Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices 64559

ACTION: Notice of finding of no

significant impact.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS),

pursuant to the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508),

and RUS Environmental Policies and

Procedures (7 CFR Part 1794), has made

a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) with respect to a project

proposed by Kodiak Electric

Association, Inc. (KEA), of Kodiak,

Alaska. The proposed project consists of

constructing a 5.0 to 7.5 megawatt (MW)

combustion turbine cogeneration power

plant, a substation, a fuel storage tank,

and an approximately four mile-long 69

kV transmission line. The purpose of

the project is to increase KEA’s

generation capacity to meet future

power demand, to produce steam for the

U.S. Coast Guard for space heating, and

to increase reliability of electric power

service to KEA customers including the

U.S. Coast Guard. The need for this

project was established in KEA’s 1994

Power Requirements Study, 1994 Power

Generation Study, and 1996 Power

Generation Study Supplement.

RUS has concluded that the impacts

from the proposed project would not be

significant and that the proposed action

is not a major federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment. Therefore, the

preparation of an environmental impact

statement is not necessary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nurul Islam, Environmental Protection

Specialist, Engineering and

Environmental Staff, Rural Utilities

Service, 1400 Independence Avenue,

SW, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250–

1571, telephone (202) 720–1784, e-mail:

nislam@rus.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RUS, in

accordance with its environmental

policies and procedures, required that

KEA prepare a Borrower’s

Environmental Report (BER) reflecting

the potential impacts of the proposed

facilities. The BER, which includes

input from federal, state, and local

agencies, has been reviewed and

adopted as RUS’s Environmental

Assessment for the project in

accordance with 7 CFR 1794.61. RUS

has concluded that the BER represents

an accurate assessment of the

environmental impacts of the project.

Based on coordination with appropriate

federal and state agencies, potential

impacts to water quality, air quality,

wetlands, federally listed threatened or

endangered species, cultural resources,

noise levels, and visibility can either be

avoided through project design or

mitigated to less than significant levels.

The project should have no impact on

floodplains, important farmland, prime

forest land, or formally classified areas

and would be consistent with the

policies of the Alaska Coastal

Management Program.

Alternatives to the project as

proposed were considered, including

alternative power generation sites,

alternative transmission line routes,

alternative fuel delivery and storage

facilities, various alternative energy

sources, power demand and load

management alternatives, and the noaction alternative. RUS has considered

these alternatives and has concluded

that the project, as proposed, will allow

KEA to provide adequate and reliable

electric service to its customers on

Kodiak Island, including the U.S. Coast

Guard, with minimum adverse impacts.

Copies of the BER and FONSI are

available for review at RUS at the

aforementioned address or may be

reviewed at or obtained from the offices

of KEA, P.O. Box 787, Kodiak, Alaska,

99615, Telephone (907) 486–7700.

Copies are also available for public

review at the Kodiak City Library and

the U.S. Coast Guard Integrated Support

Command Administration Building,

Second Deck.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

Adam M. Golodner,

Deputy Administrator, Program Operations.

[FR Doc. 97–32030 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–809]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From the Republic of Korea;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from the Republic of Korea.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from the Republic of Korea. The period

of review is November 1, 1995 through

October 31, 1996. This review covers

imports of pipe from four producers/

exporters.

We have preliminarily found that

sales of subject merchandise have been

made below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties based on the difference between

the U.S. price and normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

We will issue the final results not later

than 120 days from the date of

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia Thirumalai, Marian Wells, or

Rosa Jeong, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–4087, 482–6309, and 482–

1278 respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 353,

April 1997.

Background

Since the publication of Notice of

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results, Partial Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Initiation of Changed

Circumstances Review, on July 15, 1997

(62 FR 37865), the following has

occurred.

