76218 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to

qualified corporations the privilege of

establishing foreign-trade zones in or

adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;

Whereas, the Board of Park

Commissioners, Decatur Park District

(the Grantee), has made application to

the Board (FTZ Docket 36–99, filed July

14, 1999), requesting the establishment

of a foreign-trade zone in Decatur,

Illinois, adjacent to the Peoria Customs

port of entry;

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment has been given in the Federal

Register (64 FR 39483, July 22, 1999);

and

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and the

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that approval of the application is in the

public interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

grants to the Grantee the privilege of

establishing a foreign-trade zone,

designated on the records of the Board

as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 245, at the

site described in the application and

serving the area described in the

application record, subject to the Act

and the Board’s regulations, including

§ 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of

November 2000.

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Norman Y. Mineta,

Secretary of Commerce, Chairman and

Executive Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–31107 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1127]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 22

Chicago, Illinois

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, the Illinois International

Port District, grantee of Foreign-Trade

Zone No. 22, submitted an application

to the Board for authority to expand

FTZ 22-Site 3 in the Chicago, Illinois

area, within the Chicago Customs port

of entry (FTZ Docket 1–2000, filed 1/4/

00);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in the Federal

Register (65 FR 2375, January 1, 2000)

and the application has been processed

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s

regulations; and

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that the proposal is in the public

interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

orders:

The application to expand FTZ 22–

Site 3 is approved, subject to the Act

and the Board’s regulations, including

§ 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of

November 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

[FR Doc. 00–31108 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 52–2000]

Foreign-Trade Zone 44—Mount Olive,

New Jersey, Area Application for

Expansion; Extension of Public

Comment Period

The comment period for the above

case, submitted by the New Jersey

Commerce and Economic Growth

Commission, requesting authority to

expand its zone to include a site in

Cranbury Township (65 FR 52984,

August 31, 2000), is extended to

December 29, 2000, to allow interested

parties additional time in which to

comment on the proposal. The period

for rebuttal comments is extended to

January 31, 2001.

Submissions should include three (3)

copies. Material submitted will be

available at: Office of the Executive

Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

4008, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–31110 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1131]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 86

Tacoma, Washington, Area

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, the Port of Tacoma

(Washington), grantee of Foreign-Trade

Zone 86, submitted an application to the

Board for authority to expand FTZ 86 to

include additional FTZ space at Sites 1,

2 and 3, and to include four new sites

in the Tacoma, Washington, area,

adjacent to the Tacoma Customs port of

entry (FTZ Docket 4–2000; filed

February 17, 2000);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in the Federal

Register (65 FR 11549, March 3, 2000)

and the application has been processed

pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board’s

regulations; and

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and the

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and

that the proposal is in the public

interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby

orders:

The application to expand FTZ 86 is

approved, subject to the Act and the

Board’s regulations, including § 400.28,

and further subject to the Board’s

standard 2,000-acre activation limit for

the overall zone project.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of

November 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import

Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.

[FR Doc. 00–31112 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–809]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from the Republic of Korea;

Preliminary Results and Rescission in

Part of Antidumping Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices 76219

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial rescission of antidumping

duty administrative review of circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe from the

Republic of Korea.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from the Republic of Korea. The period

of review is November 1, 1998 through

October 31, 1999. This review covers

imports of subject merchandise from

three producers/exporters.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales of subject merchandise have

been made below normal value. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct the United

States Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties based on the

difference between the U.S. price and

normal value.

We have also determined that the

reviews of Dongbu and Union should be

rescinded.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

We will issue the final results not later

than 120 days from the date of

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jarrod Goldfeder or John Brinkmann,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1, Group I,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0189

and 482–4126, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 are to 19 CFR

part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On November 16, 1999, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a Notice of Antidumping or

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity

to Request Administrative Review, for

the period November 1, 1998 through

October 31, 1999 (64 FR 62167).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(2), the following producers

and/or exporters of circular welded nonalloy steel pipe (standard pipe) from the

Republic of Korea requested an

administrative review of their sales on

November 30, 1999: SeAH Steel

Corporation (SeAH) and Hyundai Pipe

Company, Ltd. (Hyundai). Also on

November 30, 1999, Allied Tube and

Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular

Division-Armco, Inc., and Wheatland

Tube Company (collectively, the

petitioners) requested reviews of

Dongbu Steel Company, Ltd. (Dongbu),

Hyundai, Korea Iron and Steel

Company, Ltd. (KISCO), Shinho Steel

Company, Ltd. (Shinho) and Union

Steel Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

(Union). On December 28, 1999, we

published the notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

for Dongbu, Hyundai, KISCO, SeAH,

Shinho, and Union (collectively, the

respondents). See Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 72644

(Initiation Notice).

