Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices 30071

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We

made COS adjustments by deducting

direct selling expenses incurred on

home market sales (credit expenses) and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses

(credit expenses).

Revocation

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2),

NHCI requested revocation of the

antidumping duty order, in part. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), the

request was accompanied by

certifications that NHCI had not sold the

subject merchandise at less than normal

value during the current period of

review and would not do so in the

future. NHCI further certified that it sold

the subject merchandise to the United

States in commercial quantities for a

period of at least three consecutive

years. NHCI also agreed to immediate

reinstatement of the antidumping duty

order, as long as any exporter or

producer is subject to the order, if the

Department concludes that NHCI,

subsequent to the revocation, sold the

subject merchandise at less than normal

value.

We must determine, as a threshold

matter, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.222, whether the company

requesting revocation sold the subject

merchandise in commercial quantities

in each of the three years forming the

basis of the request. See Pure

Magnesium From Canada; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination Not to

Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 12977,

12978 (March 16, 1999) (‘‘Fifth

Review’’) and Pure Magnesium From

Canada; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Determination Not to Revoke Order in

Part, 64 FR 50489, 50490 (September 17,

1999) (‘‘Sixth Review’’). In the Fifth

Review, we determined that NHCI did

not sell the subject merchandise in the

United States in commercial quantities

in any of the three years cited by NHCI

to support its request for revocation (the

administrative review years 1994–1995,

1995–1996, and 1996–1997). In the

Sixth Review, we determined that NHCI

did not sell the subject merchandise in

the United States in commercial

quantities in two of the three years cited

by NHCI to support its request for

revocation (the administrative review

years 1995–1996 and 1996–1997).

Consistent with our findings in the Fifth

Review and Sixth Review, we

preliminarily find that NHCI does not

qualify for revocation of the order on

pure magnesium because it does not

have three consecutive years of sales in

commercial quantities at not less than

normal value, as provided for in 19 CFR

351.222(b) and (e)(1)(ii). In particular,

NHCI’s sales in 1996–1997 were not in

commercial quantities. (See the

Memorandum from Team to Susan

Kuhbach, ‘‘Commercial Quantities,’’

dated April 20, 2000, for a discussion of

NHCI’s selling activity).

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that NHCI’s

margin for the period August 1, 1998,

through July 31, 1999, is zero.

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication of

this notice. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 42 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Issues raised in the

hearing will be limited to those raised

in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested

parties may submit case briefs within 30

days of the date of publication of this

notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be

limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed not later than 35

days after the date of publication of this

notice.

Parties who submit case briefs or

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument with an

electronic version included. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review

subsequently, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written briefs or hearing. The

Department will issue final results of

this review within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of pure magnesium from Canada

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in

the final results of this administrative

review (except no cash deposit will be

required for the company if its

weighted-average margin is de minimis,

i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less than fair

value investigation or a previous review,

the cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, the

previous review, or the original

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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 21 percent,

the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in Pure

Magnesium from Canada; Amendment

of Final Determination of Sales At Less

Than Fair Value and Order in

Accordance With Decision on Remand

(58 FR 62643, November 29, 1993).

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing these

results in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11600 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–810]

Certain Welded ASTM A–312 Stainless

Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On December 28, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded ASTM A–312 stainless steel

pipe (WSSP) from Korea (64 FR 72645).

The merchandise covered by this order

is austenitic stainless steel pipe that

meets the standards and specifications

set forth by the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the

30072 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices

welded form of chromium-nickel pipe

designated ASTM A–312. The review

covers one manufacturer. The period of

review is December 1, 1997 through

November 30, 1998.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes in the margin calculations. The

final weighted-average dumping margin

for the reviewed firm is listed below in

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Gilgunn or Mark Hoadley,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0648 and (202)

482–0666, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

Background

On December 28, 1999, the

Department published the preliminary

results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on WSSP from

Korea (64 FR 72645). We invited parties

to comment on our preliminary results

of review. The Department has

conducted this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

order consists of austenitic stainless

steel pipe that meets the standards and

specifications set forth by the American

Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) for the welded form of

chromium-nickel pipe designated

ASTM A–312. WSSP is produced by

forming stainless steel flat-rolled

products into a tubular configuration

and welding along the seam. WSSP is a

commodity product generally used as a

conduit to transmit liquids or gases.