On July 25, 1997, the Department

issued a supplemental questionnaire to

Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO)

and Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

(Union) asking about issues of

affiliation. The companies responded to

the affiliation questions on August 6,

1997. We notified Union and KISCO in

an October 22, 1997, letter that their

responses should be consolidated into

one response (see ‘‘Collapsing Union

and KISCO’’ in this notice). The

Department received a consolidated

response from these companies on

November 17, 1997.

On October 30, 1997, we requested

respondents to resubmit their data using

purchase order/contract date, as

opposed to invoice date, as date of sale

for U.S. transactions. We received

partially updated sales databases with
64560 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

the new date of sale from SeAH Steel

Corporation (SeAH) and Shinho Steel

Co., Ltd. (Shinho) on November 17,

1997. (In the case of Hyundai Pipe Co.

Ltd. (Hyundai), this information had

been previously requested and supplied

to the Department.) Union/KISCO’s

collapsed submission received on

November 17, 1997 did not include the

change in the date of sale.

Supplemental questionnaires were

sent to respondents in November 1997.

Responses to our supplemental

questionnaires regarding level of trade

(LOT) were received by November 13,

1997. Additional supplemental

questionnaires responses from all

respondents are due December 3, 1997.

We intend to issue the final results of

this review not later than 120 days after

publication of these preliminary results.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe and tube, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4mm (16

inches) in outside diameter, regardless

of wall thickness, surface finish (black,

galvanized, or painted), or end finish

(plain end, beveled end, threaded, or

threaded and coupled). These pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard

pipes and tubes and are intended for the

low-pressure conveyance of water,

steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids

and gases in plumbing and heating

systems, air-conditioning units,

automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipe may also be

used for light load-bearing applications,

such as for fence tubing, and as

structural pipe tubing used for framing

and as support members for

reconstruction or load-bearing purposes

in the construction, shipbuilding,

trucking, farm equipment, and other

related industries. Unfinished conduit

pipe is also included in this order.

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes

within the physical description outlined

above are included within the scope of

this review except line pipe, oil-country

tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical

tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and

finished conduit. In accordance with the

Department’s Final Negative

Determination of Scope Inquiry on

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the

Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21,

1996), pipe certified to the API 5L linepipe specification and pipe certified to

both the API 5L line-pipe specifications

and the less-stringent ASTM A–53

standard-pipe specifications, which falls

within the physical parameters as

outlined above, and entered as line pipe

of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines

is outside of the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Collapsing KISCO and Union

On May 22 and June 30, 1997, the

petitioners, Allied Tube and Conduit

Corporation, Sawhill Tubular DivisionArmco, Inc. and Wheatland Tube

Company, argued that because of the

strong possibility of manipulation of

prices and production, the Department

should treat Union and KISCO as a

single, collapsed entity and calculate a

single combined antidumping duty rate

for both companies. In determining

whether companies should be

collapsed, the Department makes three

inquiries. First, the Department

examines whether the companies in

question are ‘‘affiliated’’ within the

meaning of section 771(33) of the Act.

Second, the Department examines

whether the companies in question have

similar production facilities, such that

retooling would not be required to shift

production from one company to

another. Third, the Department

examines whether there exists other

evidence indicating a significant

potential for the manipulation of prices

or production. The types of factors the

Department considers in determining

whether there is a significant potential

for the manipulation of prices or

production include: (1) The level of

common ownership; (2) the existence of

interlocking officers or directors (e.g.,

whether managerial employees or board

members of one company sit on the

board of directors of the other affiliated

parties); and (3) the existence of

intertwined operations. See Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Korea, 60 FR 65284 (December 19,

1995) (Korean Steel).

In the first administrative review of

this order, the petitioners also argued

that Union and KISCO should be

collapsed, and the Department agreed.

See Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Partial

Termination of Administrative Review:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR

55574 (October 27, 1997) (Pipe First

Review). In the present proceeding, we

again closely analyzed the relevant

factors in light of the information on

record of the present review. We

determined that the factors that led to

the collapsing decision in the first

review continue to exist in the present

review. Therefore, we have collapsed

Union and KISCO and calculated a

single antidumping duty rate for the

collapsed entity.

