Solid Urea from the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 29736-29738 [E8-11520]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29736
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 100 / Thursday, May 22, 2008 / Notices
percent. On the skyline and helicopter
areas, trees greater than 16 inches dbh
would be harvested. Limbs and tops in
the skyline and helicopter areas would
be lopped and scattered to a depth less
than 18 inches in height. Skyline
yarding would require one end
suspension, with full suspension over
intermittent or perennial streams. Dead
conifers would be harvested from
Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.
Equipment restriction zone widths
within Riparian Habitat Conservation
Areas would be established based on the
stream type and steepness of the slope
adjacent to the streams. Snags would be
retained in snag retention areas, which
are approximately ten acres in size, on
approximately ten percent of the project
area. Harvest activities would not occur
within the snag retention areas except
for operability (safety) reasons.
Approximately 33 miles of temporary
roads would be constructed.
Approximately 30 acres (fourteen
landings) of helicopter landings would
be constructed. Excess fuels on landings
would be piled, a fireline constructed
around the piles, and the piles burned.
Following completion of the project, the
temporary roads and landings would be
subsoiled, reforested, and closed.
Approximately 17,474 acres would be
reforested with conifer seedlings in
widely spaced clusters to emulate a
naturally established forest. The areas
would be reforested with a mixture of
native species.
The Moonlight and Antelope
Complex fires impacted twenty-five
California spotted owl Protected
Activity Centers (PACs). According to
the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment FSEIS and ROD (2004),
page 37, after a stand-replacing event,
the habitat conditions are evaluated
within a 1.5 mile radius around the
activity center to identify opportunities
for re-mapping the PAC. If there is
insufficient suitable habitat for
designating a PAC within the 1.5 mile
radius, the PAC may be removed from
the network.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Possible Alternatives
In addition to the proposed action, a
no action alternative would be analyzed.
Additional alternatives may be
developed and analyzed throughout the
environmental analysis.
Lead and Cooperating Agencies
The USDA, Forest Service is the lead
agency for this proposal.
Responsible Official
Alice B. Carlton, Plumas National
Forest Supervisor, PO Box 11500,
Quincy, CA 95971.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
Nature of Decision To Be Made
The decision to be made is whether
to: (1) Implement the proposed action;
(2) meet the purpose and need for action
through some other combination of
activities; or, (3) take no action at this
time.
concerns on the proposed action,
comments on the draft EIS should be as
specific as possible. It is also helpful if
comments refer to specific pages or
chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the
adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits
of the alternatives formulated and
discussed in the statement. Reviewers
may wish to refer to the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for
implementing the procedural provisions
of the National Environmental Policy
Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing
these points.
Comments received, including the
names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposal and will
be available for public inspection.
Scoping Process
Scoping is conducted to determine
the significant issues that will be
addressed during the environmental
analysis. Comments that were received
for the Moonlight Fire Recovery and
Restoration Project and the Wheeler Fire
Recovery and Restoration Project will be
considered in the combined analysis.
Additional comments on the Moonlight
and Wheeler Fires Recovery and
Restoration Project will also be
considered. Scoping comments will be
most helpful if received by May 23,
2008.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22;
Forest Service Handbook 1909,15, Section
21.
Permits or Licenses Required
An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke
Management Plan are required by local
agencies.
Dated: May 13, 2008.
Mark Beaulieu,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E8–11222 Filed 5–21–08; 8:45 am]
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft EIS will be prepared for
comment. The comment period on the
draft EIS will be 45 days from the date
the Environmental Protection Agency
publishes the notice of availability in
the Federal Register.
The Forest Service believes, at this
early stage, it is important to give
reviewers notice of several court rulings
related to public participation in the
environmental review process. First,
reviewers of draft EISs must structure
their participation in the environmental
review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts an agency to the
reviewer’s position and contentions.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,
environmental objections that could be
raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are
not raised until after completion of the
final EIS, may be waived or dismissed
by the courts. City of Rangoon v. Hodel,
803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and
Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).
Because of these court rulings, it is very
important that those interested in this
proposed action participate by the close
of the 45 day comment period so that
substantive comments and objections
are made available to the Forest Service
at a time when it can meaningfully
consider them and respond to them in
the final EIS.
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–821–801)
Solid Urea from the Russian
Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New–Shipper
Review and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 26, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of a new–shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on solid urea
from the Russian Federation. The solid
urea subject to this review was
produced and exported by MCC
EuroChem (EuroChem). The period of
review (POR) is July 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2006. Based on our
analysis of comments received, we have
not made any changes to our calculation
of EuroChem’s antidumping–duty
margin. Therefore, our final results are
identical to our published preliminary
results. The final results are listed below
in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of
the New–Shipper Review’’.
