71 FR 52770, September 7, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-427-810]
Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review:
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the countervailing duty (``CVD'') order on
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (``CORE'') from France
for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. We
preliminarily find that the net subsidy rate for the company under
review is de minimis. See the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section
of this notice, infra. Interested parties are invited to comment on
these preliminary results. (See the ``Public Comment'' section, infra).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the Federal
Register the CVD order on CORE from France. See Countervailing Duty
Order and Amendment to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Steel Products from France, 58 FR 43759 (August
17, 1993). On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of this CVD order. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR
44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 31, 2005, we received a timely
request for review from Duferco Coating S.A. and Sorral S.A.
(collectively, ``Duferco Sorral''), a French producer and exporter of
subject merchandise, and from the United States Steel Corporation
(``the petitioner'').
On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated an administrative
review of the CVD order on CORE from France, covering the period
January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. See
[[Page 52771]]
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28,
2005). On October 4, 2005, the Department issued a questionnaire to
Duferco Sorral, the Government of France (``the GOF''), and the
European Commission (``the EC''); we received their respective
questionnaire responses on December 7, 2005, and December 13, 2005. On
April 27, June 14, June 21, July 13, July 17, and August 4, 2006, we
issued supplemental questionnaires to Duferco Sorral, the GOF, and the
EC. We received supplemental questionnaire responses from Duferco
Sorral on May 25, July 7, July 26, and August 9, 2006; from the GOF on
May 25, July 7, July 26, and August 18, 2006; and from the EC on May
22, June 27, and July 20, 2006.
On April 17, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register
an extension of the deadline for the preliminary results. See
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France and the
Republic of Korea: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 19714 (April 17,
2006).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those
producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review
was specifically requested. The only company subject to this review is
Duferco Sorral. This review covers 18 programs.
Scope of the Order
This order covers cold-rolled (``cold-reduced'') carbon steel flat-
rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad,
plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc,
aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or
not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils
(whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of
0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness
less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and
which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of
4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters
and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under
item numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030,
7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060,
7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,
7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000,
7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000,
7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000,
7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090.
Included in this order are corrosion-resistant flat-rolled products
of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been
``worked after rolling'') for example, products which have been beveled
or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel
products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium
oxides, both tin and lead (``terne plate''), or both chromium and
chromium oxides (``tin-free steel''), whether or not painted, varnished
or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to
the metallic coating. Also excluded from this order are clad products
in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and
of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice
the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless
flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant
carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in
composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product
clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20[percnt]-60[percnt]-
20[percnt] ratio.
These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
Period of Review
The period for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2004,
through December 31, 2004.
Background and Methodology Information
I. Background
A. Company History
Duferco Sorral\1\ is wholly owned by Duferco Belgium S.A.
(``Duferco Belgium''), a Belgian holding company which is part of the
Duferco Group, a Swiss conglomerate. Duferco Sorral is affiliated with
Duferco S.A., a Swiss corporation that buys and sells steel products of
the Duferco Group, including Duferco Sorral. For sales of CORE to the
United States during the POR, Duferco Sorral sold the subject
merchandise to Duferco S.A., which then resold the products to Duferco
Steel, Inc., an affiliated U.S. sales company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Duferco is located in the Picardie region, which is the
northern part of France. Sorral is located in the Alsace region,
which is on the eastern border of France. There are 26 regions in
France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duferco Belgium purchased Duferco (formerly known as Beautor S.A.
(``Beautor''))\2\ and Sorral from Arcelor S.A. in 2003. Arcelor was
created through the merger of the French company Usinor S.A.
(``Usinor'')\3\ with the Luxembourg company Arbed S.A. and the Spanish
company Aceralia Corporacion Siderurgica S.A. The merger became
effective in February 2002, upon approval of the EC. As a condition for
the merger, the EC required the divestiture of certain holdings,
including Usinor's cold-rolling and electro-galvanizing facilities in
Beautor, France (i.e., Beautor) and the hot-dipped galvanized and
organic coating facilities in Strasbourg, France (i.e., Sorral).\4\ The
purpose of the divestiture was to ensure that Usinor/Arcelor no longer
controlled the facilities and could not hinder competition in the steel
industry. According to the EC's instructions, the purchaser of Beautor
and Sorral was to be a viable existing or potential competitor,
independent of the parties, and having the incentive to maintain and
develop the divested businesses as active competitive forces in
competition with the seller.\5\ Arcelor proposed Duferco Belgium as a
suitable purchaser for Beautor and Sorral. In February 2003, the EC
approved the private-to-private sale between Arcelor and Duferco
Belgium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Beautor S.A. was transformed into Duferco Coating S.A. on
March 31, 2004, by the shareholders. This transformation was
retroactive to October 1, 2003, the opening day of the company's
fiscal year.
