Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66711

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this review (amended as

indicated below) is dispositive.

Excluded from the review, as a result of

a changed circumstances review (63 FR

37338 (July 10, 1998)) are the following:

shipments of seamless carbon and alloy

(other than stainless) steel pipes, of

circular cross-section, not more than

114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside

diameter, regardless of wall thickness or

manufacturing process (hot-finished or

cold-drawn) that (1) has been cut into

lengths of six to 120 inches, (2) has had

the inside bore ground to a smooth

surface, (3) has had multiple layers of

specially formulated corrosion resistant

glass permanently baked on at

temperatures of 1,440 to 1,700 degrees

Fahrenheit in thicknesses from 0.032 to

0.085 inch (40 to 80 mils), and (4) has

flanges or other forged stub ends welded

on both ends of the pipe. The special

corrosion resistant glass referred to in

this definition may be glass containing

by weight (1) 70 to 80 percent of an

oxide of silicone, zirconium, titanium or

cerium (Oxide Group RO sub2 ), (2) 10

to 15 percent of an oxide of sodium,

potassium, or lithium (Oxide Group

RO), (3) from a trace amount to 5

percent of an oxide of either aluminum,

cobalt, iron, vanadium, or boron (Oxide

Group R sub2 O sub3 , or (4) from a

trace amount to 5 percent of a fluorine

compound in which fluorine replaces

the oxygen in any one of the previously

listed oxide groups. These glass-lined

pressure pipes are commonly

manufactured for use in glass-lined

equipment systems for processing

corrosive or reactive chemicals,

including acrylates, alkanolamines,

herbicides, pesticides, pharmaceuticals

and solvents. The glass-lined pressure

pipes subject to the changed

circumstances review are currently

classifiable under subheadings

7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024 and

7304.39.0028 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

The HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and U.S. Customs’

purposes only. The written description

of the excluded products remains

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to these sunset

reviews are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and

Decision Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision

Memorandum’’) from Jeffrey A. May,

Director, Office of Policy, Import

Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated October 31, 2000,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

The issues discussed in the Decision

Memorandum include the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and the magnitude of the margins likely

to prevail were the orders revoked.

Parties can find a complete discussion

of all issues raised in these reviews and

the corresponding recommendations in

this public memorandum which is on

file in the Central Records Unit, room

B–099, of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum can be accessed

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading

‘‘October 2000.’’ The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Reviews

We determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on Seamless

Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany,

and Italy would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the following percentage weightedaverage margins:

Country Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Argentina ..................................................................................... Siderca S.A.I.C. ......................................................................... 108.13

All Others ................................................................................... 108.13

Brazil ........................................................................................... Mannesmann S.A. ..................................................................... 124.94

All Others ................................................................................... 124.94

Germany ..................................................................................... Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG ................................................. 57.72

All Others ................................................................................... 57.72

Italy .............................................................................................. Dalmine ...................................................................................... 1.27

All Others ................................................................................... 1.27

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.

These five-year (‘‘sunset’’) reviews

and notice are in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28567 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–054; A–588–604]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in

Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the

petitioner and two respondents, the

66712 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings (TRBs) and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, from Japan (A–

588–604), and of the antidumping

finding on TRBs, four inches or less in

outside diameter, and components

thereof, from Japan (A–588–054). The

review of the A–588–054 finding covers

two manufacturers/exporters of the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period October 1,

1998, through September 30, 1999. The

review of the A–588–604 order covers

three manufacturers/exporters and the

period October 1, 1998, through

September 30, 1999.

We preliminarily determine that sales

of TRBs have been made below the

normal value (NV) for all respondents.