Furthermore, we are rescinding the
concurrent administrative review of the
antidumping duty order because it
covers the same entry that we reviewed
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 100 / Thursday, May 22, 2008 / Notices
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
in the context of the new–shipper
review.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
May 22, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0410 and (202)
482–1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 26, 2007, the
Department published the preliminary
results of the new–shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on solid urea
from the Russian Federation. See Solid
Urea From the Russian Federation:
Preliminary Results and Extension of
Time Limit for Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty New–Shipper
Review, 72 FR 72988 (December 26,
2007) (Preliminary Results). On
February 27, 2008, we issued a post–
preliminary analysis decision
memorandum and margin recalculations
concerning our sales–below-cost
investigation of EuroChem.
On March 21, 2008, the Ad Hoc
Committee of Domestic Nitrogen
producers (the petitioner) withdrew its
sales–below-cost allegation and
requested that the Department terminate
the cost investigation. On March 24,
2008, EuroChem submitted a letter
arguing that the Department should not
terminate the cost investigation. After
considering all comments, on March 27,
2008, we terminated the cost
investigation. See Memorandum from
Minoo Hatten to Laurie Parkhill dated
March 27, 2008.
On March 28, 2008, we received a
case brief from the petitioner. On April
4, 2008, we received a rebuttal brief
from EuroChem. Although the petitioner
and EuroChem had requested a hearing,
both parties withdrew their requests for
a hearing on April 15, 2008.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
The merchandise under review is
solid urea, a high–nitrogen content
fertilizer which is produced by reacting
ammonia with carbon dioxide. The
product is currently classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the
United States (HTSUS) item number
3102.10.00.00. Previously such
merchandise was classified under item
number 480.3000 of the Tariff
Schedules of the United States.
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this new–
shipper review are addressed in the
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’
(Decision Memorandum) from Stephen
J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated May 15, 2008,
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which the parties
have raised and to which we have
responded is attached to this notice as
an appendix. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised
and corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum, which is on
file in Import Administration’s Central
Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main
Department building. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum is available on the
Internet at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/
index.html. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Post–Preliminary
Results
Because we terminated the cost
investigation, the only change we have
made has been to revert to the margin
calculations we used for the published
preliminary results in which we did not
perform the cost test. See Preliminary
Results, 72 FR at 72991, and the
preliminary results analysis
memorandum for EuroChem dated
December 17, 2007, for our calculation
of EuroChem’s margin.
Final Results of the New–Shipper
Review
We determine that the weighted–
average margin on solid urea from the
Russian Federation produced and
exported by EuroChem for the period
July 1, 2006, through December 31,
2006, is zero percent.
Rescission of Administrative Review
On August 20, 2007, we initiated an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on solid urea
from Russia for the period July 1, 2006,
through June 30, 2007. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 72 FR 48613 (August
20, 2007).
Because we have analyzed the entry
covered by the administrative review in
the context of this concurrent new–
shipper review, we are rescinding the
administrative review.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29737
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department
will issue assessment instructions for
EuroChem directly to CBP 15 days after
the date of publication of these final
results.
Because we found no margin for the
U.S. sale subject to this new–shipper
review, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the appropriate entry without
regard to antidumping duties.
Cash–Deposit Requirements
The following cash–deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
the new–shipper review, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the
cash–deposit rate for subject
merchandise both manufactured and
exported by EuroChem will be zero; 2)
for previously reviewed or 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
original less–than-fair–value (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 64.93
percent, the all–others rate established
in the LTFV investigation. See Urea
From the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics; Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR 19557
(May 26, 1987). These cash–deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also 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.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
29738
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 100 / Thursday, May 22, 2008 / Notices
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to an administrative
protective order of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of
proprietary information disclosed under
such an order in accordance with 19
CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification
of the return or destruction of
administrative–protective-order
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an administrative
protective order is a sanctionable
violation.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 15, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT FOR THE
FINAL RESULTS
Appendix
Comment 1: Qualification as a New
Shipper
Comment 2: Bona–Fide Transaction
[FR Doc. E8–11520 Filed 5–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–549–822, A–552–802
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from Thailand and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the Second Administrative
Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina
Itkin (Thailand) and Irene Gorelik
(Vietnam), AD/CVD Operations, Offices
2 and 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–0656 and (202) 482–6905,
respectively.
AGENCY:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2008, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published notices for the preliminary
results of the administrative reviews of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 May 21, 2008
the antidumping duty orders on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from
Thailand and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), covering the
period February 1, 2006, through
January 31, 2007. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 12088
(March 6, 2008); and Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission
and Final Partial Rescission of the
Second Administrative Review, 73 FR
12127 (March 6, 2008). The final results
for these administrative reviews are
currently due no later than July 7, 2008,
the next business day after 120 days
from the date of publication of the
preliminary results of review.
Jkt 214001
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires theDepartment issue the final
results of an administrative review
within 120 days after the date on which
the preliminary results are published. If
it is not practicable to complete the
review within that time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend the deadline for
the final results to a maximum of 180
days after the date on which the
preliminary results are published.
With respect to shrimp from
Thailand, the Department requires
additional time to properly consider the
numerous and complex issues raised by
interested parties in their case briefs.