Date of Sale

When determining which sales fall

within the period of review (POR),

respondents used either invoice date,

tax invoice date, or shipment date

(collectively referred to hereafter as

‘‘invoice date’’) as the date of sale. Most

respondents claimed that the invoice

date is what is maintained in their

corporate records and that use of

invoice date is in accordance with the

Department’s stated practice (see

Memorandum from Susan G. Esserman

‘‘Date of Sale Methodology Under New

Regulations,’’ March 29, 1996).

Based on our review of the responses,

we determined invoice date should not

be used as the date of sale for U.S.

transactions. (For home market

transactions, we find that invoice date

reasonably approximates the date on

which the material terms of sale are

made and have used this as our date of

sale.) While each company has a slightly

different U.S. sales process, consistent

throughout the responses is the notion

that price and quantity are established,

then the factory produces the subject

merchandise, and finally, after a

significant period of time, the product is

shipped and an invoice is issued. Based

on this understanding of the companies’

U.S. sales process, we instructed

respondents to report as the date of sale

the date that will reasonably

approximate the time at which the

material terms of sale are set (see,

Memorandum for Richard W. Moreland,

dated October 30, 1997).

The above-mentioned change in the

U.S. date of sale necessitated changes to

the U.S. sales listings of respondents to

correct the date of sale. As a

consequence of the change in the U.S.

date of sale, home market sales listings

also have to be revised to include sales

of identical and similar merchandise

that are contemporaneous with U.S.

sales. Due to the late date on which we

informed respondents of the need to

change the U.S. date of sale, all

respondents were not able to modify

fully their U.S. and home market sales

listings in time for these preliminary

results of review. Therefore, we have

used the most current sales listings

available to the Department. Hyundai,

SeAH, and Shinho partially revised
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices 64561

their U.S. sales listings by changing the

date of sale for previously reported

transactions. Union/KISCO was unable

to provide a collapsed sales listing

reflecting the change in the U.S. date of

sale in time for these preliminary

results. As a result, we are using invoice

date as the date of Union/KISCO’s U.S.

sales. Furthermore, for all respondents,

we have made comparisons to

constructed value (CV) for U.S. sales

that do not have contemporaneous

home market sales matches.

Resales of Subject Merchandise

Some companies purchase subject

merchandise from unaffiliated

manufacturers and then further

manufacture it into products also within

the scope of this review. For purposes

of these preliminary results, we have

included sales of all such furthermanufactured subject merchandise in

our analysis.

SeAH

During the POR, SeAH purchased a

small quantity of subject merchandise

from an unaffiliated producer, and

subsequently resold the merchandise in

the United States. According to SeAH,

the unaffiliated producer was aware of

the ultimate destination of the

merchandise at the time of sale to SeAH

(see SeAH response of March 24, 1997,

p. 33).

In their June 24, 1997 submission,

petitioners argue that products

purchased from the unaffiliated

producer and resold by SeAH should be

included in SeAH’s U.S. and home

market sales listings. To support this

argument, petitioners cite to Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker from

Japan, 61 FR 67308 (December 20, 1997)

(Cement and Clinker).

Regarding U.S. sales, the Department

examines the first party in the

distribution chain selling with the

knowledge that the merchandise is

destined for the U.S. See 19 CFR

353.41(b), Certain Pasta from Italy:

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postpone of Final Determination, 60 FR

1344, 1348–1349 (January 19, 1996)

(Pasta from Italy). In SeAH’s case, the

unaffiliated producer knew at the time

of the sale to SeAH that the

merchandise was destined for the

United States. Therefore, the

appropriate export price for that

merchandise would be the price

between the unaffiliated producer and

SeAH (see Pasta from Italy). Moreover,

the unaffiliated producer would be the

appropriate party to be reviewed with

respect to these resales.