If these preliminary results are adopted

in our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties based on the difference between

United States price and the NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in these

proceedings are requested to submit

with the argument (1) a statement of the

issues and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Scott (NTN or NSK), Patricia

Tran (Koyo Seiko), or Robert James, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone : (202) 482–2657, (202) 482–

2704, or (202) 482–0649, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act) are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act. In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1, 2000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 18, 1976 the Treasury

Department published in the Federal

Register (41 FR 34974) the antidumping

finding on TRBs from Japan (the A–588–

054 case), and on October 6, 1987 the

Department published the antidumping

duty order on TRBs from Japan (the A–

588–604 case) (52 FR 37352). On

October 20, 1999, the Department

published the notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ for

both TRB cases covering the period

October 1, 1998 through September 30,

1999 (64 FR 56485).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213

(b)(1), the petitioner, the Timken

Company (Timken), requested that we

conduct a review of Koyo Seiko Co.,

Ltd. (Koyo) and NSK Ltd. (NSK) in both

the A–588–054 and A–588–604 cases.

Timken also requested that we conduct

a review of NTN Corporation (NTN) in

the A–588–604 TRB case. In addition,

NTN requested that the Department

conduct a review in the A–588–604 case

and NSK requested that the Department

conduct a review in both the A–588–604

and A–588–054 cases. On December 3,

1999, we published in the Federal

Register a notice of initiation of these

antidumping duty administrative

reviews covering the period October 1,

1998 through September 30, 1999 (64

FR 67846).

Because it was not practicable to

complete these reviews within the

normal time frame, on May 26, 2000, we

published in the Federal Register our

notice of the extension of the time limits

for both the A–588–054 and A–588–604

reviews (65 FR 34148). This extension

established the deadline for these

preliminary results of October 31, 2000.

Scope of the Reviews

Imports covered by the A–588–054

finding are sales or entries of TRBs, four

inches or less in outside diameter when

assembled, including inner race or cone

assemblies and outer races or cups, sold

either as a unit or separately. This

merchandise is classified under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 8482.20.00 and 8482.99.15.

Imports covered by the A–588–604

order include TRBs and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished, which are

flange, take-up cartridge, and hanger

units incorporating TRBs, and roller

housings (except pillow blocks)

incorporating tapered rollers, with or

without spindles, whether or not for

automotive use. Products subject to the

A–588–054 finding are not included

within the scope of this order, except

those manufactured by NTN. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under HTS item numbers 8482.20.00,

8482.91.00, 8482.99.15, 8482.99.45,

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80,

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and 8483.90.80.

The HTS item numbers listed above for

both the A–588–054 finding and the A–

588–604 order are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

The period for each 1998–99 review is

October 1, 1998, through September 30,

1999. The review of the A–588–054

finding covers TRB sales by two

manufacturers/exporters (Koyo and

NSK). The review of the A–588–604

order covers TRBs sales by three

manufacturers/exporters (Koyo, NTN,

and NSK).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Tariff Act, we verified information

provided by NTN and Koyo, using

standard verification procedures, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports, on

file in Room B–099 in the main

Commerce building.

Use of Facts Available

In accordance with section

776(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act, in these

preliminary results we find it necessary

to use partial facts available in those

instances where a respondent did not

provide us with certain information

necessary to conduct our analysis. This

occurred with respect to certain sales

and cost information Koyo failed to

report for its sales of U.S. furthermanufactured merchandise subject to

the A–588–604 order.

On February 11, 2000, Koyo requested

that it not be required to submit a

response to Section E of our

questionnaire regarding its U.S. furthermanufactured sales. We informed Koyo

on April 11, 2000 that it was required

to supply further-manufacturing data by

responding to section E of the

Department’s questionnaire by May 2,

2000. Koyo did not provide section E

data, as requested by our questionnaire.

Therefore, as in Tapered Roller Bearings

and Parts Thereof, Finished and

Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in

Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, from Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Revocation in Part, 65 FR

11767 (March 6, 2000) (1997–98 TRB

Final), we have preliminarily

determined that, pursuant to section

776(a)(2)(B) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act,

it is appropriate to make an inference

adverse to the interests of Koyo because

it failed to cooperate by not responding

to the Department’s request for

information.

