Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Notices 55215

All comments will be summarized

and included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection. All comments

will become a matter of public record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Rich, (703) 305–2113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Report of Coupon Issuance and

Commodity Distribution for Disaster

Relief

OMB Number: 0584–0037.

Expiration Date: December 30, 1997

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection

Abstract: Food Distribution in disaster

situations is authorized under Section

32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7

U.S.C. 612c); Section 416 of the

Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);

Section 709 of the Food and Agriculture

Act of 1965 (7 U.S.C. 1446a–l); Section

4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer

Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c

note); and by Sections 412 and 413 of

the Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5179, 5180).

Program implementing regulations are

contained in 7 CFR part 250. In

accordance with Section 250.43(f),

distributing agencies shall provide a

summary report to the agency within 45

days following termination of the

disaster assistance.

Respondents: State agencies that

administer USDA disaster relief

activities.

Number of Respondents: 55.

Estimated Number of Responses per

Respondent: The number of responses is

estimated to be 1.82 responses per State

agency per year.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 25 minutes per

respondent for each submission.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 97 hours.

Dated: October 12, 1997.

Yvette S. Jackson,

Acting Administrator, Food and Consumer

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–28131 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

ARMS AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY

The Director’s Advisory Committee;

Notice of Closed Meetings

October 17, 1997.

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, Public Law

No. 92–463, 86 Stat 770 (1972) (codified

at 5 U.S.C. App. 2 510(a)(1) (1996)), the

U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament

Agency (ACDA) announces the

following Advisory Committee

meetings:

Name: The Director’s Advisory, Committee

(DirAC).

Dates: October 27 and 28, 1997; December

11 and 12, 1997.

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: For the October meeting: Sandia

National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM.

For the December meeting: State

Department Building, 320 21st Street, N.W.,

Room 4930, Washington, D.C.

Type of Meetings: Closed.

Contact: Robert Sherman, Executive

Director, Director’s Advisory Committee,

Room 5844, Washington, D.C. 20451, (202)

647–4622.

Purpose of Advisory: To advise the Director

of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament

Agency respecting scientific, technical, and

policy matters affecting arms control,

nonproliferation, and disarmament.

Purpose of the Meeting: The Committee

will review specific arms control,

nonproliferation, and verification issues.

Members will be briefed on current U.S.

policy and issues regarding agreements

including the Comprehensive Test Ban

Treaty and the Conventional Weapons

Convention. Members will also be briefed on

issues regarding the Chemical and Biological

Weapons Conventions. Members will

exchange information and concepts with key

ACDA personnel. All meetings will be held

in Executive Session.

Reason for Closing: The DirAC members

will be reviewing and discussing matters

specifically authorized by Executive Order

12958 to be kept secret in the interest of

national defense or foreign policy.

Authority to Close Meetings: The closing of

the meetings is in accordance with a

determination by the Director of the U.S.

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

dated October 16, 1997 made pursuant to the

provisions of Section 10(d) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act Pub. L. No. 92–463,

86 Stat 770 (1972) (codified at 5 U.S.C. App.

2 510(a)(1) 1996).

Notice: This notice is being published less

than 15 days before the first meeting, in order

to enable more committee members to attend.

Cathleen Lawrence,

Director of Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–28191 Filed 10–20–97; 4:16 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–32–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION

[A–570–832]

Pure Magnesium From the People’s

Republic of China: Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

one manufacturer/exporter, Taiyuan

Heavy Machinery Import and Export

Corporation, the Department of

Commerce is conducting a new shipper

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order of Pure

Magnesium from the People’s Republic

of China. The review covers the period

May 1, 1996, through October 31, 1996.

We have preliminarily determined

that U.S. sales have been made below

the normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties

based on the difference between Export

Price (‘‘EP’’) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Everett Kelly or Brian Smith, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–4194 or (202) 482–

1766, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the

Act’’), by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

those codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (April

1997). Where appropriate, references are

made to the Department’s final

regulations, codified at 19 CFR 351 (62

FR 27296), as a statement of current

departmental practice.

Background

On November 3, 1997, the Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

received a request from Taiyuan Heavy

Machinery Import and Export

Corporation (‘‘Taiyuan’’) for a new

shipper review pursuant to section
55216 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Notices

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 19

CFR 353.22(h) of the Department’s

regulations.

