5594 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

by 62.93 percent, compared to the

1,265.15 percent increase between 1989

and 1990. In addition, by 1998, imports

declined by 5.57 percent. Further, the

petitioners assert that over the history of

the order, absolute import volumes have

fluctuated significantly. See the

petitioners August 2, 1999 Substantive

Response at 7 & 8, and Exhibit 1.

The petitioners, also argue that the

exchange rate movements (won/$) can

be relevant to a determination of

likelihood of future dumping because

the movement in the exchange rate can

mask the extent of dumping and affect

the Department’s dumping margin

calculations. See the domestic

interested parties Substantive Response

at 8. Moreover, petitioners argue that the

Department should consider the change

in producer and importers behavior

when making its likelihood

determination. Petitioners assert that a

major portion of the margins calculated

in the original investigation was

attributable to certain types of PET film

products, such as off-grade film.

Petitioners contend that producers and

importers decreased their shipments of

off-grade material in order to obtain

lower dumping margins. Once the order

is removed petitioners argue that

producers and importers can resume

easily their shipment of off-grade

material which would result in

dumping at a significant level.

As discussed above in section II.A.3

of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA

at 890, and the House Report at 63–64,

if companies continue dumping with

the discipline of an order in place, the

Department may reasonably infer that

dumping would continue if the

discipline were removed.

After examining the history of this

antidumping duty order, we find that

dumping margins above de minimis

levels continue to exist for at least some

producers. Given that dumping margins

continue to exist, respondent interested

parties waived their right to participate

in the instant review, and absent

argument and evidence to the contrary,

the Department determines that

dumping would likely continue or recur

if the order on PET film from Korea

were revoked. Because we based our

determination on continuation of

dumping margins above de minimis, we

did not consider import volumes and

the other factors cited by the petitioners.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that, consistent with

the SAA and House Report, the

Department will provide to the

Commission the company-specific

margins from the investigation because

that is the only calculated rate that

reflects the behavior of exporters

without the discipline of an order.

Further, for companies not specifically

investigated, or for companies that did

not begin shipping until after the order

was issued, the Department normally

will provide a margin based on the all

others rate from the investigation. (See

section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin.) Exceptions to this policy

include the use of a more recently

calculated margin, where appropriate,

and consideration of duty absorption

determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and

3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)

The petitioners argue that, consistent

with the SAA, the Department should

report to the Commission the rates from

the original investigation as the

magnitude of the margin likely to

prevail if the antidumping duty order is

revoked, because they are the only

calculated rates that reflect the behavior

of exporters without the discipline of

the order in place. In addition, for

companies that did not participate in

the investigation, or for companies that

did not begin shipping until after the

order was issued, the petitioners argue

that the Department should use the ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the investigation.

We agree with the petitioners that the

dumping margins from the original

investigation are representative of

Korean producers and exporters

behavior should the order be revoked

because they reflect the behavior of

producers and exporters without the

discipline of the order. Therefore,

absent argument or evidence to the

contrary, we will report to the

Commission margins contained in the

Final Results of Review of this notice.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the levels indicated below.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

SKC Limited and SKC

America, Inc.(SKC).

13.92.

Saehan (formerly Cheil

Synthetics, Inc.).

Revoked.

Kohn Industries. (Kohn) ... Revoked.

All others .......................... 21.50.

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2590 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–485–805]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle, Group II,

Office 5, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4162, (202) 482–0650, respectively.

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 citations

to the Department of Commerce (the

Department) regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 1,

1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain small diameter carbon and alloy

seamless standard, line and pressure

pipe (seamless pipe) from Romania is

being, or is likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value

(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of

the Act. The estimated margins of sales

at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of

Liquidation section of this notice.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5595

Case History

This investigation was initiated on

July 20, 1999, based on a petition filed

by the Koppel Steel Corporation, Gulf

States Tube (a division of Vision

Metals), Sharon Tube, U.S. Steel Group

(a unit of USX Corporation), and the

United Steelworkers of America

(collectively, petitioners). See Initiation

of Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From Japan and Mexico;

and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic,

Japan, the Republic of South Africa and

Romania, 64 FR 40825 (July 28, 1999).