Section 776(a)(2)(b) of the Tariff Act

provides that the Department will,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66713

subject to section 782(d), use the facts

otherwise available in reaching a

determination if a respondent fails to

provide necessary information ‘‘by the

deadlines for submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1)

and (e) of section 782’’ [of the Tariff

Act]. Despite requests for information

related to further processing in both our

original and supplemental

questionnaires, Koyo neglected to

submit this information in the form and

manner requested by the Department.

Section 782(c)(1) of the Tariff Act does

not apply in this instance since Koyo

did not provide a full explanation of

why it was not able to submit the

further processing information

requested in section E, nor did it suggest

an alternative form in which it could

submit section E data. Moreover,

pursuant to section 782(d), Koyo was

specifically informed that it was

required to submit section E, yet it

failed to do so and failed to provide any

explanation of this deficiency. Finally,

under section 782(e) the Department

concludes that Koyo’s information,

absent section E, is too incomplete to

serve as a reliable basis for this

determination, and that Koyo has not

acted to the best of its ability (see

discussion below). Because we did not

receive the further processing data we

requested either in the form and manner

outlined in section E or in an acceptable

alternative format by our established

deadline, we determine that the use of

facts available is appropriate in this case

for Koyo.

The Department is authorized, under

section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, to use

an inference that is adverse to the

interest of a party if the Department

finds that the party has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with the Department’s

request for information. We examined

whether Koyo had acted to the best of

its ability in responding to our requests

for information. We took into

consideration the fact that, as an

experienced respondent in reviews of

the TRB orders as well as the separate

order covering antifriction bearings, it

can reasonably be expected to know

which types of information we request

in each review. Because Koyo has

submitted to the Department in previous

TRB reviews complete furthermanufacturing responses, we have

determined that it failed to act to the

best of its ability in providing the data

we requested and that adverse

inferences are warranted. See Tapered

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan,

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, from Japan;

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews and

Termination in Part, 61 FR 25200 (May

20, 1996). As a result, we have used the

highest rate determined for Koyo from

any prior segment of the A–588–604

proceedings as partial adverse facts

available, which is secondary

information within the meaning of

section 776(c) of the Tariff Act. See 19

CFR 351.308(c)(1)(iii).

Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act

provides that the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate

secondary information used as facts

available from independent sources

reasonably at its disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) provides that ‘‘corroborate’’

means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary

information to be used has probative

value (see H.R. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1, at

870 (1994); 19 CFR 351.308(d)).

To corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

calculated margins is administrative

determinations. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as adverse facts available a

calculated dumping margin from a prior

segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of

the margin for that time period. With

respect to the relevance aspect of

corroboration, however, the Department

will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are

circumstances that would render a

margin irrelevant. Where circumstances

indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as adverse facts available,

the Department will disregard the

margin and determine an appropriate

margin (see Fresh Cut Flowers from

Mexico; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 49567 (February 22,

1996), where we disregarded the highest

margin in the case as best information

available because the margin was based

on another company’s uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an

extremely high margin).

For these preliminary results, we have

examined the history of the A–588–604

case and have determined that 41.04

percent, the rate we calculated for Koyo

in the 1993–94 A–588–604 review, is

the highest rate for this firm in any prior

segment of the A–588–604 order. See

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings,

Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan; Final Results of

Administrative Review and Termination

in Part, 63 FR 20585 (April 27, 1998).

In the absence of information on the

administrative record that application of

this 41.04 percent rate would be

inappropriate, that the margin is not

relevant, or that leads us to re-examine

this rate as adverse facts available in the

instant review, we find the margin

reliable and relevant. As a result, for

these preliminary results we have

applied as adverse facts available, a

margin of 41.04 percent to Koyo’s

further-manufactured U.S. sales.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