The case cited by petitioners dealt

with home market sales. Contrary to

petitioners’ assertions, the Department

excluded all resales of merchandise

purchased from an unaffiliated producer

from its foreign market value (FMV)

calculation in Cement and Clinker to the

extent that they were separately

identifiable. It was only in those cases

where resales were inextricably

commingled with the respondent’s own

product sales and where the inclusion

of these resales did not distort the FMV

calculation that the Department allowed

them to be included among the

respondent’s home market sales.

Therefore, this precedent does not

provide a basis for including resales of

this merchandise in the home market in

our calculation of normal value (NV).

Consequently, products purchased from

this unaffiliated producer and resold

into the U.S. market have not been

included among SeAH’s U.S. or home

market sales listings.

Product Comparisons

We calculated monthly, weightedaverage, NVs. Where possible, we

compared U.S. sales to sales of identical

merchandise in Korea. When identical

merchandise was not sold during the

relevant contemporaneous period, we

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most

similar foreign like product (see section

771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act).

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For sales to the United States, we

used export price (EP) or constructed

export price (CEP) as defined in sections

772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, as

appropriate.

In accordance with sections 772(a)

and (c) of the Act, we calculated an EP

where the merchandise was sold

directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation, and CEP was not otherwise

warranted based on the facts of record.

In accordance with sections 772(b), (c)

and (d) of the Act, we calculated a CEP

for sales made by affiliated U.S. resellers

that took place after importation into the

United States. EP and CEP were based

on the packed C&F, delivered, CIF duty

paid, or ex-dock duty paid price to

unaffiliated purchasers in, or for

exportation to, the United States. As

appropriate, we made deductions for

discounts and rebates, including early

payment discounts. We added to U.S.

price amounts for duty drawback,

pursuant to section 772 (c)(1)(B) of the

Act, to the extent that such rebates were

not excessive (see Pipe First Review).

We also made deductions for movement

expenses in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. customs brokerage, U.S.

customs duties, harbor maintenance

fees, merchandise processing fees, and

U.S. inland freight expenses (freight

from port to warehouse and freight from

warehouse to the customer).

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act, we deducted from CEP those

selling expenses associated with

economic activities occurring in the

United States, including commissions,

direct selling expenses (credit costs,

introduction allowances, and warranty

expenses), inventory carrying costs, and

indirect selling expenses, where

applicable. Credit expenses were offset

by interest revenues, where applicable.

We also deducted from CEP an amount

for profit in accordance with section

772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

We compared the aggregate quantity

of home market and U.S. sales and

determined that the quantity of each

company’s sales in its home market was

more than five percent of the quantity

of its sales to the U.S. market.

Consequently, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on

home market sales.

Certain respondents reported sales in

the home market of ‘‘overrun’’

merchandise (i.e., sales of a greater

quantity of pipe than the customer

ordered due to overproduction).

Respondents claimed that we should

disregard ‘‘overrun’’ sales in the home

market as outside the ordinary course of

trade.

Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act

provides that normal value shall be

based on the price at which the foreign

like product is sold in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade. Ordinary

course of trade is defined in section

771(15) of the Act. We analyzed the

following criteria to determine whether

‘‘overrun’’ sales differ from other sales

of commercial pipe: (1) ratio of overrun

sales to total home market sales; (2)

number of overrun customers compared

to total number of home market

customers; (3) average price of an

overrun sale compared to average price

of a commercial sale; (4) profitability of

overrun sales compared to profitability

of commercial sales; and (5) average

quantity of an overrun sale compared to

the average quantity of a commercial

sale. Based on our analysis of these

criteria and on an analysis of the terms

of sale, we found certain overrun sales

to be outside the ordinary course of

trade. This analysis is consistent with
64562 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

the analysis sustained by the Court of

International Trade in Laclede Steel Co.

V. United States, Slip. Op. 94–114

(1995).

Hyundai and SeAH had sales in the

home market to affiliated customers. To

test whether these sales were made at

arm’s length, we compared the starting

prices of sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers, net of all

movement charges, direct and indirect

selling expenses, discounts and packing.