Since the initiation of this investigation,

the following events have occurred:

On August 12 and 17, 1999, we issued

antidumping questionnaires to the

Romanian embassy with instructions to

identify any additional producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise

who had not contacted the Department,

and to forward the questionnaire to all

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise. On August 31, 1999, we

received a response from the Romanian

embassy.

On August 16, 1999, the United States

International Trade Commission (the

ITC) preliminarily determined that there

is a reasonable indication that imports

of the products under investigation are

materially injuring the United States

industry. See 64 FR 46953 (August 27,

1999) (ITC Report Publication No.

3321).

On September 9, 1999, we received a

letter from S.C. Republica S.A.

(Republica), a producer of the subject

merchandise in Romania, stating that it

did not sell the subject merchandise to

the United States during the period of

investigation (POI) and, therefore, will

not file a response to the Department’s

questionnaire.

On September 13 and October 7,

1999, we received questionnaire

responses from Sota Communication

Company (Sota) and Metal Business

International S.R.L. (MBI) (collectively,

respondents), the trading companies

exporting the subject merchandise

during the POI, and their respective

producers S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub)

and S.C. Petrotub S.A.(Petrotub). We

issued supplemental questionnaires on

September 24 and October 18, 1999, to

which we received responses on

October 14, November 1, and November

5, 1999.

On September 15, 1999, we invited

interested parties to provide comments

on the surrogate country selection and

publicly available information for

valuing the factors of production. We

received comments from the

respondents on October 15 and

November 17, 1999.

On October 7, and November 19,

1999, the respondents and their

respective producers requested that the

Department find the seamless pipe

industry in Romania to be a marketoriented industry (MOI). Subsequently,

the Department issued a letter to the

Romanian embassy on October 14, 1999,

requesting any additional information

relevant to the MOI request. On October

22, 1999, we received comments from

the Romanian Ministry of Industry and

Commerce in support of the MOI claim.

The petitioners submitted comments to

the Department on November 2, 1999,

objecting to the MOI claim made by the

responding companies and the

Romanian Ministry of Industry and

Commerce.

Based on a request made by the

petitioners on November 10, 1999, we

postponed the preliminary

determination until January 26, 1999.

See Notice of Postponement of

Preliminary Antidumping Duty

Determinations: Certain Small and

Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy

Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure

Pipe From the Czech Republic, Romania

and Mexico, 64 FR 66168 (November 24,

1999).

Between January 6 and January 12,

2000, the petitioners and the

respondents submitted additional

comments regarding the preliminary

determination.

Although the deadline for this

determination was originally January

26, 2000, due to the Federal

Government shutdown on January 25

and 26, 2000, resulting from inclement

weather, the timeframe for issuing this

determination has been extended by two

days.

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the

Act, on November 5, 1999, the

respondents requested that, in the event

of an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination. Further to that request,

on November 12, 1999, the respondents

requested that the Department extend by

60 days the application of the

provisional measures prescribed under

paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 773(d)

of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2) the

requesting exporters account for a

significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise, and (3) no

compelling reasons for denial exist, we

are granting the respondents’ request

and are postponing the final

determination until no later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register. Suspension of

liquidation will be extended

accordingly.

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation

includes small diameter seamless

carbon and alloy (other than stainless)

steel standard, line, and pressure pipes

and redraw hollows produced, or

equivalent, to the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) A–53,

ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–

334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589,

ASTM A–795, and the American

Petroleum Institute (API) 5L

specifications and meeting the physical

parameters described below, regardless

of application. The scope of this

investigation also includes all products

used in standard, line, or pressure pipe

applications and meeting the physical

parameters described below, regardless

of specification. Specifically included

within the scope of this investigation

are seamless pipes and redraw hollows,

less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3

mm) in outside diameter, regardless of

wall-thickness, manufacturing process

(hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish

(plain end, beveled end, upset end,

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or

surface finish.