Because all of Koyo’s and NSK’s sales

and certain of NTN’s sales of subject

merchandise were first sold to

unaffiliated purchasers after importation

into the United States, in calculating

U.S. price for these sales we used

constructed export price (CEP) as

defined in section 772(b) of the Tariff

Act. We based CEP on the packed,

delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for discounts, billing adjustments,

freight allowances, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the

Tariff Act, we reduced this price for

movement expenses (Japanese pre-sale

inland freight, Japanese post-sale inland

freight, international air and/or ocean

freight, marine insurance, Japanese

brokerage and handling, U.S. inland

freight from the port to the warehouse,

U.S. inland freight from the warehouse

to the customer, U.S. duty, post-sale

warehousing, pre-sale warehousing, and

U.S. brokerage and handling). We also

reduced the price, where applicable, by

an amount for the following expenses

incurred in the selling of the

merchandise in the United States

pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the

Tariff Act: commissions to unaffiliated

parties, U.S. credit, payments to third

parties, U.S. repacking expenses, and

indirect selling expenses (which

included, where applicable, inventory

carrying costs, indirect advertising

expenses, and indirect technical

services expenses). Finally, pursuant to

section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act, we

further reduced U.S. price by an amount

for profit to arrive at CEP.

In the instant review NTN claimed an

offsetting adjustment to its U.S. indirect

66714 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

selling expenses to account for ‘‘the

interest expense incurred financing

antidumping duty deposits.’’ See NTN’s

April 28, 2000 Supplemental

Questionnaire Response at C–6 and C–

7. Because we have long maintained,

and continue to maintain, that

antidumping duties, and cash deposits

of antidumping duties, are not expenses

that we should remove from U.S.

indirect selling expenses, we have

continued to deny such an adjustment.

See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

from Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

from Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 63 FR 63860, 63865 (November

17, 1998) (1996–97 TRB Final).

Because certain of NTN’s sales of

subject merchandise were made to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States prior to importation into the

United States and the CEP methodology

was not indicated by the facts of record,

in accordance with section 772(a) of the

Tariff Act we used export price (EP) for

these sales. We calculated EP as the

packed, delivered price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Tariff Act, we reduced this price,

where applicable, by Japanese pre-sale

inland freight, Japanese post-sale inland

freight, international air and/or ocean

freight, marine insurance, Japanese

brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage

and handling, U.S. duty, and U.S.

inland freight.

Where appropriate, in accordance

with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act,

the Department also deducts from CEP

the cost of any further manufacture or

assembly in the United States, except

where the special rule provided in

section 772(e) of the Tariff Act is

applicable. Section 772(e) of the Tariff

Act provides that, where the subject

merchandise is imported by a person

affiliated with the exporter or producer

and the value added in the United

States by the affiliated person is likely

to exceed substantially the value of the

subject merchandise, and if there is a

sufficient quantity of sales to provide a

reasonable basis for comparison and we

determine that the use of such sales is

appropriate, we shall determine the CEP

for such merchandise using the price of

identical or other subject merchandise

sold by the exporter or producer to an

unaffiliated person. If there is not a

sufficient quantity of such sales to

provide a reasonable basis for

comparison, or if we determine that

using the price of identical or other

subject merchandise is not appropriate,

we may use any other reasonable basis

to determine CEP. See sections 772(e)(1)

and (2) of the Tariff Act. In judging

whether the use of identical or other

subject merchandise is appropriate, the

Department must consider several

factors, including whether it is more

appropriate to use another ‘‘reasonable

basis.’’ Under some circumstances, we

may use the standard methodology as a

reasonable alternative to the methods

described in sections 772(e)(1) and (2) of

the Tariff Act. In deciding whether it is

more appropriate to use the standard

methodology, we have considered and

weighed the burden on the Department

in applying the standard methodology

as a reasonable alternative and the

extent to which application of the

standard methodology will lead to more

accurate results. The burden on the

Department of using the standard

methodology may vary from case to case

depending on factors such as the nature

of the further-manufacturing process

and the finished products. The

increased accuracy gained by applying

the standard methodology will vary

significantly from case to case,

depending upon such factors as the

amount of value added in the United

States and the proportion of total U.S.

sales that involve further

manufacturing. In cases where the

burden on the Department is high, it is

more likely that the Department will

determine that potential gains in

accuracy do not outweigh the burden of

applying the standard methodology.