On January 13, 2000, we issued

questionnaires to the respondents.

Because the Department disregarded

sales that failed the cost test during the

most recently completed segment of the

proceeding in which each company

participated, pursuant to section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales by these companies of the

foreign like product under consideration

for the determination of normal value

(NV) in this review were made at prices

below the cost of production (COP).

Therefore, we initiated cost

investigations of the respondents at the

time we initiated the antidumping

review.

Union made a submission on January

18, 2000, certifying that it did not make

exports to or sales in the United States

of subject merchandise manufactured or

produced by itself during the period of

review (POR). In its submission, Union

elaborated that in 1997 it had sold its

manufacturing facilities and

relinquished its business licenses with

respect to the subject merchandise,

citing material it had submitted in the

1997/98 review of this order. As part of

a July 6, 2000 submission, Union placed

on the record of this proceeding

information from the 1997/98 review.

On February 1, 2000, Dongbu also

submitted a certification that it did not

make exports to or sales in the United

States of subject merchandise

manufactured or produced by itself

during the POR. However, a review of

Customs Service entries during the POR

revealed a number of entries listing

Dongbu as the manufacturer. In

response, Dongbu made a submission on

June 30, 2000, showing that an

erroneous manufacturer identification

code was used for those entries by the

importer of record.

On February 15, 2000, Hyundai

requested that it be excused from

reporting resales of subject merchandise

that were produced by unaffiliated

manufacturers and not further

manufactured by Hyundai. The

petitioners commented on Hyundai’s

request on February 16, 2000. On

February 22, 2000, we issued a

memorandum instructing respondents

to report only those resales of

merchandise that were further

processed. See the Memorandum to the

File, ‘‘Extension of Due Dates for

Questionnaire Responses, Reporting of

Cost Data on Fiscal-year Basis,

Reporting of Resales’’ (Reporting

Memorandum).

On February 11, 2000, Hyundai

requested that it be allowed to report its

cost data on a fiscal-year basis. On

February 15, 2000, similar requests were

received from KISCO, SeAH, and

Shinho. On February 16, 2000, the

petitioners commented on the

respondents’ requests for fiscal-year

reporting of costs. On February 22,

2000, we requested that the respondents

demonstrate that the use of fiscal-year

cost reporting would not be distortive.

Between February 28 and March 10,

2000, we received information and

comments from the petitioners and the

respondents on the difference between

fiscal-year and POR-based cost

reporting.

After requesting extensions for the

submission of their responses to the

questionnaire and receiving the same,

Hyundai, KISCO, SeAH and Shinho

submitted their section A through D

responses by March 24, 2000. The

petitioners submitted comments on the

questionnaire responses in April 2000.

We issued supplemental questionnaires

covering sections A through D to the

respondents by June 14, 2000, and

received responses by July 5, 2000.

The petitioners withdrew their

request for review with respect to

KISCO on June 15, 2000. On July 11,

2000, the Department rescinded the

review with respect to KISCO and

extended the time limit for the

preliminary results to October 6, 2000.

See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel

Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Notice

of Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 65 FR 44521

(July 18, 2000).

On September 14, 2000, the

petitioners submitted comments to the

Department addressing several issues in

76220 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

anticipation of these preliminary

results.

On October 2, 2000, we extended the

time limits for the preliminary results

by an additional twenty-eight days, or

until no later than November 3, 2000.

See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel

Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Notice

of Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Review, 65 FR 59823 (October 6, 2000).

On October 31, 2000, we fully extended

the time limits for the preliminary

results until no later than November 29,

2000. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea:

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Review, 65 FR 66523 (November 6,

2000).