The seamless pipes subject to this

investigation are currently classifiable

under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20,

7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00,

7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16,

7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24,

7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32,

7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60,

7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10,

7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and

7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Specifications, Characteristics, and

Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are

intended for the conveyance of water,

steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil

products, natural gas and other liquids

and gasses in industrial piping systems.

They may carry these substances at

elevated pressures and temperatures

and may be subject to the application of

external heat. Seamless carbon steel

pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A–106

standard may be used in temperatures of

up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at

various American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) code stress levels.

Alloy pipes made to ASTM A–335

standard must be used if temperatures

and stress levels exceed those allowed

for ASTM A–106. Seamless pressure

5596 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

pipes sold in the United States are

commonly produced to the ASTM A–

106 standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most

commonly produced to the ASTM A–53

specification and generally are not

intended for high temperature service.

They are intended for the low

temperature and pressure conveyance of

water, steam, natural gas, air and other

liquids and gasses in plumbing and

heating systems, air conditioning units,

automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipes (depending

on type and code) may carry liquids at

elevated temperatures but must not

exceed relevant ASME code

requirements. If exceptionally low

temperature uses or conditions are

anticipated, standard pipe may be

manufactured to ASTM A–333 or ASTM

A–334 specifications.

Seamless line pipes are intended for

the conveyance of oil and natural gas or

other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line

pipes are produced to the API 5L

specification.

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A–

589) and seamless galvanized pipe for

fire protection uses (ASTM A–795) are

used for the conveyance of water.

Seamless pipes are commonly

produced and certified to meet ASTM

A–106, ASTM A–53, API 5L–B, and API

5L–X42 specifications. To avoid

maintaining separate production runs

and separate inventories, manufacturers

typically triple or quadruple certify the

pipes by meeting the metallurgical

requirements and performing the

required tests pursuant to the respective

specifications. Since distributors sell the

vast majority of this product, they can

thereby maintain a single inventory to

service all customers.

The primary application of ASTM A–

106 pressure pipes and triple- or

quadruple-certified pipes is in pressure

piping systems by refineries,

petrochemical plants, and chemical

plants. Other applications are in power

generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel

or nuclear), and in some oil field uses

(on shore and off shore) such as for

separator lines, gathering lines and

metering runs. A minor application of

this product is for use as oil and gas

distribution lines for commercial

applications. These applications

constitute the majority of the market for

the subject seamless pipes. However,

ASTM A–106 pipes may be used in

some boiler applications.

Redraw hollows are any unfinished

pipe or ‘‘hollow profiles’’ of carbon or

alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or

cold drawing/hydrostatic testing or

other methods to enable the material to

be sold under ASTM A–53, ASTM A–

106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334,

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–

795, and API 5L specifications.

The scope of this investigation

includes all seamless pipes meeting the

physical parameters described above

and produced to one of the

specifications listed above, regardless of

application, and whether or not also

certified to a non-covered specification.

Standard, line, and pressure

applications and the above-listed

specifications are defining

characteristics of the scope of this

investigation. Therefore, seamless pipes

meeting the physical description above,

but not produced to the ASTM A–53,

ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–

334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589,

ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications

shall be covered if used in a standard,

line, or pressure application.

For example, there are certain other

ASTM specifications of pipe which,

because of overlapping characteristics,

could potentially be used in ASTM A–

106 applications. These specifications

generally include ASTM A–161, ASTM

A–192, ASTM A–210, ASTM A–252,

ASTM A–501, ASTM A–523, ASTM A–

524, and ASTM A–618. When such

pipes are used in a standard, line, or

pressure pipe application, such

products are covered by the scope of

this investigation.