Thus, the Department likely will

determine that application of the

standard methodology is not more

appropriate than application of the

methods described in paragraphs

772(e)(1) and (2), or some other

reasonable alternate methodology. By

contrast, if the burden is relatively low

and there is reason to believe the

standard methodology is likely to be

more accurate, the Department is more

likely to determine that it is not

appropriate to apply the methods

described in paragraphs 772(e)(1) or (2)

of the Tariff Act in lieu of the standard

methodology. See Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, from Japan, and

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or

Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, From Japan;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR

47452, 47455 (September 9, 1997)

(1995–96 TRB Prelim).

NTN imported subject merchandise

(TRB parts) which was further

processed in the United States. NTN

further manufactured the imported

scope merchandise into merchandise of

the same class or kind as merchandise

within the scope of the A–588–604

order. Based on information provided

by NTN in its January 10, 2000 and

January 14, 2000 letters to the

Department, we first determined

whether the value added in the United

States was likely to exceed substantially

the value of the subject merchandise.

We estimated the value added based on

the differences between the averages of

the prices charged to the first

unaffiliated U.S. customer for the final

merchandise sold (finished TRBs) and

the averages of the prices paid by the

affiliated party for the subject

merchandise (imported TRB parts), and

determined that the value added was

likely to exceed substantially the value

of the imported TRB parts.

We then examined whether it would

be appropriate to use sales of identical

or other subject merchandise to

unaffiliated persons as a basis for

comparison, as stated under paragraphs

772(e)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act. Based

on the information provided by NTN in

Exhibit A–1 of its February 11, 2000

questionnaire response and its January

10, 2000 and January 14, 2000 letters,

we determined that sales of identical or

other subject merchandise to

unaffiliated persons were in sufficient

quantity for the purpose of determining

dumping margins for NTN’s imported

TRBs which were further manufactured

in the United States prior to resale.

Furthermore, the proportion of NTN’s

further-manufactured merchandise to its

total imports of subject merchandise

was relatively low. In NTN’s case, any

potential gains in accuracy obtained by

examining NTN’s further-manufactured

sales are outweighed by the burden of

the applying the standard methodology.

Accordingly, it would be appropriate to

apply one of the methodologies

specified in the statute with respect to

NTN’s imported TRB parts. Therefore,

we have used the weighted-average

dumping margins we calculated on

NTN’s sales of identical or similar

subject merchandise to unaffiliated

persons in the United States. See 19

CFR 351.402(c).

With respect to Koyo, while we

determined that the value added to the

United States was likely to exceed the

value of the imported products, we have

determined that the use of either of the

two proxies specified in the statute is

not appropriate. See Facts Available

section for further information.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66715

Normal Value

A. Viability

Based on (1) the fact that each

company’s quantity of sales in the home

market was greater than five percent of

its sales to the U.S. market and (2) the

absence of any information that a

particular market situation in the

exporting country does not permit a

proper comparison, we determined that

the quantity of the foreign like product

for all respondents sold in the exporting

country was sufficient to permit a

proper comparison with the sales of

subject merchandise to the United

States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the

Tariff Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff

Act, we based NV on the prices at which

the foreign like products were first sold

for consumption in Japan.

B. Arm’s-Length Sales

For all respondents we have excluded

from our analysis those sales made to

affiliated customers in the home market

which were not at arm’s length. We

determined the arm’s-length nature of

home market sales to affiliated parties

by means of our 99.5 percent arm’slength test in which we calculated, for

each model, the percentage difference

between the weighted-average prices to

the affiliated customer and all

unaffiliated customers and then

calculated, for each affiliated customer,

the overall weighted-average percentage

difference in prices for all models

purchased by the customer. If the

overall weighted-average price ratio for

the affiliated customer was equal to or

greater than 99.5 percent, we

determined that all sales to this

affiliated customer were at arm’s length.