Section 751(a)(2) of the Act and

section 19 CFR 353.22(h) of the

Department’s regulations govern

determinations of antidumping duties

for new shippers. These provisions state

that, if the Department receives a

request for review from an exporter or

producer of the subject merchandise

stating that it did not export the

merchandise to the United States during

the period covered by the original lessthan-fair-value investigation (the ‘‘POI’’)

and that such exporter or producer is

not affiliated with any exporter or

producer who exported the subject

merchandise during that period, the

Department shall conduct a new shipper

review to establish an individual

weighted-average dumping margin for

such exporter or producer, if the

Department has not previously

established such a margin for the

exporter or producer. The regulations

require that the exporter or producer

shall include in its request, with

appropriate certifications: (i) the date on

which the merchandise was first

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption, or, if it cannot certify

as to the date of first entry, the date on

which it first shipped the merchandise

for export to the United States or if the

merchandise has not yet been shipped

or entered, the date of sale; (ii) a list of

the firms with which it is affiliated; and

(iii) a statement from such exporter or

producer, and from each affiliated firm,

that it did not, under its current or a

former name, export the merchandise

during the POI (19 CFR 353.22(h)(2)).

Taiyuan’s request was accompanied

by information and certifications

establishing the effective date on which

it first shipped and entered pure

magnesium. Taiyuan also has no

affiliated companies and therefore is not

affiliated with any person or corporation

which exported pure magnesium from

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)

during the POI. Based on the above

information, the Department initiated

this new shipper review of Taiyuan

(Notice of Initiation of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Pure Magnesium from the

People’s Republic of China (61 FR

69067 December 31, 1996)). The

Department is now conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act and section 19 CFR 353.22.

Taiyuan submitted responses to the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire and the Department

attempted to verify this information at

the facilities of Taiyuan and its supplier

in May 1997.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

pure primary magnesium regardless of

chemistry, form or size, unless expressly

excluded from the scope of this

investigation. Primary magnesium is a

metal or alloy containing by weight

primarily the element magnesium and

produced by decomposing raw materials

into magnesium metal. Pure primary

magnesium is used primarily as a

chemical in the aluminum alloying,

desulfurization, and chemical reduction

industries. In addition, pure primary

magnesium is used as an input in

producing magnesium alloy.

Pure primary magnesium

encompasses:

(1) Products that contain at least 99.95%

primary magnesium, by weight (generally

referred to as ‘‘ultra-pure’’ magnesium);

(2) Products containing less than 99.95%

but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium,

by weight (generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’

magnesium); and

(3) Products (generally referred to as ‘‘offspecification pure’’ magnesium) that contain

50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary

magnesium, by weight, and that do not

conform to ASTM specifications for alloy

magnesium.

‘‘Off-specification pure’’ magnesium

is pure primary magnesium containing

magnesium scrap, secondary

magnesium, oxidized magnesium or

impurities (whether or not intentionally

added) that cause the primary

magnesium content to fall below 99.8%

by weight. It generally does not contain,

individually or in combination, 1.5% or

more, by weight, of the following

alloying elements: aluminum,

manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium,

zirconium and rare earths.

Excluded from the scope of this

investigation are alloy primary

magnesium (that meets as specifications

for alloy magnesium), primary

magnesium anodes, granular primary

magnesium (including turnings, chips

and powder), having a maximum

physical dimension (i.e., length or

diameter) of one inch or less, secondary

magnesium (which has pure primary

magnesium content or less than 50% by

weight), an remelted magnesium whose

pure primary magnesium content is less

than 50% by weight.

Pure magnesium products covered by

this order are currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) subheadings

8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00,

8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11,

3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes,

our written description of the scope is

dispositive.

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the

Department begins with a rebuttable

presumption that all companies within

the country are subject to government

control and thus should be assessed a

single antidumping duty deposit rate.

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a

separate rate, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under a test

arising out of the Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers

from the People’s Republic of China (56

FR 20588, May 6, 1991) and amplified

in Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China (59 FR

22585, May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon

Carbide’’). Under the separate rates

criteria, the Department assigns separate

rates in nonmarket economy cases only

if the respondent can demonstrate the

absence of both de jure and de facto

governmental control over export

activities.

1. De Jure Control

Taiyuan has placed on the

administrative record documents to

demonstrate absence of de jure control;

the ‘‘Law of the People’s Republic of

China on Industrial Enterprises Owned

by the Whole People,’’ adopted on April

13, 1988, (the Industrial Enterprises

Law), and the 1992 regulations that

supplemented it, ‘‘Regulations for

Transformation of Operational

Mechanisms of State-Owned Industrial

Enterprises’’ (Business Operation

Provisions). We have analyzed these

laws in previous cases and have found

them to sufficiently establish an absence

of de jure control of companies ‘‘owned

by the whole people,’’ such as Taiyuan.

