subject sheet and strip may also be 

further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, 

polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) 

provided that it maintains the specific 

dimensions of sheet and strip following 

such processing. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 

7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 

7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 

7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 

7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 

7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 

7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 

7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 

7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 

7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 

7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 

7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 

7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 

7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 

7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 

7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 

7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 

7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 

7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 

7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 

7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 

7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 

7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 

7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 

7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 

7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 

7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 

7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 

7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 

7220.90.00.80. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise under the order is 

dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are the following: (1) Sheet and strip 

that is not annealed or otherwise heat 

treated and pickled or otherwise 

descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut 

to length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled 

stainless steel products of a thickness of 

4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., 

cold-rolled sections, with a prepared 

edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of 

not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor 

blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flatrolled product of stainless steel, not 

further worked than cold-rolled (coldreduced), in coils, of a width of not 

more than 23 mm and a thickness of 

0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 

12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and 

certified at the time of entry to be used 

in the manufacture of razor blades. See 

Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ‘‘Additional 

U.S. Note’’ 1(d). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

order are certain specialty stainless steel 

products described below. Flapper valve 

steel is defined as stainless steel strip in 

coils containing, by weight, between 

0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 

1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and 

between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 

manganese. This steel also contains, by 

weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or 

less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 

percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less. The product is manufactured by 

means of vacuum arc remelting, with 

inclusion controls for sulphide of no 

more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of 

no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 

valve steel has a tensile strength of 

between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength 

of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or 

minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of 

between 460 and 590. Flapper valve 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Notices 6933 

2Arnokrome III is a trademark of the Arnold 

Engineering Company. 

3 Gilphy 36 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. 

4 Durphynox 17 is a trademark of Imphy, S.A. 

5This list of uses is illustrated and provided for 

descriptive purposes only. 

6 GIN4 Mo, GIN5 and GIN6 are the proprietary 

grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. 

steel is most commonly used to produce 

specialty flapper valves in compressors. 

Also excluded is a product referred to 

as suspension foil, a specialty steel 

product used in the manufacture of 

suspension assemblies for computer 

disk drives. Suspension foil is described 

as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless 

steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 

microns, with a thickness tolerance of 

plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface 

glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. 

Suspension foil must be supplied in coil 

widths of not more than 407 mm, and 

with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks 

may only be visible on one side, with 

no scratches of measurable depth. The 

material must exhibit residual stresses 

of 2 mm maximum deflection, and 

flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length. 

Certain stainless steel foil for 

automotive catalytic converters is also 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

This stainless steel strip in coils is a 

specialty foil with a thickness of 

between 20 and 110 microns used to 

produce a metallic substrate with a 

honeycomb structure for use in 

automotive catalytic converters. The 

steel contains, by weight, carbon of no 

more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no 

more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no 

more than 1.0 percent, chromium of 

between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum 

of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus 

of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of 

no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum 

of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 

percent, and total rare earth elements of 

more than 0.06 percent, with the 

balance iron. 

Permanent magnet iron-chromiumcobalt alloy stainless strip is also 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

This ductile stainless steel strip 

contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent 

chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, 

with the remainder of iron, in widths 

228.6 mm or less, and a thickness 

between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits 

magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 

12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of 

between 50 and 300 oersteds. This 

product is most commonly used in 

electronic sensors and is currently 

available under proprietary trade names 

such as Arnokrome III.2

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel 

is also excluded from the scope of the 

order. This product is defined as a nonmagnetic stainless steel manufactured to 

American Society of Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) specification B344 

and containing, by weight, 36 percent 

nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 

percent iron, and is most notable for its 

resistance to high temperature 

corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 

degrees Celsius and displays a creep 

rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square 

millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This 

steel is most commonly used in the 

production of heating ribbons for circuit 

breakers and industrial furnaces, and in 

rheostats for railway locomotives. The 

product is currently available under 

proprietary trade names such as Gilphy 

36.3

Certain martensitic precipitationhardenable stainless steel is also 

excluded from the scope of the order. 