Where the price to the affiliated party

was on average 99.5 percent or more of

the price to the unaffiliated parties, we

determined that the sales made to the

affiliated party were at arm’s length and

included those sales in our calculation

of NV pursuant to 19 CFR 353.45(a).

We made adjustments for differences

in packing in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) and B(i) of the Act. We also

made adjustments for movement

expenses, consistent with section

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, for inland

freight. In addition, we made

adjustments for differences in cost

attributable to differences in physical

characteristics of the merchandise

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act, as well as for differences in

circumstances of sale (COS) in

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

of the Act and 19 CFR. 353.56. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred on home market sales

(credit expenses as offset by interest

revenue) and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses (credit costs, introduction

allowances, and warranty expenses). For

comparisons to CEP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred on home market

sales. Since no respondent had U.S.

direct selling expenses other than those

deducted from the starting price in

calculating CEP pursuant to section

772(d) of the Act, we made no additions

to normal value in making COS

adjustments. We also made adjustments,

where applicable, for indirect selling

expenses incurred on home market sales

to offset commissions in EP

calculations; specifically, we deducted

from normal value the lesser of (1) the

amount of commission paid on a U.S.

sale for a particular product, or (2) the

amount of indirect selling expenses

incurred on the home market sales for

a particular product, including

inventory carrying costs in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.56.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA at 829–831, to

the extent practicable, the Department

will calculate NV based on sales at the

same LOT as the EP or CEP. When the

Department is unable to find sales of the

foreign like product in the comparison

market at the same LOT as the EP or

CEP, the Department may compare the

U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in

the comparison market.

We determine that sales are made at

different levels of trade if they are made

at different marketing stages (or their

equivalent). Substantial differences in

selling activities are a necessary, but not

sufficient, condition for determining

that there is a difference in the stages of

marketing. See Certain Welded Carbon

Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from

India; Preliminary Results of New

Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 23760,

23761(May 1, 1997). See, also, 19 CFR

351.412 (62 FR 27296, 27414–27415

(May 19, 1997)) for a concise

description of this practice.

In implementing these principles in

this review, we obtained information

from each respondent regarding the

marketing stage involved in the reported

home market and U.S. sales, including

a description of the selling activities

performed by the respondents for each

channel of distribution. (For further

information on the LOT analysis for

each company, see the Memorandum

from the team to S. Kuhbach of

December 1, 1997.) Pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the SAA at

827, in identifying levels of trade for EP

and home market sales we considered

the selling functions reflected in the

starting prices before any adjustments.

For CEP sales, we considered only the

selling activities reflected in the price

after the deduction of expenses and

profit under section 772(d) of the Act.

We expect that, if claimed levels of

trade are the same, the functions and

activities of the seller should be similar.

Conversely, if a party claims that levels

of trade are different for different groups

of sales, the functions and activities of

the seller should be dissimilar.

When CEP sales have been made in

the United States, in SeAH’s case,

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

establishes that a CEP ‘‘offset’’ may be

made provided that two conditions

exist: (1) NV is established at a LOT that

is at a more advanced stage of

distribution than the LOT of the CEP;

and (2) the data available do not permit

a determination that there is a pattern of

consistent price differences between

sales at different levels of trade in the

comparison market.

Shinho, Hyundai, and KISCO/Union

Based on an analysis of the selling

functions, class of customers, and level

of selling expenses, we found that sales

made by Shinho, Hyundai and KISCO/

Union were at a single stage in the

marketing process in both the home

market and the United States (i.e., one

LOT exists in home market and one

LOT exists in the United States with

respect to each company). Moreover,

because the stages of marketing in the

two markets were not substantially

dissimilar, we have preliminarily found

that sales in both markets are at the

same LOT and consequently no LOT

adjustment is warranted.