Rescission of Review in Part

As stated above in the ‘‘Case History’’

section of this notice, Dongbu certified

that it did not make sales or exports of

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POR. To confirm the

same, we reviewed Customs Service

data which revealed a number of entries

listing Dongbu as the manufacturer. In

response, Dongbu submitted

documentation on June 30, 2000,

showing that these entries contained the

wrong manufacturer designation. On

September 15, 2000, Dongbu informed

the Department that the Customs

Service data did not need to be

corrected because although the wrong

manufacturer designation was listed, the

correct dumping deposit rate was paid

on all the sales listed on the Customs

documentation for the period. We

confirmed the information provided by

Dongbu. See Memorandum to the File,

‘‘Confirmation of Customs Data

Concerning Dongbu,’’ dated November

29, 2000. Furthermore, we find that

Union placed sufficient evidence on the

record of this review demonstrating that

it did not make exports to or sales in the

United States of subject merchandise

manufactured or produced by itself

during the period of review.

Accordingly, we are rescinding this

review with respect to Dongbu and

Union.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is circular welded non-alloy

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

inches) in outside diameter, regardless

of wall thickness, surface finish (black,

galvanized, or painted), or end finish

(plain end, beveled end, threaded, or

threaded and coupled). These pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard

pipes and tubes and are intended for the

low-pressure conveyance of water,

steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids

and gases in plumbing and heating

systems, air-conditioning units,

automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipe may also be

used for light load-bearing applications,

such as for fence tubing, and as

structural pipe tubing used for framing

and as support members for

reconstruction or load-bearing purposes

in the construction, shipbuilding,

trucking, farm equipment, and other

related industries. Unfinished conduit

pipe is also included in this order.

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes

within the physical description outlined

above are included within the scope of

this review except line pipe, oil-country

tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical

tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and

finished conduit. In accordance with the

Department’s Final Negative

Determination of Scope Inquiry on

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the

Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21,

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

both the API 5L line-pipe specifications

and the less-stringent ASTM A–53

standard-pipe specifications, which falls

within the physical parameters as

outlined above, and entered as line pipe

of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines

is outside of the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS)

subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

Service purposes, our written

description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we first attempted to match

contemporaneous sales of products sold

in the United States with identical

merchandise sold in Korea. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market to compare with

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with

the most similar foreign like product.

For purposes of the preliminary

results, where appropriate, we have

calculated the adjustment for

differences in merchandise based on the

difference in the variable cost of

manufacturing (variable COM) between

each U.S. model and the most similar

home market model selected for

comparison.

Comparisons to Normal Value

To determine whether sales of

standard pipe from Korea were made in

the United States at less than fair value,

we compared the export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) to the

NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price

and Constructed Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)

of the Act, we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For sales to the United States, we

used, as appropriate, EP or CEP in

accordance with sections 772(a) and

772(b) of the Act. We calculated EP

where the merchandise was sold

directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and CEP was not otherwise

warranted based on the facts of record.

We calculated CEP for sales made by

affiliated U.S. resellers that took place

after importation into the United States.

We based EP and CEP on the packed

C&F, CIF duty paid, FOB, or ex-dock

duty paid prices to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in, or for exportation to, the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions for discounts and

rebates, including early payment

discounts. We added to U.S. price

amounts for duty drawback, pursuant to

section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, to the

extent that such rebates were not

excessive. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Partial Termination of

Administrative Review: Circular Welded

Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic

of Korea, 62 FR 55574 (October 27,

1997) (Pipe First Review). We also made

deductions for movement expenses in

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

the Act, including: foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling,

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

wharfage, U.S. customs brokerage, and

U.S. customs duties (including harbor

maintenance and merchandise

processing fees).

For CEP, in accordance with section

772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from

the starting price those selling expenses

associated with economic activities

occurring in the United States,

including commissions, credit costs,

warranty expenses, and indirect selling

expenses, where applicable. We made

adjustments for interest revenue

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices 76221

collected on late payments, where

applicable. We also deducted from CEP

an amount for profit in accordance with

sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act.

Consistent with the preceding review,

we determined that although for home

market transactions the invoice date

reasonably approximates the date on

which material terms of sale are made,

invoice date should not be used as the

date of sale for U.S. transactions. While

each company has a slightly different

U.S. sales process, consistent

throughout the responses is the notion

that price and quantity are established,

then the factory produces the subject

merchandise, and finally, after a

significant period of time, the product is

shipped and an invoice issued. Based

on this understanding of the

respondents’ U.S. sales process, we have

used as date of sale the purchase order

date, which reasonably approximates

the time at which the material terms of

sale are set.