This high-strength, ductile stainless 

steel product is designated under the 

Unified Numbering System (UNS) as 

S45500-grade steel, and contains, by 

weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 

7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, 

manganese, silicon and molybdenum 

each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent 

or less, with phosphorus and sulfur 

each comprising, by weight, 0.03 

percent or less. This steel has copper, 

niobium, and titanium added to achieve 

aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as 

high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile 

strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after 

aging, with elongation percentages of 3 

percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 

provided in thicknesses between 0.635 

and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 

mm. This product is most commonly 

used in the manufacture of television 

tubes and is currently available under 

proprietary trade names such as 

Durphynox 17.4

Finally, three specialty stainless steels 

typically used in certain industrial 

blades and surgical and medical 

instruments are also excluded from the 

scope of the order. These include 

stainless steel strip in coils used in the 

production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 

carpet knives).5 This steel is similar to 

AISI grade 420 but containing, by 

weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of 

molybdenum. The steel also contains, 

by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 

1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or 

less, and includes between 0.20 and 

0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 

and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is 

sold under proprietary names such as 

GIN4 Mo. The second excluded 

stainless steel strip in coils is similar to 

AISI 420–J2 and contains, by weight, 

carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 

percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 

0.50 percent, manganese of between 

0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no 

more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of 

no more than 0.020 percent. This steel 

has a carbide density on average of 100 

carbide particles per 100 square 

microns. An example of this product is 

GIN5 steel. The third specialty steel has 

a chemical composition similar to AISI 

420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 

0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 

1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower 

manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 

percent, phosphorus of no more than 

0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 

and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more 

than 0.020 percent. This product is 

supplied with a hardness of more than 

Hv 500 guaranteed after customer 

processing, and is supplied as, for 

example, GIN6.6

Period of Review 

The POR is July 1, 2005, through June 

30, 2006. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

Nine of the companies that responded 

to the Department’s questionnaire stated 

that they had no shipments/entries of 

subject merchandise into the United 

States during the POR. These companies 

are: (1) Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd.; 

(2) Chien Shing Stainless Co.; (3) China 

Steel Corporation; (4) Goang Jau Shing 

Enterprise Co., Ltd.; (5) Ta Chen 

Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd.; 6) Tang Eng 

Iron Works; (7) Yieh Loong Enterprise 

Co. Ltd.; (8) Yieh Mau Corp.; and (9) 

Yieh United Steel Corporation. We have 

confirmed this with data obtained from 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP). Therefore, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with 

the Department’s practice, we are 

rescinding our review with respect to 

these companies. See, e.g., Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand: Final Results and Final 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 52065 

(Sept. 12, 2007) (administrative review 

rescinded for companies that 

demonstrated they had no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR); 

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 

From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, and Determination To 

Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 

(Nov. 8, 2005) (administrative review 

rescinded for companies that 

demonstrated they had no shipments 

during the POR). 

Emerdex Companies 

The Department finds that it is 

appropriate to rescind the instant 

review with respect to the Emerdex 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
6934 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Notices 

Companies named by the petitioners in 

their review request because the 

Department found in the 2003–2004 

administrative review of this order that 

the Emerdex companies are U.S. 

entities. See Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary 

Results and Rescission in Part of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 45521, 45524–45525 

(Aug. 9, 2006) (unchanged in Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 

Taiwan; Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 75504 

(Dec. 15, 2006)). We note that the 

petitioners in the instant review have 

not provided any additional information 

demonstrating that the Emerdex 

companies for which they have 

requested a review are located in 

Taiwan. Consequently, consistent with 

the Department’s findings in the prior 

review, we are rescinding this review 

with regard to the Emerdex companies. 

Facts Available 

In the preliminary results, we 

determined that, in accordance with 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use 

of facts available was appropriate as the 

basis for the dumping margins for PFP 

Taiwan and Yieh Corp. because these 

companies failed to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 

43239–40. 

Section 776(a) of the Act, provides 

that the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not available 

on the record or an interested party: (1) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (2) fails to 

provide such information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form or 

manner requested by the Department; 

(3) significantly impedes a proceeding; 

or (4) provides such information, but the 

information cannot be verified. 

In August 2006, the Department 

requested that all companies subject to 

review respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. The original deadline to 

file a response was September 1, 2006. 

Because PFP Taiwan did not respond to 

this request for information, on 

September 7, 2006, the Department 

issued a letter to PFP Taiwan affording 

it a second opportunity to respond to 

the Department’s request for 

information. However, PFP Taiwan also 

did not respond to this second 

questionnaire. On July 31, 2007, the 

Department placed documentation on 

the record confirming delivery of the 

questionnaire to this company. See the 

July 31, 2007, Memorandum to the File 

from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior 

Analyst, entitled, ‘‘Confirmation of 

Delivery of the Questionnaire in the 

2005–2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Stainless 

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 

Taiwan.’’