(See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales

at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of

China (‘‘Furfuryl Alcohol’’) 60 FR 22544

(May 8, 1995)). The Industrial

Enterprises Law provides that

enterprises owned by ‘‘the whole

people’’ shall make their own

management decisions, be responsible

for their own profits and losses, choose

their own suppliers, and purchase their

own goods and materials. The Business

Operation Provisions confer upon stateowned enterprises the responsibility for

making investment decisions, the right

to dispose of retained capital and assets,

and the authority to form joint ventures

and to merge with other enterprises.

Taiyuan also states that pure

magnesium does not appear on any

government lists regarding export
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Notices 55217

provisions or export licensing, and that

no quotas are imposed on pure

magnesium. In sum, in prior cases, the

Department examined both the

Industrial Enterprises Law and the

Business Operations Provisions, and

found that they establish an absence of

de jure control. We have no new

information in this proceedings which

would cause us to reconsider this

determination with regard to Taiyuan.

2. De Facto Control

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the EPs are set by

or subject to the approval of a

governmental authority; (2) whether the

respondent has authority to negotiate

and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses (see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl

Alcohol).

Taiyuan asserted the following: (1) It

establishes its own EPs; (2) it negotiates

contracts, without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) it makes its own personnel

decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds

of its export sales, uses profits according

to its business needs and has the

authority to sell its assets and to obtain

loans. During verification proceedings,

Department officials viewed such

evidence as sales documents that

showed Taiyuan sales prices were

negotiated solely by Taiyuan and its

customer. In addition, the Department

generally noted no significant indication

of government involvement in Taiyuan’s

business operations. Taiyuan officials

are appointed by a bureau of the

provincial government, not the central

government and there are no other

known exporters under the control of

the provincial government. Sales

documents reviewed indicated that

Taiyuan sales prices were negotiated

solely by Taiyuan and its customer. In

addition, the Department reviewed sales

payments, bank statements and

accounting documentation that

provided evidence that Taiyuan

received payment in U.S. dollars, which

was deposited into its bank account

after being converted to RMB (see

Taiyuan Sales Verification Report at pg

7). This information, taken in its

entirety, supports a finding that there is

de facto an absence of governmental

control of export functions.

Consequently, we have preliminarily

determined that Taiyuan has met the

criteria for the application of separate

rates (see Notice of Final Determination

at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates

from the Peoples Republic of China, 62

FR 27222, May 19, 1997).

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by Taiyuan to the

United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the EP to the

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price

and Constructed Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,

below.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

The Department used EP, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly by the PRC exporter to

unrelated parties in the United States

prior to importation into the United

States and the constructed EP

methodology was not warranted based

on the facts of record.

We calculated EP based on packed,

FOB foreign-port prices to unrelated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions for foreign inland

freight, loading, and port handling

expenses, valued in a surrogate country.

To value freight, we used Indonesia

freight rates from a 1991 cable from the

U.S. Embassy in Jakarta (see Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld

Pipe Fittings from the PRC, 56 FR

66831, December 26, 1991). We selected

India as the primary surrogate country

for reasons explained in the ‘‘Normal

Value’’ section below.

Normal Value

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as an non-market

economy (‘‘NME’’) country. None of the

parties to this proceeding has contested

such treatment. Accordingly, we

calculated NV in accordance with

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies

to non-market economy countries. In

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the

Act, we must, to the extent possible,

value the factors of production in one or

more market economy countries that (1)

are at a level of economic development

comparable to that of the non-market

economy country, and (2) are significant

producers of comparable merchandise.

We first determined that India, Pakistan,

Egypt, Sri Lanka and Indonesia are each

at a level of economic development

comparable to the PRC in terms of per

capita gross national product (‘‘GNP’’),

the growth rate in per capita income,

and the national distribution of labor.

However, none of the countries are

significant producers of the subject

merchandise. Accordingly, we

considered whether any of the potential

surrogates produce comparable

merchandise. As stated in previous

cases, the material inputs used to

produce magnesium and aluminum are

different. However, according to both

U.S. Bureau of Mines and Department of

Commerce experts, both (1) are light

metals in terms of molecular weight; (2)

are produced using an electrolytic

process, and (3) share some common

end uses (e.g., dye casting) (see Notice

of Final Determination: Pure and Alloy

Magnesium from the Peoples Republic

of China (60 FR 16437,16440, March 30,

1995) (‘‘the PRC Magnesium

Investigation’’)). Therefore, in this

administrative review, we have

determined that aluminum constitutes

comparable merchandise in the context

of surrogate selection.