SeAH

With respect to SeAH’s EP sales, we

found that sales were made at a single

stage in the marketing process in both

the home market and the United States,

and that these stages of marketing were

not substantially dissimilar. Therefore,

we have preliminarily found that

SeAH’s EP and home market sales are at

the same LOT and that no LOT

adjustment is needed.

SeAH asserts that its home market

sales are at a more advanced LOT than

its CEP sales because the CEP LOT does

not include inventory maintenance or

expenses associated with arranging for

freight. We have preliminarily

determined that these differences in

selling activities are not substantial and,

therefore, that SeAH’s home market and

CEP sales are made at the same

marketing stages. Consequently, we

preliminarily determine that SeAH’s

home market and U.S. sales are at the

same LOT and no CEP offset is

warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on timely allegations filed by

the petitioners, the Department initiated

a cost of production (COP) investigation

of Union/KISCO to determine whether

sales were made at prices below the

COP. See Memoranda from Craig

Matney to Office Director Susan

Kuhbach, dated June 24 and June 25,

1997.

Because we disregarded sales below

the COP in the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation for Hyundai,

SeAH, and Shinho (see Circular Welded

Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea: Notice

of Final Court Decision and Amended

Final Determination, 60 FR 55833,

November 3, 1995 (Pipe LTFV)), we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign product under

consideration for the determination of

NV in this review may have been made

at prices below the COP, as provided by
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices 64563

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of these companies’ home

market.

We conducted the COP analysis

described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP, by model, based on the

sum of the cost of materials, fabrication

and general expenses, and packing

costs.

B. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

were made at prices below the COP, we

did not disregard any below-cost sales

of that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product were made at prices

below the COP, we disregarded the

below-cost sales because such sales

were found to be made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ in accordance with sections

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act.

Moreover, based on comparisons of

price to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, we determined that the below-cost

sales of the product were at prices

which would not permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Where all contemporaneous

sales of a specific product were made at

prices below the COP, we calculated NV

based on CV, in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Act.

We found that all respondents made

home market sales at below COP prices

within an extended period of time in

substantial quantities. Further, we

found that these sales prices did not

permit for the recovery of costs within

a reasonable period of time. We

therefore excluded these sales from our

analysis in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act.

Constructed Value

Where NV could not be based on

home market sales either because (1)

there were no contemporaneous sales of

a comparable product or (2) all

contemporaneous sales of the

comparison product failed the COP test,

we compared U.S. prices to CV. In

accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the

Act, we calculated CV based on the sum

of the cost of materials of the product

sold in the United States, plus amounts

for general expenses, home market

profit and U.S. packing costs. We

calculated each respondent’s CV based

on the methodology described in the

‘‘Calculation of COP’’ section of this

notice, above. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A), we used the actual

amounts incurred and realized by

respondents in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product, in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country

to calculate general expenses and home

market profit.

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.56 for COS differences. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred on home market sales

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

For comparisons to CEP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred on home market

sales. We also made adjustments, where

applicable, for indirect selling expenses

incurred on home market sales to offset

U.S. commissions in EP comparisons;

specifically, we deducted from normal

value the lesser of: (1) The amount of

commission paid on a U.S. sale for a

particular product, or (2) the amount of

indirect selling expenses incurred on

the home market sales for a particular

product.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the

Act. Currency conversions were made at

the rates certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank. Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

to convert foreign currencies into U.S.

dollars unless the daily rate involves a

‘‘fluctuation.’’ It is our practice to find

that a fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

rate by 2.25 percent. See Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey, 61 FR 35188, 35192 (July 5,

1996). The benchmark rate is defined as

the rolling average of the rates for the

past 40 business days.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

November 1, 1995, through October 31,

1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Hyundai ....................................... 4.10

Union/KISCO .............................. 2.36

Shinho ......................................... 3.34

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

SeAH ........................................... 7.71

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Interested

parties may also request a hearing

within ten days of publication. If

requested, a hearing will be held March

2, 1998. Interested parties may submit

case briefs pertaining to non-verification

issues by January 12, 1998. Rebuttal

briefs, which must be limited to issues

raised in the case briefs, may be filed

not later than January 20, 1998. Briefs

pertaining to verification issues must be

submitted by February 26, 1998, with

rebuttal briefs not later than March 5,

1998. The Department will issue a

notice of the final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such briefs, within