Similarly, with respect to shrimp from
Vietnam, the Department requires
additional time to consider the issues
raised in case briefs from multiple
interested parties, including the
calculation of the dumping margins and
the separate–rates status for numerous
non–mandatory companies.
Thus, it is not practicable to complete
these reviews within the original time
limit. Therefore, the Department is
extending the time limit for completion
of the final results of these reviews by
60 days, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results
are now due no later than September 2,
2008.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: May 15, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–11511 Filed 5–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–549–821]
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review:
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From
Thailand
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0665.
AGENCY:
Background
At the request of interested parties,
the Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on polyethylene retail carrier bags from
Thailand for the period August 1, 2006,
through July 31, 2007. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428, 54429
(September 25, 2007). On March 25,
2008, we published in the Federal
Register a notice extending the due date
for the completion of these preliminary
results of review from May 2, 2008, to
July 1, 2008. See Notice of Extension of
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags
from Thailand, 73 FR 15724 (March 25,
2008).
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires
the Department to make a preliminary
determination within 245 days after the
last day of the anniversary month of an
order for which a review is requested
and a final determination within 120
days after the date on which the
preliminary determination is published.
If it is not practicable to complete the
review within these time periods,
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows
the Department to extend the time limit
for the preliminary determination to a
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 100 (Thursday, May 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29736-29738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11520]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-821-801)
Solid Urea from the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review and Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 26, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of a new-shipper review
of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Russian
Federation. The solid urea subject to this review was produced and
exported by MCC EuroChem (EuroChem). The period of review (POR) is July
1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have not made any changes to our calculation of EuroChem's
antidumping-duty margin. Therefore, our final results are identical to
our published preliminary results. The final results are listed below
in the section entitled ``Final Results of the New-Shipper Review''.
Furthermore, we are rescinding the concurrent administrative review of
the antidumping duty order because it covers the same entry that we
reviewed
[[Page 29737]]
in the context of the new-shipper review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0410 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 26, 2007, the Department published the preliminary
results of the new-shipper review of the antidumping duty order on
solid urea from the Russian Federation. See Solid Urea From the Russian
Federation: Preliminary Results and Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty New-Shipper Review, 72 FR 72988
(December 26, 2007) (Preliminary Results). On February 27, 2008, we
issued a post-preliminary analysis decision memorandum and margin
recalculations concerning our sales-below-cost investigation of
EuroChem.
On March 21, 2008, the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen
producers (the petitioner) withdrew its sales-below-cost allegation and
requested that the Department terminate the cost investigation. On
March 24, 2008, EuroChem submitted a letter arguing that the Department
should not terminate the cost investigation. After considering all
comments, on March 27, 2008, we terminated the cost investigation. See
Memorandum from Minoo Hatten to Laurie Parkhill dated March 27, 2008.
On March 28, 2008, we received a case brief from the petitioner. On
April 4, 2008, we received a rebuttal brief from EuroChem. Although the
petitioner and EuroChem had requested a hearing, both parties withdrew
their requests for a hearing on April 15, 2008.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise under review is solid urea, a high-nitrogen content
fertilizer which is produced by reacting ammonia with carbon dioxide.
The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) item number 3102.10.00.00.
Previously such merchandise was classified under item number 480.3000
of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this new-shipper review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision
Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 15, 2008,
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which the
parties have raised and to which we have responded is attached to this
notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all
issues raised and corresponding recommendations in this public
memorandum, which is on file in Import Administration's Central Records
Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department building. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision Memorandum is available on the
Internet at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Post-Preliminary Results
Because we terminated the cost investigation, the only change we
have made has been to revert to the margin calculations we used for the
published preliminary results in which we did not perform the cost
test. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 72991, and the preliminary
results analysis memorandum for EuroChem dated December 17, 2007, for
our calculation of EuroChem's margin.
Final Results of the New-Shipper Review
We determine that the weighted-average margin on solid urea from
the Russian Federation produced and exported by EuroChem for the period
July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006, is zero percent.
Rescission of Administrative Review
On August 20, 2007, we initiated an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on solid urea from Russia for the period July 1,
2006, through June 30, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 72 FR 48613 (August 20, 2007).
Because we have analyzed the entry covered by the administrative
review in the context of this concurrent new-shipper review, we are
rescinding the administrative review.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue
assessment instructions for EuroChem directly to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of these final results.
Because we found no margin for the U.S. sale subject to this new-
shipper review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entry
without regard to antidumping duties.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of the new-shipper review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash-deposit rate for subject
merchandise both manufactured and exported by EuroChem will be zero; 2)
for previously reviewed or 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 original less-than-fair-value (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 64.93 percent, the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Urea From the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26, 1987). These cash-deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also 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.
[[Page 29738]]
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an
administrative protective order of their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information disclosed under such an order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return
or destruction of administrative-protective-order materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of an administrative
protective order is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 15, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Comment 1: Qualification as a New Shipper
Comment 2: Bona-Fide Transaction
[FR Doc. E8-11520 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S