Pursuant to sections 772(a) and 772(b)

of the Act, we reclassified Hyundai’s

reported EP sales as CEP sales since the

agreement for sale occurred in the

United States between Hyundai Pipe

America and Hyundai Corporation USA,

Hyundai’s U.S. affiliates, and the

unaffiliated customers. See

Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach,

‘‘Classification of Sales by Hyundai Pipe

Co., Ltd as EP or CEP,’’ dated November

27, 2000.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

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 each

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of its U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise. Pursuant to sections

773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, because

each respondent’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 was viable for all

producers.

Hyundai and SeAH reported sales in

the home market of ‘‘overrun’’

merchandise (i.e., sales of a greater

quantity of pipe than the customer

ordered due to overproduction).

Hyundai and SeAH claimed that we

should disregard ‘‘overrun’’ sales in the

home market as outside the ordinary

course of trade.

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

provides that normal value shall be

based on the price at which the foreign

like product is sold in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade. Ordinary

course of trade is defined in section

771(15) of the Act. We analyzed the

following criteria to determine whether

‘‘overrun’’ sales differ from other sales

of commercial pipe: (1) Ratio of overrun

sales to total home market sales; (2)

number of overrun customers compared

to total number of home market

customers; (3) average price of an

overrun sale compared to average price

of a commercial sale; (4) profitability of

overrun sales compared to profitability

of commercial sales; and (5) average

quantity of an overrun sale compared to

the average quantity of a commercial

sale. Based on our analysis of these

criteria and on an analysis of the terms

of sale, we found certain overrun sales

to be outside the ordinary course of

trade. This analysis is consistent with

our treatment of such sales in prior

reviews. See Memoranda from Team to

the File, ‘‘Preliminary Results

Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai

Pipe Co., Ltd.. (‘HDP’)’’ and

‘‘Preliminary Results Calculation

Memorandum for SeAH Steel

Corporation (‘SeAH’),’’ dated November

29, 2000.

B. Arm’s Length Test

Hyundai and SeAH had sales in the

home market to affiliated customers.

Sales to affiliated customers for

consumption in the home market which

were determined not to be at arm’s

length were excluded from our analysis.

To test whether these sales were made

at arm’s length, we compared the prices

of sales of comparison products to

affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net

of all movement charges, direct selling

expenses, discounts, and packing.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in

accordance with our practice, where the

prices to the affiliated party were on

average less than 99.5 percent of the

prices to unaffiliated parties, we

determined that the sales made to the

affiliated party were not at arm’s length.

See e.g., Notice of Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Roller Chain,

Other Than Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR

60472, 60478 (November 10, 1997), and

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties: Final Rule (Antidumping

Duties), 62 FR 27295, 27355–56 (May

19, 1997). We included in our NV

calculations those sales to affiliated

customers that passed the arm’s-length

test in our analysis. See 19 CFR 351.403.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

Because we disregarded sales below

the COP in the last completed review for

Hyundai, SeAH, and Shinho (see

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from Korea: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 32833, June 16, 1998

(Pipe Fourth Review)), we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign product under

consideration for the determination of

NV in this review for all respondents

may have been made at prices below the

COP, as provided by section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore,

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

we initiated a sales-below-cost

investigation of these companies’ home

market sales.

We conducted the COP analysis

described below.

1. Calculation of COP

Before making any comparisons to

NV, we conducted a COP analysis,

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to

determine whether the respondents’

comparison market sales were made

below the COP. We calculated the COP

based on the sum of the cost of materials

and fabrication for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for general and

administrative expenses and packing, in

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

Act.

We allowed respondents to report

their costs on a fiscal-year basis because

their fiscal years were closely aligned

with the POR (November–October POR

vs. January–December fiscal year), the

differences in costs were minimal, and

there was no other indication that the

use of fiscal-year data would be

distortive. See Reporting Memorandum.

We relied on the respondents’

information as submitted, except in the

specific instances discussed below.

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices

As required under section 773(b) of

the Act, we compared the weightedaverage COP to the per unit price of the

comparison market sales of the foreign

like product, to determine whether

these sales had been made at prices

below the COP within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities,

and whether such prices were sufficient

to permit the recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time. We

determined the net comparison market

prices for the below-cost test by

subtracting from the gross unit price any

applicable movement charges,

discounts, rebates, direct and indirect

selling expenses, and packing expenses.

