Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39367

material injury, or threat of material

injury does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing

Customs officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the effective date of the suspension

of liquidation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16108 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–815]

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe

From Taiwan: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination To Revoke

Order In Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results in the

antidumping duty administrative review

of certain welded stainless steel pipe

from Taiwan and determination to

revoke order in part.

SUMMARY: On December 22, 1999, the

Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) published the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain welded stainless steel pipe

from Taiwan. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise. The period of review

(‘‘POR’’) is December 1, 1997 through

November 30, 1998.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based upon our

verification of the data and analysis of

the comments received, we have made

changes in the margin calculation.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results of this review.

The final weighted-average dumping

margin is listed below in the section

titled ‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juanita H. Chen or Robert A. Bolling,

Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone

202–482–0409 (Chen) or 202–482–3434

(Bolling), fax 202–482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930

(‘‘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

(‘‘URAA’’). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Background

On December 30, 1992, the

Department published the antidumping

duty order on certain welded stainless

steel pipe from Taiwan. See Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From

Taiwan: Amended Final Determination

and Antidumping Order, 57 FR 62300

(December 30, 1992). On December 8,

1998, the Department published a notice

of opportunity to request administrative

review of this order for the period

December 1, 1997 through November

30, 1998. See Antidumping or

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity

to Request Administrative Review, 63

FR 67646 (December 8, 1998). Both Ta

Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ta

Chen’’), a Taiwan producer and exporter

of subject merchandise, and Petitioners,

Avesta Sheffield Pipe Co., Damascus

Tube Division, Damascus-Bishop Tube

Co., and the United Steelworkers of

America, AFL–CIO/CLC (collectively

‘‘Petitioners’’), timely requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of Ta Chen’s sales. Ta Chen also

requested revocation of the

Department’s antidumping duty order

on welded stainless steel pipe from

Taiwan. On January 25, 1999, in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act, the Department published in the

Federal Register a notice of initiation of

this antidumping duty administrative

review for the period December 1, 1997

through November 30, 1998 (64 FR

3682).

On December 22, 1999, the

Department published the preliminary

results of the administrative review in

the Federal Register. See Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from

Taiwan: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review

and Intent to Revoke in Part, 64 FR

71728 (December 22, 1999)

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On January 17,

2000 through January 25, 2000, the

Department conducted verification of Ta

Chen’s home market data at Ta Chen’s

headquarters in Tainan, Taiwan. On

April 4, 2000 through April 7, 2000, the

Department conducted verification of Ta

Chen’s U.S. sales data at the Long

Beach, California office of Ta Chen’s

U.S. affiliate, Ta Chen International

Corp. (‘‘TCI’’). We gave interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

our Preliminary Results. Ta Chen filed

a case brief on May 23, 2000; Petitioners

did not file a case brief or a rebuttal

brief. No hearing was requested or held.

The Department has conducted and

completed the administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

administrative review is certain welded

austenitic stainless steel pipe (‘‘WSSP’’)

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. The merchandise covered

by the scope of the order also includes

austenitic welded stainless steel pipes

made according to the standards of

other nations which are comparable to

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 WSSP are currently

classifiable under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings:

7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015,

7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062,

7306.40.5064, 7306.40.5085. Although

these subheadings include both pipes

and tubes, the scope of this review is

limited to welded austenitic stainless

steel pipes. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case brief to

this administrative review are addressed

39368 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

1At the Department’s request, on October 19,

1999, Ta Chen submitted volume and value data

supporting its statement that it sold subject

merchandise in commercially significant quantities

for three consecutive years.

in the June 19, 2000 Issues and Decision

Memorandum (‘‘Decision Memo’’) from

Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Import Administration, to

Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

A list of the issues raised and to which

we have responded, all of which are in

the Decision Memo, and a list of our

changes, 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 at the

U.S. Department of Commerce, in the

Central Records Unit, in room B–099. 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 Memorandum are identical in

content.

Use of Facts Available

In accordance with section 776 of the

Act, we have determined that the use of

facts available is appropriate for certain

portions of our analysis of Ta Chen. For

a discussion of our determination with

respect to this matter, see the Decision

Memo.

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market

The Department disregarded home

market below-cost sales that failed the

cost test in the final results of review.

Request for Revocation

On December 29, 1998, Ta Chen

submitted a request, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.222(e), that the Department

revoke the antidumping duty order on

WSSP from Taiwan with respect to Ta

Chen. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.222(e), Ta Chen certified that it sold

the subject merchandise at not less than

normal value for a three-year period,

including this review period, and that it

sold the subject merchandise in

commercially significant quantities to

the U.S. during each of these three

years.1 Ta Chen also stated that it would

not sell the subject merchandise at less

than normal value to the U.S. in the

future, and agreed to the reinstatement

of the antidumping order, as long as any

exporter or producer is subject to the

order, if the Department concludes that

Ta Chen sold the subject merchandise at

less than normal value.

In the fourth administrative review

period, Ta Chen had a de minimis

margin of 0.10 percent. See Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from

Taiwan: Final Results of Administrative

Review, 63 FR 38382 (July 16, 1998).

While no fifth administrative review

was conducted, the Department’s

regulations state at 19 CFR 351.222(d)

that the Department ‘‘need not have

conducted a review of an intervening

year.’’ In this sixth administrative

review period, Ta Chen had a de

minimis margin in the preliminary

results. See Preliminary Results, 64 FR

at 71734. Because we have determined

in the final results for this

administrative review that Ta Chen has

a de minimis margin (Final Results of

the Review, infra), Ta Chen meets the

requirement of three consecutive years

of zero or de minimis margins on WSSP,

and revocation of the order with respect

to Ta Chen is granted under 19 CFR

351.222(e).

