You are on page 1of 2

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Notices 67137

A 10-minute reinterview of 3,100 included in the request for the Office of Corporation (collectively, petitioners),
people is conducted at each wave to Management and Budget approval of within the deadline specified in 19
ensure the accuracy of responses. this information collection. They also C.F.R. § 351.218(d)(1)(i). Petitioners
Reinterviews will require an additional will become a matter of public record. claimed interested party status under
1,553 burden hours in FY 2006. Dated: October 31, 2005. section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S.
producers of a domestic like product.
II. Method of Collection Madeleine Clayton,
We received a complete substantive
The SIPP is designed as a continuing Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
response from petitioners within the 30-
series of national panels of interviewed Information Officer.
day deadline specified in 19 C.F.R.
households that are introduced every [FR Doc. 05–21983 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am]
§ 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not
few years with each panel having BILLING CODE 3510–08–P receive responses from any respondent
durations of 1 to 5 years. All household interested parties. As a result, pursuant
members 15 years old or over are to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19
interviewed using regular proxy- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE C.F.R. § 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the
respondent rules. During the 2004 Department conducted expedited sunset
International Trade Administration
Panel, respondents are interviewed a reviews of the orders.
total of 15 times (15 waves) at 4-month (A–533–809, A–583–821)
intervals making the SIPP a longitudinal Scope of the Orders
survey. Sample people (all household Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from The products covered by these orders
members present at the time of the first India and Taiwan; Expedited Five-year are certain forged stainless steel flanges,
interview) who move within the country (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping Duty both finished and not finished,
and reasonably close to a SIPP primary Orders; Final Results generally manufactured to specification
sampling unit will be followed and AGENCY: Import Administration, ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such
interviewed at their new address. International Trade Administration, as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope
Individuals 15 years old or over who Department of Commerce. includes five general types of flanges.
enter the household after Wave 1 will be SUMMARY: On July 1, 2005, the They are weld–neck, used for butt–weld
interviewed; however, if these Department of Commerce (the line connections; threaded, used for
individuals move, they are not followed Department) initiated sunset reviews of threaded line connections; slip–on and
unless they happen to move along with the antidumping duty orders on forged lap joint, used with stub–ends/ butt–
a Wave 1 sample individual. stainless steel flanges (flanges) from weld line connections; socket weld,
India and Taiwan, pursuant to section used to fit pipe into a machined
III. Data
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as recession; and blind, used to seal off a
OMB Number: 0607–0905. line. The sizes of the flanges within the
Form Number: SIPP/CAPI Automated amended (the Act). On the basis of the
notice of intent to participate and an scope range generally from one to six
Instrument. inches; however, all sizes of the above–
Type of Review: Regular. adequate substantive response filed on
described merchandise are included in
Affected Public: Individuals or behalf of domestic interested parties and
the scope. Specifically excluded from
households. no responses from respondent interested
the scope of these orders are cast
Estimated Number of Respondents: parties, the Department conducted
stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless
97,650 people per wave. expedited sunset reviews. As a result of
Estimated Time Per Response: 30 steel flanges generally are manufactured
these sunset reviews, the Department
minutes per person on average. to specification ASTM A–351. The
finds that revocation of the antidumping
Estimated Total Annual Burden flanges subject to these orders are
duty orders on flanges from India and
Hours: 148,028. currently classifiable under subheadings
Taiwan would likely lead to
Estimated Total Annual Cost: The 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the
continuation or recurrence of dumping
only cost to respondents is their time. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
at the levels listed below in the section
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. United States (HTSUS). Although the
entitled ‘‘Final Results of Reviews.’’
Legal Authority: Title 13, United HTSUS subheading is provided for
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 2005.
States Code, Section 182. convenience and customs purposes, the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: written description of the merchandise
IV. Request for Comments Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, under review is dispositive of whether
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Office 6, Import Administration, or not the merchandise is covered by the
the proposed collection of information International Trade Administration, scope of the orders.
is necessary for the proper performance U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th These sunset reviews cover imports
of the functions of the agency, including Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, from all manufacturers and exporters of
whether the information shall have Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) flanges from India and Taiwan except
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 482–1391. Viraj Forgings, Ltd., for which the order
agency’s estimate of the burden SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on flanges from India was revoked.
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c) Background Analysis of Comments Received
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and On July 1, 2005, the Department All issues raised in this case are
clarity of the information to be initiated sunset reviews of the addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the antidumping duty orders on flanges Memorandum’’ from Stephen J. Claeys,
burden of the collection of information from India and Taiwan pursuant to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
on respondents, including through the section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini,
use of automated collection techniques of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
or other forms of information 38101 (July 1, 2005). The Department Administration, dated October 31, 2005
technology. received a notice of intent to participate (Decision Memorandum), which is
Comments submitted in response to from two domestic interested parties, hereby adopted by this notice. The
this notice will be summarized or Gerlin, Inc. and Maass Flange issues discussed in the Decision

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:35 Nov 03, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1
67138 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Notices