Furthermore, one additional 

company, Yieh Corp., claimed that it 

made no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. However, according to data 

obtained from CBP, it appeared that 

Yieh Corp. shipped subject merchandise 

to the United States during the POR. On 

January 29, 2007, we placed copies of 

the entry documentation related to these 

shipments on the record of this 

proceeding. See the January 29, 2007, 

Memorandum to the File from Jill 

Pollack, Senior Analyst, entitled, 

‘‘2005–2006 Administrative Review of 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Taiwan: Entry Documents from 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP).’’

On February 1, 2007, we requested 

that Yieh Corp. explain why it did not 

report the entries in question, and on 

March 5, 2007, Yieh Corp. responded by 

stating that it had inadvertently 

overlooked the entries. Therefore, again 

on May 24, 2007, we informed Yieh 

Corp. that it was required to respond to 

the Department’s questionnaire. 

However, Yieh Corp. failed to file a 

response. 

By failing to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire, PFP 

Taiwan and Yieh Corp. withheld 

requested information and significantly 

impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as 

in the preliminary results, the 

Department finds that the use of total 

facts available for PFP Taiwan and Yieh 

Corp. is appropriate pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. 

See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 

43239–40. 

Adverse Facts Available 

In selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, section 776(b) of 

the Act authorizes the Department to 

use an adverse inference if the 

Department finds that an interested 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

the request for information. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 

54025–26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon 

and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (Aug. 30, 

2002). Adverse inferences are 

appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

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

870. Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence 

of bad faith on the part of a respondent 

is not required before the Department 

may make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997). See also, Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We find 

that PFP Taiwan and Yieh Corp. did not 

act to the best of their abilities in this 

proceeding, within the meaning of 

section 776(b) of the Act, because they 

failed to respond to the Department’s 

requests for information. Therefore, an 

adverse inference is warranted in 

selecting facts otherwise available. See 

Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as adverse 

facts available (AFA) information 

derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the 

final determination in the investigation; 

(3) any previous review; or (4) any other 

information placed on the record. 

The Department’s practice, when 

selecting an AFA rate from among the 

possible sources of information, has 

been to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

statutory purposes of the adverse facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ Carbon and Certain Alloy 

Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792, 

55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); see also Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 

21.10 percent, which is the highest 

appropriate dumping margin assigned 

in this or any prior segment of the 

proceeding, to PFP Taiwan and Yieh 

Corp. The Department finds that this 

rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate 

the purpose of the AFA rule (i.e., we 

find that this rate is high enough to 

encourage participation in future 

segments of this proceeding in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act). 

For the reasons stated in the 

Preliminary Results, we continue to find 

that the information upon which this 

margin is based has probative value and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Notices 6935 

thus satisfies the corroboration 

requirements of section 776(c) of the 

Act. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 

43240. 

Cost of Production 

As discussed in the preliminary 

results, we conducted an investigation 

to determine whether Chia Far made 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product during the POR at prices below 

its costs of production (COP) within the 

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. 

For these final results, we performed the 

cost test following the same 

methodology as in the Preliminary 

Results. 

We found that more than 20 percent 

of Chia Far’s sales of a given product 

during the reporting period were at 

prices less than the weighted-average 

COP for this period. Thus, we 

determined that these below-cost sales 

were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’

within an extended period of time and 

at prices which did not permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in the normal course of 

trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B)–(D) of 

the Act. 

Therefore, for purposes of these final 

results, we found that Chia Far made 

below-cost sales not in the ordinary 

course of trade. Consequently, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining normal value pursuant to 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

parties to this administrative review, 

and to which we have responded, are 

listed in the Appendix to this notice and 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (Decision Memo) 

accompanying this notice, which is 

adopted by this notice. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, room B–099, 

of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of 

the Decision Memo can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

certain changes in the margin 

calculations for Chia Far. These changes 

are discussed in the relevant sections of 

the Decision Memo. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average margin percentages 

exist for the period July 1, 2005, through 

June 30, 2006: 

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter 

Margin Percentage 

Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd., 

1.41, PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd., 21.10, Yieh 

Trading Corp./Yieh Corp. 21.10. 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

calculated importer-specific ad valorem 

duty assessment rates for Chia Far based 

on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those sales. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate without 

regard to antidumping duties any 

entries for which the assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of these 

final results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by companies included in 

these final results of review for which 

the reviewed companies did not know 

their merchandise was destined for the 

United States. This clarification will 

also apply to POR entries of subject 

merchandise produced by companies 

for which we are rescinding the review 

based on certifications of no shipments, 

because these companies certified that 

they made no POR shipments of subject 

merchandise for which they had 

knowledge of U.S. destination. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate established in the LTFV 

investigation if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Further, the following deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of SSSSC from Taiwan 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates shown 

above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 

percent, de minimis within the meaning 

of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash 

deposit will be zero; (2) for previously 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, or the LTFV investigation, but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent period for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 12.61 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From United Kingdom, Taiwan, and 