Conversely, if the ratio for a customer

was less than 99.5 percent, we

determined that all sales to the affiliated

customer were not at arm’s length

because, on average, the customer paid

less than unaffiliated customers for the

same merchandise. Therefore, we

excluded all sales to the customer from

our analysis. Where we were unable to

calculate an affiliated customer ratio

because identical merchandise was not

sold to both affiliated and unaffiliated

customers, we were unable to determine

if these sales were at arm’s length and,

therefore, excluded them from our

analysis (see Certain Stainless Steel

Wire Rods from France: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 30185 (June 3, 1998)).

C. Cost of Production Analysis

Because we disregarded sales made at

prices below the cost of production

(COP) in our last completed A–588–054

review for Koyo and NSK, and in our

last completed A–588–604 review for

NTN, Koyo, and NSK, we have

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

under consideration for the

determination of NV in this review for

these companies may have been made at

prices below the COP, as provided by

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

(see 1997–98 TRB Final). Therefore,

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the

Tariff Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by NTN for the A–

588–604 case and by Koyo and NSK for

both TRB cases.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP

based on the sum of the costs 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

provided by Koyo, NTN, and NSK

except in those instances where the data

was not appropriately quantified or

valued (see company-specific

preliminary results analysis

memoranda).

After calculating COP, we tested

whether home market sales of TRBs

were made at prices below COP within

an extended period of time in

substantial quantities and whether such

prices permit the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time. We

compared model-specific COPs to the

reported home market prices less any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, or rebates.

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

Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of

a respondent’s home market sales for a

model are at prices less than the COP,

we do not disregard any below-cost

sales of that model because we

determine that the below-cost sales were

not made within an extended period of

time in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where

20 percent or more of a respondent’s

home market sales of a given model are

at prices less than COP, we disregard

the below-cost sales because they are (1)

made within an extended period of time

in substantial quantities in accordance

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the

Tariff Act, and (2) based on comparisons

of prices to weighted-average COPs for

the POR, were at prices which would

not permit the recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time in

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

the Tariff Act.

The results of our cost test for Koyo,

NTN, and NSK indicated that for certain

home market models less than 20

percent of the sales of the model were

at prices below COP. We therefore

retained all sales of these home market

models in our analysis and used them

as the basis for determining NV. Our

cost test for these respondents also

indicated that within an extended

period of time (one year, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Tariff

Act), for certain home market models,

more than 20 percent of the home

market sales were sold at prices below

COP. In accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we therefore

excluded these below-cost sales from

our analysis and used the remaining

above-cost sales as the basis for

determining NV.

D. Product Comparisons

For all respondents we compared U.S.

sales with contemporaneous sales of the

foreign like product in the home market.

We considered bearings identical on the

basis of nomenclature and determined

most similar TRBs using our sum-of-thedeviations model-match methodology

which compares TRBs according to the

following five physical criteria: inside

diameter, outside diameter, width, load

rating, and Y2 factor. We used a 20

percent difference-in-merchandise

(difmer) cost deviation cap as the

maximum difference in cost allowable

for similar merchandise, which we

calculated as the absolute value of the

difference between the U.S. and home

market variable costs of manufacturing

divided by the total cost of

manufacturing of the U.S. product.

E. Level of Trade

To the extent practicable, we

determined NV for sales at the same

level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP

or CEP). When there were no sales at the

same level of trade, we compared U.S.

sales to home market sales at a different

level of trade. The NV level of trade is

that of the starting-price sales in the

home market. When NV is based on

constructed value (CV), the level of

trade is that of the sales from which we

derived SG&A and profit.

To determine whether home market

sales are at a different level of trade than

U.S. sales, we examined stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the unaffiliated

customer. If the comparison-market

sales were at a different level of trade

and the differences affected price

comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the

level of trade of the export transaction,

66716 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices

we made a level-of-trade adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff

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

(November 19, 1997).