The Department has determined that

Indonesia and India are the countries

most comparable to the PRC in terms of

overall economic development and both

are significant producers of comparable

merchandise (aluminum) (see the PRC

Magnesium Investigation). We have

selected India as a reasonable surrogate

country because it meets the

Department’s criteria for surrogate

country selection. Where we could not

find surrogate values from India, we

valued those factors using values from

Indonesia.

Petitioner and respondent submitted

publicly available information on

surrogate values for the Department’s

consideration. The factors used to

produce pure magnesium include

materials, labor, and energy. To

calculate NV, the reported factor

quantities were multiplied by the

appropriate surrogate values from India

for the different inputs. To value each

factor of production, we used, where

possible, publicly available information.

We have preliminarily accepted

Taiyuan’s reporting of its suppliers’

factors of production based on its entire

fiscal year rather than the POR because

POR production was limited. For

purposes of calculating NV, we valued

reported PRC factors of production

(adjusted based on verification findings)

as follows, in accordance with section

773(c) of the Act:

The factors of production for which

we used surrogate values included: raw

materials, packing materials, labor,

diesel fuel, electricity, truck freight,

factory overhead, selling, general and

administrative and profit we used
55218 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Notices

public information from various

sources. See October 16, 1997,

Calculation Memorandum for details.

Reported raw materials include:

ferrosilicon, dolomite, calcinate

dolomite, flux (powder), flux (lump),

sulphuric acid, fluorite powder, sulphur

powder, and barium chloride. Reported

packing materials include: wooden

crates, plastic bags, and steel straps.

With regard to labor, the Department

has concluded that, while wages and

per-capita GNP are positively correlated,

there is a great variation in the wage

rates of the market economy countries

that the Department treats as being

economically comparable. As a practical

matter, this means that the result of an

NME case can vary widely depending

on which of several economically

comparable countries is selected as the

surrogate. In order to eliminate the

variability of wage rates in countries

with similar per capita GNPs, we used

a regression-based wage rate.

See October 16, 1997, Calculation

Memorandum for details of valuation of

factors of Production.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent by using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the respondent’s

facilities, the examination of relevant

sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification findings are outlined in the

verification report.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions

pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act

and section 353.60 of the Department’s

regulations based on the rates certified

by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

May 1, 1996, through October 31, 1996:

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Percent

margin

Taiyuan Heavy Machinery Import

and Export Corporation ............... 83.92

Interested parties may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice and may

request a hearing within 10 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held at the earliest convenience

of the parties but not later than 34 days

after the date of publication or the first

business day thereafter. Case briefs from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 20 days after the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 27 days after the date

of publication. The Department will

issue the final results of this new

shipper administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing, within 90

days of issuance of these preliminary

results. Upon completion of this new

shipper review, the Department will

issue appraisement instructions directly

to the Customs Service. The results of

this review shall be the basis for the

assessment of antidumping duties on

entries of merchandise covered by this

review and for future deposits of

estimated duties.

Furthermore, upon completion of this

review, the posting of a bond or security

in lieu of a cash deposit, pursuant to

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and

section 353.22(h)(4) of the Department’s

interim regulations, will no longer be

permitted and, should the final results

yield a margin of dumping, a cash

deposit will be required for each entry

of the merchandise.

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this new shipper

antidumping duty administrative review

for all shipments of pure magnesium

from the PRC entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

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

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be that established in the

final results of this new shipper

administrative review; (2) the cash

deposit rate for all other PRC exporters

will continue to be 108.26 percent, the

PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV

and (3) the cash deposit rate for nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise

will be the rate applicable to the PRC

supplier of that exporter. investigation.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.36 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.

This new shipper administrative

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and Section 19

CFR 353.22(h) 1996.

Dated: October 16, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–28154 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–507]

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From

Taiwan: Termination of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On June 19, 1997 the

Department of Commerce initiated an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on malleable

cast iron pipe fittings from Taiwan for

De Ho Metal Industrial Co., Ltd., of

Taiwan, a manufacturer of malleable

cast iron pipe fittings. This

administrative review was requested by

Amco Metal Industrial Corp., an

importer of the subject merchandise,

and is for the period covering May 1,

1996 through April 30, 1997. The

Department of Commerce is terminating

the review after receiving from Amco

Metal Industrial Corp. a withdrawal of

its request for a review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Manning or James Terpstra, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–3936 and (202)

482–3965, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the stature are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the