Major applications for WSSP include,

but are not limited to, digester lines,

blow lines, pharmaceutical lines,

petrochemical stock lines, brewery

process and transport lines, general food

processing lines, automotive paint lines

and paper process machines. Imports of

these products are currently classifiable

under the following United States

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

subheadings: 7306.40.5005,

7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5045,

7306.40.5060 and 7306.40.5075.

Although these subheadings include

both pipes and tubes, the scope of this

order is limited to welded austenitic

stainless steel pipes. Although HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

administrative review are addressed in

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memo) from Joseph A.

Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated April 26, 2000,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

A list of the issues which parties have

raised and to which we have responded,

all of which are in the Decision Memo,

is attached to this notice as an

Appendix. 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, located in room

B–099 of the main Department of

Commerce Building. In addition, a

complete version of the Decision Memo

can be accessed directly on the Web at

www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/

records/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 comments

received, we have made certain changes

in the margin calculations. We have also

corrected certain programming and

clerical errors in our preliminary

results. These changes and corrections

are discussed in the relevant sections of

the Decision Memo, accessible in B–099

and on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn/.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margin

exists for the period December 1, 1997

through November 30, 1998:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Se ̆AH Steel Corporation Ltd. ........ 1.02

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we

have calculated exporter/importerspecific assessment rates. We divided

the total dumping margins for the

reviewed sales by the total entered value

of those reviewed sales for each

importer. We will direct Customs to

assess the resulting percentage margins

against the entered Customs values for

the subject merchandise on each of that

importer’s entries under the relevant

order during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of WSSP from Korea entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rates for the reviewed company will be

the rate shown above; (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, a prior 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 7.00

percent. This rate is the ‘‘All Others’’

rate from the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

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 doubled

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Notices 30073

and terms of an APO is a violation

which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

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

Act.

Dated: April 26, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

List of Issues

1. Cost of Production.

2. Model Matching.

3. Programming and Clerical Errors.

[FR Doc. 00–11737 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

amended export trade certificate of

review, Application No. 88–3A012.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an amendment to the Export

Trade Certificate of Review granted to

National Tooling & Machining

Association (‘‘NTMA’’) on October 18,

1988. Notice of issuance of the

Certificate was published in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1988 (53 FR

43140).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morton Schnabel, Director, Office of

Export Trading Company Affairs,

International Trade Administration,

(202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free

number) or at E-mail at

oetca@ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21)

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to

issue Export Trade Certificates of

Review. The regulations implementing

Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325

(1999).

The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuing

this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),

which requires the Department of

Commerce to publish a summary of the

certification in the Federal Register.

Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15

CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by

the Secretary’s determination may,

within 30 days of the date of this notice,

bring an action in any appropriate

district court of the United States to set

aside the determination on the ground

that the determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended Certificate

Export Trade Certificate of Review

No. 88–00012, was issued to NTMA on

October 18, 1988 (53 FR 43140, October

25, 1988) and previously amended on

December 4, 1989 (54 FR 51914,

December 19, 1989), and September 2,

1993 (58 FR 47868, September 13,

1993).

NTMA’s Export Trade Certificate of

Review has been amended to include

the attached list of companies as

‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate within the

meaning of section 325.2(1) of the

Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)).

A copy of the amended certificate will

be kept in the International Trade

Administration’s Freedom of

Information Records Inspection Facility,

Room 4102, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Morton Schnabel,

Director, Office of Export Trading, Company

Affairs.