\3\ Usinor, a formerly government-owned entity, was the only
company reviewed in the underlying investigation. See Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel
Products from France, 58 FR 37304 (July 9, 1993). Usinor was later
privatized between 1995 and 1997. See Issues and Decision Memorandum
for the Section 129 Determination: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from France; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review
of Countervailing Duty Order, dated October 24, 2003.
\4\ See ``Non-Confidential Version of the Commitments to the
European Commission: Case No. COMP/ECSC 1351 - Aceralia/Arbed/
Usinor,'' at 1-2, contained within the June 27, 2006, Memorandum to
the File concerning the Placement of Public Documents on the Record
of the Review. This public document is available on the public
record in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), located in the main
Commerce Building in room B-099.
\5\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Change-in-Ownership
[[Page 52772]]
As explained in the ``Company History'' section above, Duferco
Belgium purchased Beautor and Sorral, previously Usinor facilities,
from Arcelor. The Department has previously determined that Usinor
received countervailable subsidies. See Issues and Decision Memorandum
for the Section 129 Determination: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel
Flat Products from France; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of
Countervailing Duty Order, dated October 24, 2003. In this review,
Duferco Sorral reported that Beautor received subsidies over a 15-year
Average Useful Life (``AUL'').
For purposes of these preliminarily results, we find that the
benefits from any allocable, non-recurring, pre-sale subsidies to
Beautor and Sorral from the GOF and the EC are fully extinguished prior
to the POR. Therefore, as this change in ownership could have no impact
on any countervailable subsidy benefits in the POR, we are not making
any findings in this review as to the nature or terms of this sale.
II. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Allocation Period
Under 19 CFR 351.524(b), non-recurring subsidies are allocated over
a period corresponding to the AUL of the renewable physical assets used
to produce the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2),
there is a rebuttable presumption that the AUL will be taken from the
U.S. Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation
Range System (``IRS Tables''), as updated by the Department of
Treasury. For the subject merchandise, the IRS Tables prescribe an AUL
of 15 years. No interested party has claimed that the AUL of 15 years
is unreasonable.
Further, for non-recurring subsidies, we have applied the ``0.5
percent expense test'' described in 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). Under this
test, we compare the amount of subsidies approved under a given program
in a particular year to sales (total sales or total export sales, as
appropriate) for the same year. If the amount of subsidies is less than
0.5 percent of the relevant sales, then the benefits are allocated to
the year of receipt rather than allocated over the AUL period.
Analysis of Programs
I. Program Preliminarily Determined Not To Confer Countervailable
Benefits During the POR
A. European Regional Development Fund
The European Regional Development Fund (``ERDF'') was created
pursuant to the authority in Article 130 of the Treaty of Rome to
reduce regional disparities in socio-economic performance within the
European Community. The ERDF program provides grants to companies
located within regions that meet the criteria of Objective 1
(underdeveloped regions), Objective 2 (declining industrial regions),
or Objective 5(b) (declining agricultural regions). Duferco Sorral
reported that Beautor was approved for an ERDF grant under Objective 2
in 1998 and 1999.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Duferco Sorral's December 7, 2005, questionnaire
response at 12. See also the GOF's December 7, 2005, questionnaire
response at ``European Development Regional Fund'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Pasta from Italy Investigation, the Department determined
that ERDF grants constitute a countervailable subsidy within the
meaning of section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''). See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 30288, 30294 (June 14, 1996) (``Pasta
from Italy Investigation''); see also Certain Pasta from Italy: Final
Results of the Seventh Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR
70657 (December 7, 2004) (``Pasta from Italy 7\th\ Review''), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``European Regional
Development Fund Grants'' within ``Programs Determined to Confer
Subsidies During the POR'' section. Specifically, the Department
determined that the ERDF grants are a direct transfer of funds from the
government bestowing a benefit in the amount of the grant within the
meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. The ERDF grants were also
found to be regionally specific within the meaning of section
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. In the Pasta from Italy Investigation, we
determined that the ERDF grants are non-recurring benefits. In this
review, no new information was provided on this program that would
warrant reconsideration of our determination that these grants confer a
countervailable subsidy or cause us to depart from treating the grants
as non-recurring.