Specifically excluded from the scope

of this investigation are boiler tubing

and mechanical tubing, if such products

are not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM

A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334,

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–

795, and API 5L specifications and are

not used in standard, line, or pressure

pipe applications. In addition, finished

and unfinished OCTG are excluded

from the scope of this investigation, if

covered by the scope of another

antidumping duty order from the same

country. If not covered by such an

OCTG order, finished and unfinished

OCTG are included in this scope when

used in standard, line or pressure

applications.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Class or Kind

From August through November 1999,

the Department received submissions

from importers, respondents, and

consumers in the companion

investigations involving small and large

diameter seamless pipe from Japan,

requesting that the subject merchandise

be considered more than one class or

kind. Specifically, those parties

requested that the Department

subdivide each of these investigations

into the following separate classes or

kinds of merchandise: (1) Commodity

grade carbon seamless standard, line

and pressure pipe; (2) alloy seamless

pipe; and (3) high-strength seamless line

pipe. On November 8, 1999, the

petitioners rebutted these arguments.

We have preliminarily determined that

there is a single class or kind of

merchandise for small diameter pipe

and another distinct single class or kind

of merchandise for large diameter pipe.

For further discussion on this topic see

the Notice of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and the

Republic of South Africa, FR 64 69721

(December 14, 1999).

Period of Investigation

The period of this investigation (POI)

comprises each exporter’s two most

recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing

of the petition (i.e., October 1, 1998,

through March 31, 1999).

Nonmarket Economy Status

The Department has treated Romania

as a non-market-economy (NME)

country in all past antidumping

investigations (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe From Romania, 61 FR 24274

(May 14, 1996)). A designation as a

NME remains in effect until it is

revoked by the Department (see section

771(18)(C) of the Act).

The respondents in this investigation

have not requested a revocation of

Romania’s NME status. We have,

therefore, preliminarily determined to

continue to treat Romania as a NME.

When the Department is investigating

imports from a NME, section 773(c)(1)

of the Act directs us to base normal

value (NV) on the NME producer’s

factors of production, valued in a

comparable market economy that is a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise. The sources of individual

factor prices are discussed under the

Normal Value section, below.

Market-Oriented Industry

As indicated above, the two

Romanian producers and their

respective trading companies, as well as

the Romanian Ministry of Industry and

Commerce, requested that the

Department find the seamless pipe

industry in Romania to be a MOI.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5597

The criteria for determining whether

a MOI exists are: (1) There must be

virtually no government involvement in

setting prices or amounts to be

produced; (2) the industry producing

the merchandise under review should

be characterized by private or collective

ownership; and (3) market determined

prices must be paid for all significant

inputs, whether material or nonmaterial, and for all but an insignificant

portion of all inputs accounting for the

total value of the merchandise. See

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the

People’s Republic of China; Final

Results of Administrative Review, 61 FR

58514, 58516 (November 15, 1996) (Lug

Nuts). In addition, in order to make an

affirmative determination that an

industry in a NME country is a MOI, the

Department requires information on

virtually the entire industry. A MOI

claim, and supporting evidence, must

cover producers that collectively

constitute the industry in question;

otherwise, the MOI claim is dismissed.

(See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat

from the People’s Republic of China,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value, 62 FR 41347, 41353

(August 1, 1997) (Crawfish).)