We determined that for respondents

Koyo and NSK, there were two home

market levels of trade and one U.S. level

of trade (CEP). Because there was no

home market level of trade equivalent to

the U.S. level(s) of trade for Koyo and

NSK, and because NV for these firms

represented a price more remote from

the factory than CEP, we made a CEP

offset adjustment to NV. For NTN we

found that there were three home

market levels of trade and two (EP and

CEP) levels of trade in the U.S. Because

there were no home market levels of

trade equivalent to NTN’s CEP level of

trade, and because NV for NTN

represented a price more remote from

the factory than CEP, we made a CEP

offset adjustment to NV in our CEP

comparisons. We also determined that

NTN’s EP level of trade was equivalent

to one of NTN’s home market levels of

trade. Because we determined that there

was a pattern of consistent price

differences due to differences in levels

of trade, we made a level of trade

adjustment to NV for NTN in our EP

comparisons where the U.S. EP sale

matched to a home market sale at a

different level of trade. For more

detailed company-specific descriptions

of our level-of-trade analyses for these

preliminary results, see the preliminary

results analysis memoranda to Robert

James, on file in Import

Administration’s Central Records Unit,

Room B–099 of the main Commerce

building.

F. Home Market Price

We based home market prices on the

packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to

affiliated purchasers (where an arm’slength relationship was demonstrated)

and unaffiliated purchasers in the home

market. We made adjustments for

differences in packing and for

movement expenses in accordance with

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the

Tariff Act. 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 Tariff Act, and for differences in

circumstances of sale (COS) in

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

of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

For comparison to EP we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses. For comparisons

to CEP, we made COS adjustments to

NV by deducting home market direct

selling expenses. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for home

market indirect selling expenses to

offset U.S. commissions in EP and CEP

calculations. No other adjustments were

claimed or allowed.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4)

of the Tariff Act, we based NV on CV

if we were unable to find a

contemporaneous home market match

for the U.S. sale. We calculated CV

based on the cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

subject merchandise, SG&A, and profit.

In accordance with 772(e)(2)(A) of the

Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses

and profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by the respondent in

connection with the production and sale

of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

To the extent possible, we calculated CV

by level of trade, using the selling

expenses and profit determined for each

level of trade in the comparison market.

Where appropriate, we made COS and

level of trade adjustments to CV in

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the

Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS

adjustments by deducting home market

direct selling expenses and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses. For comparisons

to CEP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting home market direct selling

expenses. We also made adjustments,

where applicable, for home market

indirect selling expenses to offset

commissions in EP and CEP

comparisons.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine the following

weighted-average dumping margins

exist for the period October 1, 1998,

through September 30, 1999, to be as

follows:

Manufacturer/

Exporter

Margin

(percent)

For the A–588–054 Case:

Koyo Seiko ........................ 14.86

NSK ................................... 16.60

For the A–588–604 Case:

Koyo Seiko ........................ 17.94

NTN ................................... 12.96

NSK ................................... 7.75

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

An interested party may request a

hearing within thirty days of

publication. See CFR 351.310(c). Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 37

days after the date of publication, or the

first business day thereafter, unless the

Department alters the date per 19 CFR

351.310(d). Interested parties may

submit case briefs and/or written

comments no later than 30 days after the

date of publication of these preliminary

results of review. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in the case briefs and

comments, may be filed no later than 35

days after the date of publication of this

notice. Parties who submit argument in

these proceedings are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue, (2) a brief

summary of the argument and (3) a table

of authorities. Further, we would

appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments would provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public version of any such

comments on diskette. The Department

will issue final results of these

administrative reviews, including the

results of our analysis of the issues in

any such written comments or at a

hearing, within 120 days of publication

of these preliminary results.