Therefore, consistent with the Pasta from Italy Investigation and
Pasty from Italy 7\th\ Review, we are treating Beautor's ERDF grants as
non-recurring. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), we have applied
the ``0.5 percent expense test.''\7\ The calculations demonstrate that
the total amount approved for each grant is less than 0.5 percent of
Beautor's relevant sales (i.e., total sales) for the respective year in
which each grant was approved. Because the amount of subsidies is less
than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales, we have expensed the benefit
from each ERDF grant in the year of receipt rather than allocate the
benefits over the AUL period. See the August 31, 2006, Memorandum to
the File concerning the Preliminary Calculations for the 2004
Administrative Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from France.\8\ Therefore, no benefit from the ERDF grants was
conferred to Duferco Sorral during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For more information, see ``Allocation Period,'' supra.
\8\ A public version of the document is available on the public
record in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Countervailable
A. Worker Training Contracts\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In prior cases, the Department found Worker Training
Contracts not to be countervailable. See Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip
in Coils from France, 64 FR 30774, 30782 (June 8, 1999) (``Sheet and
Strip from France'') at ``Work/Training Contracts.'' See also Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, 64 FR 73277, 73282 (``CTL
France'') at ``Investment/Operating Subsidies.'' If a program is
determined to be non-countervailable in a previous proceeding, the
Department will not normally reconsider such a determination in
future proceedings absent evidence potentially contradicting that
determination. We preliminarily find that there is no information on
the record of the instant case, including this segment of the
proceeding, that warrants a change to our earlier finding that this
program is not specific and, therefore, not countervailable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Seine-Normandy Water Agency Assistance
The Seine-Normandy Water Agency (``SNWA''), a public institution
with financial autonomy,\10\ is administered jointly by the Ministries
of the Environment and Finance.\11\ The mission of SNWA, one of six
water agencies in France, is to reduce and prevent pollution of the
Seine River. To that end, SNWA provides financial assistance in the
form of grants and loans to companies located along the Seine for
projects dedicated to protecting, increasing, and improving the water
resources, attaining quality requirements, and protecting against
flooding (collectively referred hereto as ``pollution prevention
program'').\12\ Pursuant to Article 14 and Article 14-1 of the Water
Law of 1964, all polluting
[[Page 52773]]
companies having plants located in the basin of the Seine River,
regardless of their sector of activity, have the legal obligation to
enter into the SNWA consortium and fund its activities through the
payment of levies.\13\ Article 14-1 establishes that the levies are
proportional to the quantity of polluting waste the company is likely
to produce during the production cycle. Companies which are in arrears
are ineligible to receive assistance for pollution reduction projects.
Duferco Sorral reported that Beautor received grants and long-term
loans from SNWA over a 15-year AUL, and that Duferco Sorral itself
received a grant in 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Article L-213-5 of the Environment Code at Annex 1
contained in the GOF's May 25, 2006, questionnaire response.
\11\ See Chapter 19 entitled ``Seine-Normandy Basin, France'' of
UNESCO's study ``The 1\st\ World Water Development Report: Water for
People, Water for Life,'' at footnote 17 on page 438, which is
contained within the June 27, 2006, Memorandum to the File
concerning ``Placement of Public Documents on the Record of the
Review.''
\12\ See the GOF's July 7, 2006, questionnaire response at Annex
2.
\13\ See the GOF's May 25, 2006, questionnaire response at Annex
1 for Article 14 and 14-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We analyzed whether the benefits provided by SNWA's pollution
prevention program are specific ``in law or fact'' within the meaning
of section 771(5A) of the Act. We preliminarily determine that, under
section 771(5A)(D)(ii) of the Act, the program is not de jure specific
according to the criteria for determining which companies are eligible
for benefits. These criteria are set forth in the Water Act of 1964 and
companion legislation.
We next examined whether the pollution prevention assistance
distributed by SNWA is de facto specific. Pursuant to section
771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act, a subsidy is de facto specific if one or
more of the following factors exists: (1) the number of enterprises,
industries, or groups which use a subsidy is limited; (2) there is
predominant use of a subsidy by an enterprise, industry, or group; (3)
an enterprise, industry, or group receives a disproportionately large
amount of the subsidy; or (4) the manner in which the authority
providing a subsidy has exercised discretion indicates that an
enterprise, industry, or group is favored over others.