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our verification and analysis

of the comments received, we have

made certain changes in the margin

calculation, as discussed in the Decision

Memo. In addition, we have made

corrections to certain clerical errors in

the margin calculation: (1) Errors in

currency denomination in the cost of

goods sold and the foreign unit price

calculations; and (2) an incorrect

variable in the selling expense

calculation, as discussed in the Analysis

Memorandum for Ta Chen (June 9,

2000).

Final Results of the Review

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margin

exists for the period December 1, 1997

through November 30, 1998:

CERTAIN WELDED STAINLESS STEEL

PIPE

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent)

Ta Chen .................................... 0.47

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’)

shall assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated

exporter/importer-specific assessment

rates. With respect to the constructed

export price sales, 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 any

resulting non-de minimis percentage

margins against the entered Customs

values for the subject merchandise on

each of that importer’s entries during

the review period.

The Department’s revocation decision

applies to all entries of subject

merchandise produced by Ta Chen and

that are also exported by Ta Chen,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after December 1,

1998. The Department will order the

suspension of liquidation ended for all

such entries and will instruct Customs

to release any cash deposits or bonds. If

applicable, the Department will further

instruct Customs to refund with interest

any cash deposits on entries made after

November 30, 1998.

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 certain WSSP from Taiwan 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

rate for Ta Chen will be zero percent,

except that for imports of subject

merchandise that are produced by Ta

Chen and also exported by Ta Chen,

cash deposits will no longer be required

and the suspension of liquidation will

cease for entries made on or after

December 1, 1998; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies

other than Ta Chen, the cash deposit

rate will continue to be the companyspecific 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 19.84

percent. This rate is the ‘‘all others’’ rate

from the LTFV investigations. See

Amended Final Determination and

Antidumping Duty Order; Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from

Taiwan, 57 FR 62300 (December 30,

1992).

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39369

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 the only

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 or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

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: June 19, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

Issues in Decision Memo:

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

1. Export Price or Constructed Export Price

Status

2. Packing Expenses—Allocation of Labor

Discussion of the Issues

1. EP/CEP

a. Calculation and Allocation of U.S.

Inventory Carrying Cost (Time on Water)

b. Calculation and Allocation of U.S.

Inventory Carrying Cost and Credit

Expense (Short-Term Borrowing Cost)

2. Other AD Issues

a. U.S. Date of Sale

b. Advertising

c. Date of Payment

[FR Doc. 00–16103 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 052400C]

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Notice of Availability for the Draft

Recovery Plan for Johnson’s Seagrass

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft

recovery plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the

availability of the draft recovery plan for

Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila

johnsonii), a marine plant listed as

threatened under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). NMFS is soliciting

review and comment from the public on

the draft plan, and will consider these

comments in the preparation of a final

recovery plan.

DATES: Comments on the draft recovery

plan must be received no later than 5

p.m., Eastern standard time, on August

25, 2000.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the draft recovery

plan is available from Layne Bolen,

Protected Resources Division, NMFS,

9721 Executive Center Drive North, St.

Petersburg, FL 33702–2439. Comments

may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to

727–570–5517, but they will not be

accepted if submitted via e-mail or

Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Layne Bolen at 850–234–6541 ext 237,

Dr. Judson Kenworthy at 252–728–8750,

or Marta Nammack at 301–713–1401 ext

116, or send a request via electronic

mail to jsg.info@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Johnson’s seagrass, H. johnsonii, is a

marine plant species found growing

along approximately 200 km of coastline

in southeastern Florida between

Sebastian Inlet and north Biscayne Bay.

It is listed as threatened under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). H.

johnsonii is the first marine plant to be

listed under the ESA. The ESA requires

NMFS to develop and implement

recovery plans for most species.

The draft recovery plan contains a

synopsis of the biology and distribution

of Johnson’s seagrass, a description of

factors affecting species recovery, an

outline of actions needed to recover the

species, and an implementation

schedule for completing the recovery

tasks.

Public Comments Solicited

NMFS intends that the final recovery

plan will take advantage of information

and recommendations from all

interested parties. Therefore, comments

and suggestions are solicited from the

public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community,

industry, and any other person

interested in the development of the

recovery plan.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 et seq.

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Penelope D. Dalton,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–16112 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark

Office

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

The United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO) has

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for clearance the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Agency:United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO).

Title: Patent Processing (Updating)

(Proposed Additions of Request for

Continued Examination and

Reconstruction of Unlocatable

Application and Patent Files).

Form Numbers: PTO/SB/30.

Agency Approval Number: 0651–

0031.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Burden: 1,018,736 hours.

Number of Respondents: 2,231,365

respondents.

Avg. Hours Per Response: The USPTO

estimates that it will take the public 12

minutes to gather, prepare, and submit

a request for continued examination.

The USPTO estimates that it will take

the public one hour to gather, prepare,

and submit a copy of the applicant’s

record of the application or patent file.

Needs and Uses: This collection of

information is required by 35 U.S.C.

132, which has been amended by the

‘‘American Inventors Protection Act of

1999.’’ Specifically, the ‘‘American

Inventors Protection Act of 1999’’

amends U.S.C. 132 to provide that the

USPTO may prescribe regulations for

the continued examination of

applications (for a fee) at the request of

the applicant. The USPTO has created a

form for these requests which applicants

can submit instead of filing a continued

prosecution application. The USPTO

uses these forms to process and initiate

continued examination of a previously

submitted application. In addition, the

USPTO is publishing an interim rule

associated with this information

collection that allows the USPTO to

request a copy of the record of the

correspondence between the USPTO

and the applicant or patentee in order

to reconstruct application or patent files

that are misplaced and cannot be found

after a diligent search. Reconstructing

the misplaced application or patent file

allows the USPTO to continue

prosecuting a patent application. If

applicants do not respond to the USPTO