Attachment

b & b Tool Company, Inc., Rockford, IL

A & A Industries, Inc., Peabody, MA

A & A Machine Company, Inc.,

Southampton, PA

A & A Machine Shop, Inc., La Marque,

TX

A & B Machine, Van Nuys, CA

A & B Machine Shop, Rockford, IL

A & B Tool & Manufacturing Corp.,

Toledo, OH

A & D Precision, Fremont, CA

A & E Custom Manufacturing, Kansas

City, KS

A & E Machine Shop, Inc., Lone Star,

TX

A & G Machine, Inc., Auburn, WA

A & S Tool & Die Company, Inc.,

Kernersville, NC

A A Precisioneering, Inc., Meadville, PA

A B A Division, Manchester, CT

A B C O Tool & Engineering, Phoenix,

AZ

A B Heller, Inc., Milford, MI

A B N Industrial Co., Inc., Buena Park,

CA

A B R Enterprises Inc., South Pasadena,

CA

A C Machine, Inc., Akron, OH

A C Mfg. Co. Inc., Malden, MA

A E Cole Die & Engraving, Columbus,

OH

A E Machine Works, Inc., Houston, TX

A F C Tool Company, Inc., Dayton, OH

A I M Tool & Die, Grand Haven, MI

A M C Precision, Inc., N. Tonawanda,

NY

A M Design, E. Canton, OH

A M Machine Company, Inc., Baltimore,

MD

A Mfg., Grand Terrace, CA

A S C Corporation, Owings Mills, MD

A T G, Inc., Houston, TX

A. C. Cut-Off, Inc., Azusa, CA

A+ Engineering, Ipswich, MA

A–G Tool & Die, Miamitown, OH

A-Line Tool & Die, Inc., Louisville, KY

A-RanD, Inc., Phoenix, AZ

A–W Engineering Company, Inc., Santa

Fe Springs, CA

Abbott Machine & Tool, Inc., Toledo,

OH

Abbott Tool, Inc., Toledo, OH

Ability Tool Company, Rockford, IL

Able Wire EDM, Inc., Brea, CA

Abrams Airborne Manufacturing,

Tucson, AZ

Abrasive Machining Inc., Rockford, IL

Absolute Manufacturing, N. Chelmsford,

MA

Absolute Turning & Machine, Tucson,

AZ

Acadiana Hydraulic Works, Inc., New

Iberia, LA

Accu Die & Mold Inc., Stevensville, MI

Accu-Right Laser Corporation, Villa

Ridge, MO

Accu-Roll, Inc., Rochester, NY

Accudynamics, Inc., Middleboro, MA

Accudyne Aerospace & Defense, Palm

Bay, FL

Accura Industries, Inc., Rochester, NY

Accurate Grinding & Mfg. Corp., Los

Angeles, CA

Accurate Grinding Corp., Warwick, RI

Accurate Machine Co. Inc.,

Indianapolis, IN

Accurate MachineWorks, Inc., Newport

Beach, CA

Accurate Machining, Mukilteo, WA

Accurate Manufacturing Company,

Glendale, CA

Accurate Manufacturing Company,

Alsip, IL

Accurate Products Co., Tucson, AZ

Accurite Machine & Mfg. Inc.,

Louisville, KY

Accutronics, Inc., Littleton, CO

AccuCraft, New Haven, MO

AccuRounds, Avon, MA

Ace Manufacturing Company,

Cincinnati, OH

Ace Specialty Company, Inc.,

Tonawanda, NY

Ackley Machine Corporation,

Moorestown, NJ

Acklin Stamping, Toledo, OH

Acme Brass & Machine Works, Inc.,

Kansas City, MO

Acra Aerospace, Inc., Anaheim, CA

Acraloc Corporation, Oak Ridge, TN

Acro Industries, Inc., Rochester, NY

Acro Tool & Die Company, Inc., Akron,

OH

Actco Tool & Mfg. Co., Meadville, PA

Action Die & Tool Inc., Wyoming, MI

Action Mold & Machining, Inc., Grand

Rapids, MI

Action Mold & Tool Co., Anaheim, CA

Action Precision Grinding Inc., North

Tonawanda, NY