We find preliminarily in this

investigation that the Romanian

seamless pipe industry does not meet

the Department’s criteria for an

affirmative MOI finding because the

respondents have placed information on

the record showing that all of the known

seamless pipe producers were primarily

owned by the government during

virtually the entire POI. Specifically, in

prior cases, even where we have found

some degree of private and collective

ownership in the industry in question,

we determined that the second prong of

the MOI test was not met because the

share of total production capacity

accounted for by private enterprises or

collectives was small. See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic

of China 63 FR 251, 72261 (December

31, 1998). Furthermore, notwithstanding

the issue of ownership, we do not have

sufficient information with respect to

approximately 20 percent of the

seamless pipe industry in Romania and,

therefore, are unable to determine

whether the Romanian government is

involved in setting prices or amounts to

be produced for a significant portion of

the industry for which we have no

information on the record. For a

complete discussion of the Department’s

preliminary determination that the

seamless pipe industry does not

constitute a MOI, see the December 15,

1999, memorandum, Whether the

Seamless Pipe Industry in Romania

Should Be Treated as a Market-Oriented

Industry, which is on file in the Central

Records Unit (CRU) (room B–099 of the

main Commerce Building).

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s policy to assign

all exporters of subject merchandise

subject to investigation in a non-marketeconomy (NME) country a single rate

unless an exporter can demonstrate that

it is sufficiently independent so as to be

entitled to a separate rate. For purposes

of this ‘‘separate rates’’ inquiry, the

Department analyzes each exporting

entity under the test established in the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588

(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 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 this test, exporters in NME

countries are entitled to separate,

company-specific margins when they

can demonstrate an absence of

government control over exports, both

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto).

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control includes the

following: (1) An absence of restrictive

stipulations associated with an

individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies.

De facto absence of government

control with respect to exports is based

on the following four criteria: (1)

Whether the export prices are set by or

subject to the approval of a government

authority; (2) whether each exporter

retains the proceeds from its sales and

makes independent decisions regarding

the disposition of profits or financing of

losses; (3) whether each exporter has

autonomy in making decisions

regarding the selection of management;

and (4) whether each exporter has the

authority to negotiate and sign

contracts. (See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at

22587.)

We have determined, according to the

criteria identified in Sparklers and

Silicon Carbide, that the evidence of

record demonstrates an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to exports by Sota and

MBI. Both Sota and MBI were

established as privately-owned limitedliability trading companies after

Romania began its extensive

privatization program in 1990; neither

company has been state-owned nor

controlled by provincial or local

governments. These companies are only

limited by their respective articles of

incorporation and bylaws and are not

subject to legislative enactments

decentralizing the companies’ control.

Specifically, the information on the

record shows that these companies are

autonomous in selecting their

management, negotiating and signing

contracts, setting their own export

prices and retaining their own profits.

For a complete discussion of the

Department’s preliminary determination

that Sota and MBI are entitled to

separate rates, see the January 28, 2000,

memorandum, Assignment of Separate

Rates for Respondents in the

Antidumping Duty Investigation of

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Romania, which is

on file in the CRU.

Romania-Wide Rate

As in all NME cases, the Department

implements a policy whereby there is a

rebuttable presumption that all

exporters or producers comprise a single

exporter under common government

control, the ‘‘NME entity.’’ The

Department assigns a single NME rate to

the NME entity, unless an exporter can

demonstrate eligibility for a separate

rate. Information on the record of this

investigation indicates that Sota and

MBI are the only Romanian exporters to

the United States of the subject

merchandise produced by Silcotub and

Petrotub. Further, as noted above,

although Republica produces the subject

merchandise, we have confirmed with

U.S. Customs that no subject

merchandise produced by Republica

was sold to the United States during the

POI, either directly by Republica or

through trading companies in Romania.

Since all exporters/producers of the

subject merchandise sold to the United

States during the POI responded to the

Department’s questionnaire, and we

have no reason to believe that there are

other non-responding exporters/

producers of the subject merchandise

during the POI, we calculated a

Romania-wide rate based on the

weighted-average margins determined

for Sota and MBI.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by Sota and MBI to

the United States were made at LTFV,

we compared the export price (EP) to

the NV, as described in the Export Price

and Normal Value sections of this

notice, below. In accordance with

5598 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to weighted-average NVs.

Export Price

We used EP methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because Sota and MBI sold the

subject merchandise directly to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States prior to importation, and CEP

methodology was not otherwise

appropriate.

1. Sota

We calculated EP based on packed

C&F prices to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price (gross unit price) for

inland freight from the plant/warehouse

to the port of embarkation, brokerage

and handling in Romania, and ocean

freight. Because certain domestic

brokerage and handling and inland

freight were provided by NME

companies, we based those charges on

surrogate rates from Indonesia and

Egypt. (See the Normal Value section for

further discussion.)

2. MBI

We calculated EP based on packed

FOB Romanian-port prices to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for inland freight from the

plant/warehouse to the port of

embarkation, and brokerage and

handling in Romania. As with Sota,

because certain domestic brokerage and

handling and inland freight were

provided by NME companies, we based

those charges on surrogate rates from

Indonesia and Egypt. (See the Normal

Value section for further discussion.)

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more market

economy countries that: (1) Are at a

level of economic development

comparable to that of the NME country;

and (2) are significant producers of

comparable merchandise. The

Department initially determined that

Egypt, the Philippines, Morocco,

Algeria, Jamaica, and Ecuador are the

countries most comparable to Romania

in terms of overall economic

development (see the August 24, 1999,

memorandum, Certain Small Diameter

Pipe (‘‘S–D Pipe’’) from Romania:

Nonmarket Economy Status and

Surrogate Country Selection). We

subsequently included Indonesia among

the countries which are economically

comparable to Romania because

Indonesia’s GNP per-capita and overall

economic development are also similar

to those of the above-referenced

countries.

Because of a lack of the necessary

factor price information from the other

potential surrogate countries that are

significant producers of comparable

products to the subject merchandise, we

have relied, where possible, on

information from Indonesia, the source

of the most complete information from

among the potential surrogate countries.

Accordingly, we have calculated NV by

applying Indonesian values to the

Romanian producers’ factors of

production for virtually all factors.

Where we were unable to obtain

Indonesian values, we used values for

inputs from Egypt, which also produces

products comparable to the subject

merchandise. For a complete analysis of

the selection of the surrogate country,

see the January 28, 2000, memorandum,

Selection of the Surrogate Country in

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Romania on file in

the CRU.

B. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by the

companies in Romania which produced

seamless pipes for the exporters that

sold seamless pipes to the United States

during the POI. To calculate NV, the

reported unit factor quantities were

multiplied by publicly available

Indonesian and, where necessary,

Egyptian values.

In selecting the surrogate values, we

considered the quality, specificity, and

contemporaneity of the data. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices to

make them delivered prices. We added

to Indonesian surrogate values a

surrogate freight cost using the reported

distance from the domestic supplier to

the factory because this distance was

shorter than the distance from the

nearest seaport to the factory. This

adjustment is in accordance with the

Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir.

1997). Where a producer did not report

the distance between the material

supplier and the factory, we used as

facts available the longest distance

reported, i.e., the distance between the

Romanian seaport and the producer’s

location. For those values not

contemporaneous with the POI, we

adjusted for inflation using wholesale

price indices published in the

International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics.

We valued material inputs and

packing material (i.e., where applicable,

steel billet, lacquer, plastic caps, ink,

paint, strap, clips, steel scrap, and foil)

by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

number, using imports statistics from

the UN Commodity Trade Statistics for

1998. Where a material input was

purchased in a market-economy

currency from a market-economy

supplier, we valued such a material

input at the actual purchase price in

accordance with § 351.408 (c)(1) of the

Department’s regulations. For a

complete analysis of surrogate values,

see the January 28, 2000, memorandum,

Factors of Production Valuation for

Preliminary Determination Valuation

Memorandum), on file in the CRU.

We valued labor using the method

described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value electricity, we used the 1997

electricity rates, as adjusted, for

Indonesia reported in the publication

Energy Prices and Taxes, 2nd quarter

1999. We based the value of natural gas

on 1998 Indonesian prices reported in

Energy Prices and Taxes, 2nd quarter

1999.

We based our calculation of factory

overhead and selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses on

1997 financial statements of three

Indonesian producers (i.e., PT Jakarta

Kyoei, PT Jaya Pari, and PT Krakatau) of

products comparable to the subject

merchandise. In order to calculate a

positive amount for profit consistent

with Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From

Ecuador: Preliminary Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 18878

(April 16, 1999), we calculated profit

based only on PT Krakatau’s financial

statement because the financial

statements for PT Jakarta Kyoei and PT

Jaya Pari indicate that those companies

incurred losses. Disregarding those

financial statements enabled us to

derive an ‘‘element of profit’’ as

intended by the SAA. See SAA at 839.

To value truck freight rates, we used

a 1999 rate provided by a trucking

company located in Indonesia. For rail

transportation, we valued rail rates

using information found in a December,

1994 cable from the U.S. Embassy in

Jakarta, Indonesia, as adjusted for

inflation.

For brokerage and handling, because

an Indonesian value was unavailable,

we used a 1999 rate provided by a

trucking and shipping company located

in Alexandria, Egypt. For further details,

see Valuation Memorandum.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5599

1The petitioners in this investigation are Gulf

States Tube, a Division of Vision Metals, Inc.;

Koppel Steel Corporation; Sharon Tube

Corporation; USS/Kobe Steel Corporation; U.S.

Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation; and the

United Steelworkers of America.

2Both versions of the questionnaire were issued

because Nova Hut had requested that the NME

status of the Czech Republic be revoked.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information relied

upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise from

Romania entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. We will instruct

the Customs Service to require a cash

deposit or the posting of a bond equal

to the weighted-average amount by

which the NV exceeds the EP, as

indicated in the chart below. These

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Sota Communication Company 13.75

Metal Business International

S.R.L. .................................... 10.99

Romania-wide rate ................... 12.34

The Romania-wide rate applies to all

entries of the subject merchandise

except for entries from exporters/

producers that are identified

individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine by the later of 120 days

after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs in six copies must be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration no later than

March 20, 2000, and rebuttal briefs no

later than March 27, 2000. A list of

authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Such summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

March 23, 2000, at the U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230. Parties should confirm by

telephone the time, date, and place of

the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination not later then 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

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

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2577 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–851–802]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and

Pressure Pipe From the Czech

Republic

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis McClure or John Brinkmann, at

(202) 482–0984 or (202) 482–4126,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office VI, Group II, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

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 351

(April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain small diameter carbon and alloy

seamless standard, line, and pressure

pipe (seamless pipe) from the Czech

Republic are being sold, or are likely to

be sold, in the United States at less than

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section

733 of the Act. The estimated margins

of sales at LTFV are shown in the

Suspension of Liquidation section of

this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on

July 20, 1999.1 See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From Japan and Mexico;

and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From the Czech Republic,

Japan, the Republic of South Africa and

Romania, 64 FR 40825 (July 28, 1999)

(Initiation Notice). Since the initiation

of the investigation, the following

events have occurred:

As of the date of initiation of this

investigation, the Czech Republic was

still considered a non-market economy

(NME) country. On July 23, 1999, the

Department received a letter from the

Czech Ambassador, on behalf of the

Government of the Czech Republic,

requesting revocation of the Czech

Republic’s NME status, under section

771(18)(A) of the Act, in the context of

this investigation. On August 5, 1999,

the Department initiated a formal

inquiry into the Czech Republic’s status

as a NME. On August 12, 1999, the

Department selected Nova Hut, a.s.

(Nova Hut), the sole producer of the

subject merchandise in the Czech

Republic, as a mandatory respondent,

and issued section A of the NME and

market economy 2 antidumping

questionnaires to Nova Hut. On August

16, 1999, the Department received

comments from the Czech Government

and petitioners addressing the criteria

necessary to revoke the Czech

Republic’s NME status.