For the Picardie region,\14\ where Beautor/Duferco is located, the
GOF reported the number of companies which received assistance from
SNWA for the years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. With the exception of
2003, in which 47 companies received assistance, 60 companies or more
were recipients of assistance provided by SNWA in each of the other
years.\15\ The GOF also reported that no applicant was rejected. The
amount of assistance provided to the steel industry ranged from a high
of 8.5 percent in 2001 to a low of 0.4 percent in 2003.\16\ During the
POR, steel companies received assistance of [euro] 69,000 for surface
treatment, which was approximately 2.0 percent of the assistance
provided by SNWA to companies in the Picardie region.\17\ For 2004, the
industrial groups located in the eight regions that compose SNWA's
territory received pollution assistance totaling [euro] 48.6 million,
of which [euro] 25.8 million was loans and [euro] 22.8 million was
grants.\18\ Economic activity along the Seine River is diverse,
consisting of the agro-food, automobile, chemical, metallurgy, oil
refining, and paper industries in addition to farming and wine-
production.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Picardie is one of the 26 regions of France and one of the
eight regions in SNWA's territory.
\15\ See the GOF's July 26, 2006, questionnaire response at
``Assistance provided by the Seine-Normandy Water Agency'' section.
\16\ See the GOF's July 26, 2006, questionnaire response for
2001 at Annex 1, and July 7, 2006, questionnaire response for 2004
at Annex 1.
\17\ See the GOF's May 25, 2006, questionnaire response
``Assistance provided by the Seine-Normandy Water Agency'' section
and Annex 2.
\18\ See August 10, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning
``Placement of Public Documents on the Record of the Review - Seine-
Normandy Water Agency's Annual Report.''
\19\ See Chapter 19 entitled ``Seine-Normandy Basin, France'' of
UNESCO's study ``The 1\st\ World Water Development Report: Water for
People, Water for Life,'' at page 432, which is contained within the
June 27, 2006, Memorandum to the File concerning ''Placement of
Public Documents on the Record of the Review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this basis of these facts, we preliminarily find that the
pollution prevention program is not limited based on the number of
users nor is Duferco Sorral or the steel industry a predominant or
disproportionate recipient of the total funding. Accordingly, we
preliminarily determine that this program is not specific and,
therefore, we do not reach the issue of whether there is a financial
contribution or benefit. Therefore, this program does not confer
countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the
Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Even if we were preliminarily to determine that the program
was specific for years prior to 2001, the grants which Beautor
received would have been expensed in the year of receipt with no
benefits allocable to the POR and the benefit provided by the long-
term loans is less than 0.005 percent of Duferco Sorral's total
sales for the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Be Used
We preliminarily determine that Duferco Sorral did not apply for or
receive benefits under these programs during the POR:
A. Investment Subsidies
B. Long-Term Loans from Fonds de Developpement Economique et Social
and Caisse Francaise de Developpement Industriel
C. Assistance from Delegation a l'Amenagement du Territoire et a
l'Action Regionale
D. Financing from the Caisse des Depots et Consignations
E. Preferential Loans from Local Economic (Regional) Development
Agencies
F. Regional Development Incentives
G. European Coal and Steel Community Article 54 Loans
H. European Social Fund
I. ECSC Article 56 Conversion Loans, Interest Rebates, and
Restructuring Grants
J. Export Financing
K. Grants from the River Dock Agency
L. Loans from the Ministry of Research & Industry
M. New Community Investment Loans
N. Tax Subsidies under Article 39
O. Youthstart.
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated a
subsidy rate for Duferco Sorral for calendar year 2004. We
preliminarily determine that the net countervailable subsidy rate is
0.00 percent ad valorem.
If the final results of this review remain the same as these
preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (``CBP'') within 15 days of publication of the
final results of this review, to liquidate without regard to
countervailing duties all shipments of subject merchandise produced by
Duferco Sorral entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. The Department will
also instruct CBP not to collect cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties on all shipments of the subject merchandise
produced by Duferco Sorral, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of
this review.
We will also instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for
non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-
wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit
rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this
order are those established in the most recently completed
administrative proceeding. See Certain Steel Products from France:
Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Determination of
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 64 FR 67561 (December 2, 1999).
These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of
a company assigned these rates is requested.
[[Page 52774]]
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public
announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary
results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must
be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs,
must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for
filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department.
Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit
with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs
are requested to provide to the Department copies of the public version
on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310,
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested
parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for
submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure
of proprietary information under administrative protective order no
later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer
becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date
the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. See 19 CFR
351.305(b)(3). The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of
arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs.
This administrative review is issued and published in accordance
with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-14847 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S