120 days from the publication of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. In accordance with the

methodology in Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Partial Termination of

Administrative Review: Circular Welded

Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic

of Korea (62 FR 55574, October 27,

1997), we calculated exporter/importerspecific assessment values by dividing

the total dumping duties due for each

importer by the number of tons used to

determine the duties due. We will direct

Customs to assess the resulting per-ton

dollar amount against each ton of the

merchandise entered by these importers’

during the review period.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of steel wire rope from Korea 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 companies

will be the rates established in the final

results of this administrative review

(except no cash deposit will be required

for those companies whose weightedaverage 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 LTFV investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or
64564 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

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 4.80

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the less-than-fair-value investigation.

See Pipe LTFV.

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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32063 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–805]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Partial

Termination of Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

and partial termination of review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

two respondents, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

from Mexico. This review covers two

manufacturers and exporters of the

subject merchandise. The period of

review (‘‘POR’’) is November 1, 1995,

through October 31, 1996.

With respect to Tuberia Nacional,

S.A. de C.V. (‘‘TUNA’’), this review has

now been terminated as a result of the

withdrawal request for administrative

review by TUNA, the interested party

that requested review of TUNA. We

preliminarily determine the dumping

margin for Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Hylsa’’)

to be 7.90 percent during the POR.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding should also submit with

their arguments (1) A statement of the

issues, and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ilissa Kabak or Linda Ludwig,

Enforcement Group III—Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Room 7866, Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0182

(Kabak), or (202) 482–3833 (Ludwig).

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 (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all

references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 C.F.R. Part 353

(April 1, 1997). Where appropriate, we

have cited the Department’s new

regulations, codified at 19 C.F.R. Part

351 (62 Fed. Reg. 27296, May 19, 1997).

While not binding on this review, the

new regulations serve as a restatement

of the Department’s policies.

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

from Mexico on November 2, 1992 (57

FR 49453). The Department published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1995/96

review period on November 4, 1996 (61

FR 56663). On November 27, 1996,

respondents Hylsa and TUNA requested

that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

from Mexico. We initiated this review

on December 16, 1996. See 61 FR 66017

(December 16, 1996). On February 4,

1997, TUNA requested a withdrawal

from the proceeding.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations, the

Department may allow a party that

requests an administrative review to

withdraw such request not later than 90

days after the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the administrative

review. TUNA’s request for withdrawal

was timely and there were no requests

for review from other interested parties.

Therefore, the Department is

terminating this review with respect to

TUNA. This notice is in accordance

with section 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations (19 CFR

353.22(a)(5)).

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for issuing a preliminary

determination in an administrative

review if it determines that it is not

practicable to complete the preliminary

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On June 16, 1997, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case to

December 2, 1997. See Extension of

Time Limit for Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 36488

(July 8, 1997).

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by these orders

are circular welded non-alloy steel

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters

(16 inches) in outside diameter,

regardless of wall thickness, surface

finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or

end finish (plain end, beveled end,

threaded, or threaded and coupled).

These pipes and tubes are generally

known as standard pipes and tubes and

are intended for the low pressure

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,

and other liquids and gases in plumbing

and heating systems, air conditioning

units, automatic sprinkler systems, and

other related uses, and generally meet

ASTM A–53 specifications. Standard

pipe may also be used for light loadbearing applications, such as for fence

tubing, and as structural pipe tubing

used for framing and support members

for reconstruction or load-bearing

purposes in the construction,

shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment,

and related industries. Unfinished

conduit pipe is also included in these

orders.

All carbon steel pipes and tubes

within the physical description outlined

above are included within the scope of

these orders, except line pipe, oil

country tubular goods, boiler tubing,