South Korea, 64 FR 40555, 40557 (July 

27, 1999) . These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility, 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results of review in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: January 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix—Issues in Decision 

Memorandum 

1. Unreported Sales 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
6936 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Notices 

2. Home Market Rebates 

3. Affiliation Between Chia Far Industrial 

Co. Ltd. and Lucky Medsup 

4. Lucky Medsup’s U.S. Indirect Selling 

Expenses 

5. Cost of Manufacturing 

6. Clerical Error in the Preliminary Results 

7. Affiliated Party Purchases 

[FR Doc. E8–2181 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XF48 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) 

Scallop Plan Team will meet in 

Anchorage, AK. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

February 21, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 5 

p.m. and February 22, 2008, from 9 a.m. 

to 2 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held a 

the Captain Cook Hotel, 939 W 5th 

Avenue, Club Room 2, 10th Floor, 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana Stram, Council staff; telephone: 

(907) 271–2809. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

agenda will include: Elect officers and 

discuss additional membership needs; 

discussion of current and future scallop 

survey techniques; central region 

assessment techniques, plans and 

management; review Status of Statewide 

Scallop Stocks and compile SAFE 

Report; discussion of ageing techniques 

and documentation issues; discussion of 

economics of the scallop fishery; and 

review and revise research priorities. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail 

Bendixen at (907) 271–2809 at least 7 

working days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: February 1, 2008. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–2119 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary; Defense 

Science Board 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee 

Meeting Date Change. 

SUMMARY: On Wednesday, 2 January 

2008 (73 FR 173) the Department of 

Defense announced a closed meeting of 

the Defense Science Board (DSB) Winter 

Quarterly. The meeting dates have been 

revised from February 6–7, 2008 to 

March 12–13, 2008. The meeting will be 

held at the Pentagon. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Debra Rose, Executive Officer, Defense 

Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, 

Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301–

3140, via e-mail at debra.rose@osd.mil, 

or via phone at (703) 571–0084. 

Dated: January 30, 2008. 

C.R. Choate, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 08–513 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

United States Marine Corps; Privacy 

Act of 1974; System of Records 

AGENCY: United States Marine Corps, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice to Delete Five System of 

Records Notices. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Marine Corps is 

deleting five systems of records notices 

from its inventory of records systems 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). 

DATES: Effective February 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to 

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, FOIA/ 

PA Section (CMC–ARSE), 2 Navy 

Annex, Room 1005, Washington, DC 

20380–1775. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Tracy D. Ross at (703) 614–4008. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Marine Corps’ records systems notices 

for records systems subject to the 

Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 

amended, have been published in the 

Federal Register and are available from 

the address above. 

The U.S. Marine Corps proposes to 

delete five systems of records notices 

from its inventory of record systems 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The changes 

to the system of records are not within 

the purview of subsection (r) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 

amended, which requires the 

submission of new or altered systems 

reports. 

Dated: January 30, 2008. 

C.R. Choate, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

Deletions 

MMN00039 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Citizen Band Radio Request and 

Authorization File (January 4, 2000, 65 

FR 291). 

Reason: Navy/Marine system of 

records notice NM05000–2, Program 

Management and Locator System 

printed in the Federal Register on 

January 24, 2008 with the number of 73 

FR 4194 is a joint Navy and Marine 

Corps system that covers this collection. 

Accordingly, all files have been merged 

into this system. 

MMN00040 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Individual Training Records/Training 

Related Matters (January 4, 2000, 65 FR 

291). 

Navy/Marine system of records notice 

NM05000–2, Program Management and 

Locator System printed in the Federal 

Register on January 24, 2008 with the 

number of 73 FR 4194 is a joint Navy 

and Marine Corps system that covers 

this collection. Accordingly, all files 

have been merged into this system. 

MMN00042 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Marine Corps Locator Files (February 

22, 1993, 58 FR 10630). 

Reason: Navy/Marine system of 

records notice NM05000–2, Program 

Management and Locator System 

printed in the Federal Register on 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES