6134 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

should be submitted as provided for in

the ADDRESSES and DATES portions of

this Notice.

Done at Washington, DC, this 28th day of

January, 2000.

Charles W. Laughlin,

Administrator, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 00–2823 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–601]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

Hussey Copper Ltd., The Miller

Company, Olin Corporation,

Outokumpu American Brass, Revere

Copper Products, Inc., International

Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers, International

Union, Allied Industrial Workers of

America (‘‘AFL–CIO’’), Mechanics

Educational Society of America (‘‘Local

56’’), and the United Steel Workers of

America (‘‘AFL–CIO/CLC’’) (collectively

the ‘‘Petitioners’’), the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on brass

sheet and strip from Canada. The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter of

this merchandise to the United States,

Wolverine Tube (Canada), Inc.,

(‘‘Wolverine’’). The period covered is

January 1, 1998, through December 31,

1998. As a result of the review, the

Department has preliminarily

determined that a dumping margin

exists for this respondent for the

covered period.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paige Rivas or Nithya Nagarajan,

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

Office IV, Group II , International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0651 or 482–5253,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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’s

regulations refer to the regulations

codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

The Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published an

antidumping duty order on brass sheet

and strip from Canada on January 12,

1987 (52 FR 1217). On January 14, 1999,

the Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on brass sheet

and strip from Canada (64 FR 2470). On

January 29, 1999, the Petitioners

requested an administrative review of

Wolverine’s exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States for the

period January 1, 1998 through

December 31, 1998. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.213 we published a notice

of initiation of the review on February

22, 1999 (64 FR 8542). The Department

is now conducting this administrative

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

On April 22, 1999, we issued an

antidumping questionnaire to

Wolverine. Wolverine submitted the

response to Sections A, B, C, and D on

July 9, 1999. On July 29, 1999, the

Petitioners submitted comments with

respect to Wolverine’s questionnaire

which response.

We issued a supplemental

questionnaire to Wolverine on October

13, 1999. The response to this

supplemental questionnaire was

submitted by Wolverine on November

12, 1999. On December 2, 1999, the

Petitioners submitted comments with

respect to Wolverine’s supplement

questionnaire response.

On December 20, 1999 we issued a

second supplemental questionnaire to

Wolverine. Wolverine filed its response

to the second supplemental

questionnaire which was received on

January 11, 2000.

On January 28, 2000, the Department

issued its third supplemental

questionnaire to Wolverine. The

response to the supplemental

questionnaire is not due until after the

preliminary results are completed.

Therefore, we will take that response

into account for the final results of

review.

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 October 19, 1999, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case to

January 31, 2000. See Brass Sheet and

Strip from Canada: Time Limit, 64 FR

56308 (October 19, 1999).

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

brass sheet and strip (‘‘BSS’’), other than

leaded and tinned BSS. The chemical

composition of the covered products is

currently defined in the Copper

Development Association (‘‘C.D.A.’’)

200 Series or the Unified Numbering

System (‘‘U.N.S.’’) C2000. This review

does not cover products the chemical

compositions of which are defined by

other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. In

physical dimensions, the products

covered by this review have a solid

rectangular cross section over 0.006

inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188

inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished

thickness or gauge, regardless of width.

Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse

wound), and cut-to-length products are

included. The merchandise is currently

classified under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) item numbers

7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although

the HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive. Pursuant to

the final affirmative determination of

circumvention of the antidumping duty

order, covering the period September 1,

1990, through September 30, 1991, we

determined that brass plate used in the

production of BSS falls within the scope

of the antidumping duty order on BSS

from Canada. See Brass Sheet and Strip

from Canada: Final Affirmative

Determination of Circumvention of

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 33610

(June 18, 1993).

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is

January 1, 1998, through December 31,

1998. The review involves one

manufacturer/exporter, Wolverine.

United States Price (‘‘USP’’)

In calculating the price to the United

States, we used export price (‘‘EP’’) as

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6135

defined in section 772(a) of the Act

because the subject merchandise was

sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers in

the United States prior to the date of

importation into the United States and

the use of constructed export price was

not indicated by the facts of the record.

We calculated EP based on prices that

were for merchandise delivered to the

customers’ premises. In accordance with

section 772(c)(1) of the Act, we adjusted

the gross USP for U.S. brokerage and

handling, foreign and U.S. inland

freight, and customs duty. No other

adjustments to EP were claimed or

allowed.

Normal Value (‘‘NV’’)

A. Viability

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared

Wolverine’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because

Wolverine’s aggregate volume of home

market sales of the foreign like product

was greater than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market provides a viable

basis for calculating NV for Wolverine.

B. Below Cost of Production Test

Because we disregarded sales below

the cost of production (‘‘COP’’) in the

1997 POR, the most-recently completed

segment of this proceeding, we have

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

under consideration for determining NV

in this review may have been at prices

below the COP, within the meaning of

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

Notice of Final Results of Review and

Intent Not to Revoke Order in Part:

Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada, 64

FR 46344 (August 25, 1999) (‘‘BS&S

1997’’). Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by Wolverine. In

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the

Act, we calculated COP based on the

sum of materials and fabrication

employed in producing the foreign like

product, plus selling, general, and

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’) and

the cost of all expenses incidental to

placing the foreign like product in

condition packed ready for shipment.