Memorandum include the likelihood of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE merchandise to the United States during
continuation or recurrence of dumping the period of investigation (POI) and
and the magnitude of the margin likely International Trade Administration that since the initiation of the
to prevail if the orders were revoked. (A–570–848) investigation they have never been
Parties can find a complete discussion affiliated with any company which
of all issues raised in these sunset Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From exported subject merchandise to the
reviews and the corresponding the People’s Republic of China: United States during the POI. Pursuant
recommendation in this public Initiation of Antidumping Duty New to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Xuzhou
memorandum, which is on file in room Shipper Reviews Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck further
B–099 of the main Department building. certified that their export activities are
In addition, a complete version of the Import Administration,
AGENCY: not controlled by the central
Decision Memorandum can be accessed International Trade Administration, government of the PRC.
directly on the Internet at http:// Department of Commerce. In accordance with 19 CFR
ia.ita.doc.gov, under the heading SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 351.214(b)(2)(iv), both Xuzhou Jinjiang
‘‘November 2005.’’ The paper copy and (‘‘Department’’) has received timely and Xiping Opeck, respectively,
electronic version of the Decision requests to conduct new shipper submitted documentation establishing
Memorandum are identical in content. reviews of the antidumping duty order the following: (1) the date on which it
on freshwater crawfish tail meat from first shipped subject merchandise for
Final Results of Reviews the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). export to the United States and the date
We determine that revocation of the In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d), on which the subject merchandise was
antidumping duty orders on flanges we are initiating reviews for Xuzhou first entered, or withdrawn from
from India and Taiwan would likely Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xuzhou warehouse, for consumption; (2) the
lead to continuation or recurrence of Jinjiang’’) and Xiping Opeck Food Co., volume of its first shipment, and in the
dumping at the following percentage Ltd. (‘‘Xiping Opeck’’).1 case of Xuzhou Jinjiang, documentation
weighted–average margins: EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 2005. of one subsequent shipment; and (3) the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: date of its first sale to an unaffiliated
Manufacturers/Export- Weighted–Average Stephen Berlinguette or Scott Fullerton, customer in the United States.
ers/Producers Margin (Percent) In addition, the Department
Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, conducted customs database queries to
India. confirm that both Xuzhou Jinjiang’s and
Mukand, Ltd. ................. 210.00 U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Sunstar Metals Ltd. ...... 210.00 Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Xiping Opeck’s shipments of subject
Bombay Forgings Pvt. merchandise had entered the United
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
Ltd. ............................ 210.00 482–3740 or (202) 482–1386, States for consumption and had been
Dynaforge Forgings suspended for antidumping duties.
respectively.
India, Ltd. .................. 210.00
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation of Reviews
Akai Impex Pvt., Ltd. .... 18.56
All Others ...................... 162.14 In accordance with section
Background
Taiwan. 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR
Enlin Steel Corporation The Department received timely
48.00 351.214(d)(1), and based on information
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe requests from Xuzhou Jinjiang on the record, we are initiating new
Co., Ltd. .................... 48.00 (September 30, 2005) and Xiping Opeck shipper reviews for Xuzhou Jinjiang and
Tay Precision Industries (September 21, 2005), pursuant to
Co., Ltd. .................... 48.00
Xiping Opeck. See Memoranda to the
All Others ...................... 48.00
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of File through James C. Doyle, New
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and in Shipper Initiation Checklists, dated
This notice also serves as the only accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for October 31, 2005. We intend to issue the
reminder to parties subject to new shipper reviews of the antidumping preliminary results of this review not
administrative protective orders (APO) duty order on freshwater crawfish tail later than 180 days after the date on
of their responsibility concerning the meat from the PRC. See Notice of which this review was initiated, and the
return or destruction of proprietary Amendment to Final Determination of final results of this review within 90
information disclosed under APO in Sales at Less than Fair Value and days after the date on which the
accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 351.305. Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater preliminary results were issued.
Timely notification of the return or Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Pursuant to 19 CFR
destruction of APO materials or Republic of China, 62 FR 48218 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the period of review
conversion to judicial protective order is (September 15, 1997). (‘‘POR’’) for a new shipper review,
hereby requested. Failure to comply Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) initiated in the month immediately
with the regulations and terms of an and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), in following the annual anniversary
APO is a violation which is subject to their requests for review, Xuzhou month, will be the one year period
sanction. Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck certified that immediately preceding the annual
We are issuing and publishing these they did not export the subject anniversary month. Therefore, the POR
results and notice in accordance with for the new shipper reviews of Xuzhou
1 The Department received a timely request for an
sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the administrative Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck will be
review from Xuzhou Jinjiang on September 1, 2004, through August 31,
Act. September 30, 2005. The Department notes that the
periods of review for both this new shipper review 2005.
Dated: October 31, 2005. It is the Department’s usual practice
and the above-referenced administrative review are
Joseph A. Spetrini, identical. Because both of these requested reviews in cases involving non–market
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import cover the same period of time (i.e., September 1, economies to require that a company
Administration. 2004, through August 31, 2005), the Department
intends to revisit whether both reviews are
seeking to establish eligibility for an
[FR Doc. E5–6127 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] statutorily required after the initiation of this new antidumping duty rate separate from the
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S shipper review. country–wide rate provide evidence of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:35 Nov 03, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1