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)(1), we will calculate

importer-specific ad valorem

assessment rates for the merchandise

based on the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales made during the POR to

the total customs value of the sales used

to calculate those duties. This rate will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular importer made during the

POR. The Department will issue

appropriate appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service upon

completion of the review.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of TRBs from Japan entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of these

administrative reviews, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:

(1) The cash-deposit rates for the

reviewed companies will be the rates

shown above except that, for firms

whose weighted-average margins are

less than 0.5 percent and therefore de

minimis, the Department shall not

require a deposit of estimated

antidumping duties;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 7, 2000 / Notices 66717

(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 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 exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in these

or any previous reviews conducted by

the Department, the cash deposit rate

will be 18.07 percent for the A–588–054

case, and 36.52 percent for the A–588–

604 case (see Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; Tapered Roller Bearings,

Finished and Unfinished, and Parts

Thereof, from Japan and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or less in Outside

Diameter, and Components Thereof,

From Japan, 58 FR 51061 (September

30, 1993)).

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.

We are issuing and publishing this

notice in accordance with sections

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

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28570 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Florida, et al.; Notice of

Consolidated Decision on Applications

for Duty-Free Entry of Electron

Microscopes

This is a decision consolidated

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301). Related records can be viewed

between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in

Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Docket Number: 00–021. Applicant:

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

32611–6400. Instrument: Electron

Microscope, Model JEM–2010F.

Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan.

Intended Use: See notice at 65 FR

58046, September 27, 2000. Order Date:

February 11, 2000.

Docket Number: 00–028. Applicant:

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA

94720. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model JEM–3010. Manufacturer: JEOL

Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at

65 FR 58046, September 27, 2000. Order

Date: May 8, 2000.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as these

instruments are intended to be used,

was being manufactured in the United

States at the time the instruments were

ordered. Reasons: Each foreign

instrument is a conventional

transmission electron microscope

(CTEM) and is intended for research or

scientific educational uses requiring a

CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any

other instrument suited to these

purposes, which was being

manufactured in the United States at the

time of order of each instrument.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–28572 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Advanced Technology Program;

Announcement of a Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

invites interested parties to attend a

Regional Meeting to learn more about

the Advanced Technology Program

(ATP). ATP partners with industry on

high-risk, high technology research in

technologies ranging from advanced

manufacturing to medicine and from

advanced materials to microelectronics.

The Regional Meeting will provide an

opportunity for participants to share

ideas on the program with ATP staff.

DATES: The Conference will be held on

November 13, 2000, from 1 to 5:30 p.m.

The Regional Meeting will continue on

November 14, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 5

p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor

Hotel, 101 West Lafayette Street,

Baltimore, Maryland 21201. The hotel

can be reached at (410) 752–1100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, you may telephone

Linda Engelmeier at (301) 975–6026 or

e-mail: LindaEngelmeier@nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–418, 15 U.S.C.

278n), amended by the American

Technology Preeminence Act of 1991

(Pub. L. 102–245), directed the

establishment of ATP. The purpose of

the ATP is to assist United States

businesses to carry out research and

development on high risk, high pay-off,

emerging and enabling technologies.

The Regional Meeting will open with

a Conference detailing the new

application process for receiving costsharing funds. Additionally, the

Conference will include a session on

‘‘Research Policy on Human and Animal

Subjects’’ and the requirements that

must be met should funding be

provided by ATP for projects that

impact humans or animals.

The second day of the Regional

Meeting will include a number of

workshops related to funding. They are:

(1) Federal R&D Funding Opportunities

where five federal agencies will provide

an overview of their programs; (2) a

State/University Panel will discuss

strategic investments and the

availability of state matching funds; (3)

a dialogue with previous ATP awardees

will take place that provides insights

into how to successfully apply; and (4)

a venture capital panel. Participants will

be able to share issues and ask questions

during these sessions. There will also be

two scientific panels in which an

overview of nanotechnology and

therapeutic biotechnology will be

provided by experts.

Information on the meeting agenda

and the registration requirements can be

found at the ATP website at:

www.atp.nist.gov/regionalmeeting.

There is no fee for the Conference on

November 13, 2000. There is a

registration fee of $100.00 on November

14, 2000 to cover costs of meals and

materials.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Karen H. Brown,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 00–28578 Filed 11–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M