We relied on the home market sales and

COP information Wolverine provided in

its questionnaire responses. After

calculating COP, we tested whether

home market sales of subject BSS were

made at prices below the COP within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities, and whether such prices

permitted the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. To

conduct this test, we compared modelspecific COPs to the reported home

market prices less any applicable

movement charges.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than twenty percent of

Wolverine’s home market sales of a

model were at prices less than the COP,

we did not disregard any below-cost

sales of that model because we

determined that the below-cost sales

were not made within an extended

period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where twenty percent or

more of Wolverine’s home market sales

of a particular model were at prices less

than the COP, we determined that such

sales were made within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities

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

and (C) of the Act. To determine

whether such sales were at prices which

would not permit the full recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

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

of the Act, we compared home market

prices to the weighted-average COPs for

the POR. The results of our cost test for

Wolverine indicated that for certain

home market models less than twenty

percent of the sales of the model were

at prices below COP. We therefore

retained all sales of these models in our

analysis and used them as the basis for

determining NV. Our cost test for

Wolverine also indicated that for certain

other home market models more than

twenty percent of the home market sales

within an extended period of time were

at prices below COP and would not

permit the full recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. In

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

Act, we therefore excluded the belowcost sales of these models from our

analysis and used the remaining abovecost sales as the basis for determining

NV.

C. Differences in Levels of Trade

(‘‘LOT’’)

In accordance with section

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

Statement of Administrative Action

(‘‘SAA’’) at 829–831, to the extent

practicable, the Department will

calculate NV based on sales at the same

LOT as the U.S. sales. When the

Department is unable to find sales in the

comparison market at the same LOT as

the U.S. sale(s), the Department may

compare sales in the U.S. and foreign

market at different LOTs, and adjust NV

if appropriate. The NV LOT is that of

the starting-price sales in the home

market. As the Department explained in

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

17148, 17156 (April 9, 1997), for both

EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for

the LOT analysis is the sale from the

exporter to the importer.

To determine whether comparison

market NV sales are at a different LOT

than the U.S. sales, we examine stages

in the marketing process and selling

functions along the chain of distribution

between the producer and unaffiliated

customer. If the comparison-market

sales are at a different LOT and the

difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between the sales on

which NV is based and comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export

transaction, we make a LOT adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

See Notice of Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732

(November 17, 1997), and Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From

Italy; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 25826 (May 11, 1998).

In its questionnaire responses,

Wolverine stated that there were no

significant differences in its selling

activities by customer categories

between markets. Therefore, Wolverine

did not distinguish between LOTs for

this review and did not claim a LOT

adjustment. Our analysis of the

questionnaire responses detailing the

selling functions (e.g., strategic and

economic planning; technical support;

engineering services; procurement

services; packing; computer, legal,

accounting, audit, and/or businesssystems development; and freight and

delivery arrangements) provided by

Wolverine in the U.S. and home markets

leads us to conclude that sales in those

markets are not made at different LOTs.

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that

all sales in the home market and the

U.S. market were made at the same

LOT. Therefore, all price comparisons

are at the same LOT and no adjustment

pursuant to section 773(a)(7) of the Act

is necessary. For a complete discussion,

see Preliminary Results Analysis Memo

(‘‘Analysis Memo’’), dated January 31,

2000, on file in the Central Records

Unit, Room B–099 of the main

Commerce Department Building.

D. Model-Matching

We calculated NV using prices of BSS

products having the same characteristics

as to form, temper, gauge, width, and

6136 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

alloy as the U.S. products. We used the

same gauge and width groupings and

the same model-match methodology in

this review as in the last completed

administrative review. See BS&S 1997.

Also, see Analysis Memo.

We based NV on the price at which

the foreign like product is first sold for

consumption in the exporting country,

in the usual commercial quantities and

in the ordinary course of trade, and at

the same LOT as the export price, as

defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Act.

We reduced NV for warranty and

home market credit expenses, and

increased NV for U.S. credit expenses in

accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii), due to differences in

circumstances of sale. We reduced NV

for home market movement expenses, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii);

and for packing costs incurred in the

home market, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(B)(i); and increased NV

to account for U.S. packing expenses in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A).

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

to NV, we preliminarily determine that

a 3.33 percent dumping margin exists

for Wolverine for the period January 1,

1998, through December 31, 1998.

Assessment

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/

importer-specific assessment rates. We

divided the total dumping margins for

the reviewed sales by the total entered

value of those reviewed sales for each

importer. We will direct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess the resulting

percentage margin against the entered

customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of that importer’s

entries under the relevant order during

the review period.

Cash Deposit

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

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

rate for Wolverine, the sole respondent

covered by this review, will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

these reviews, a prior review, or the

original LTFV investigations, 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

manufacturer nor the exporter is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

8.10 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigations.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative reviews.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will disclose to parties to

the proceeding any calculations

performed in connection with these

preliminary results within five days

after the publication of this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested

parties may submit written comments in

response to these preliminary results.

Case briefs must be submitted within 30

days after the date of publication of this

notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to

arguments raised in case briefs, must be

submitted no later than five days after

the time limit for filing case briefs.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must

be served on interested parties in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice, interested parties may

request a public hearing on arguments

to be raised in the case and rebuttal

briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies

otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will

be held two days after the date for

submission of rebuttal briefs, that is,

thirty-seven days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing not later than 120 days

after the date of publication of these

preliminary results.

Notification to Parties

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2851 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–805]

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe From Mexico; Final Results

of Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

administrative reviews.

SUMMARY: On June 25, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of the

1992–1993 and 1993–1994

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on certain

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from Mexico (64 FR 34190). These

reviews cover one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise

during the periods of review (POR) for

April 28, 1992 through October 31,

1993, (the 92/93 POR) and November 1,

1993 through October 31, 1994 (the 93/

94 POR).

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based upon our

analysis of the comments received we

have not changed the results from those

presented in our preliminary results for

the 92/93 administrative review.

However, we have changed the results

for the 93/94 administrative review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Drury at (202) 482–0195 or Linda

Ludwig at (202) 482–3833,

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as