3. Results of COP Test

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

Act, where less than 20 percent of a

respondent’s sales of a given product

76222 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

1The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has

held that the Department’s practice of determining

LOT for CEP transactions after CEP deductions is

an impermissible interpretation of section 772(d) of

the Act. See Borden, Inc., v. United States, 4 F.

Supp.2d 1221, 1241–42 (CIT March 26, 1998)

(Borden II). The Department believes, however, that

its practice is in full compliance with the statute.

On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered final judgment in

Borden II on the LOT issue. See Borden, Inc., v.

United States, Court No. 96–08–01970, Slip Op. 99–

50 (CIT, June 4, 1999). The government has

appealed Borden II to the Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit. Consequently, the Department has

continued to follow its normal practice of adjusting

CEP under section 772(d) of the Act prior to starting

a LOT analysis, as articulated in the Department’s

regulations at section 351.412.

were made at prices less than the COP,

we did not disregard any below-cost

sales of that product because we

determined that the below-cost sales

were not made in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more

of a respondent’s sales of a given

product during the 12-month period

were at prices less than the COP, we

determined such sales to have been

made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within

an extended period of time in

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

and (C) of the Act. In such cases,

because we compared prices to PORaverage costs, we also determined that

such below-cost sales were not made at

prices which would permit recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time, in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

We found that Hyundai, SeAH, and

Shinho all made home market sales at

below COP prices within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities.

Further, we found that these sales prices

did not permit for the recovery of costs

within a reasonable period of time.

Therefore, we excluded these sales from

our analysis and used the remaining

sales as the basis for determining NV, in

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

Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Comparison Market Prices

We calculated NV based on ex-works,

FOB, or delivered prices to comparison

market customers. We made deductions

from the starting price for inland freight

and warehousing. In accordance with

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

we added U.S. packing costs and

deducted comparison market packing,

respectively. In addition, we made

circumstance of sale (COS) adjustments

for direct expenses, including imputed

credit expenses and warranty expenses,

in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

When comparing U.S. sales with

comparison market sales of similar, but

not identical, merchandise, we also

made adjustments for physical

differences in the merchandise in

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We

based this adjustment on the difference

in the variable COM for the foreign like

product and subject merchandise, using

POR-average costs.

We also made adjustments, where

applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses

incurred on home market or U.S. sales

where commissions were granted on

sales in one market but not in the other

(the commission offset). Specifically,

where commissions are incurred in one

market, but not in the other, we make

an allowance for the indirect selling

expenses in the other market up to the

amount of the commissions.

During the POR, SeAH purchased the

foreign like product from unaffiliated

manufacturers and then further

manufactured it into products also

within the scope of this review. For

purposes of these preliminary results,

we have included sales of all such

further-manufactured subject

merchandise in our analysis.

E. Level of Trade (LOT)

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

the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA at 829–831, to

the extent practicable, the Department

will calculate NV based on sales at the

same LOT as the EP or CEP. When the

Department is unable to find sales of the

foreign like product in the comparison

market at the same LOT as the EP or

CEP, the Department may compare the

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

the comparison market.

We determine that sales are made at

different levels of trade if they are made

at different marketing stages (or their

equivalent). Substantial differences in

selling activities are a necessary, but not

sufficient, condition for determining

that there is a difference in the stages of

marketing. See 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); see

also 19 CFR 351.412 (62 FR 27296,

27414–27415 (May 19, 1997)) for a

concise description of this practice.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Act and the SAA at 827, in identifying

levels of trade for EP and home market

sales we consider the selling functions

reflected in the starting prices before

any adjustments. For CEP sales, we

consider only the selling activities

reflected in the price after the deduction

of expenses and profit under section

772(d) of the Act.1 We expect that, if

claimed levels of trade are the same, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be similar. Conversely, if a party

claims that levels of trade are different

for different groups of sales, the

functions and activities of the seller

should be dissimilar.

When CEP sales have been made in

the United States, section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act establishes that a CEP offset may

be granted provided that two conditions

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

is at a more advanced stage of

distribution than the LOT of the CEP;

and (2) the data available do not permit

a determination that there is a pattern of

consistent price differences between

sales at different LOTs in the

comparison market.

In implementing these principles in

this review, we obtained information

from each respondent regarding the

marketing stage involved in the reported

home market and U.S. sales, including

a description of the selling activities

performed by the respondents for each

channel of distribution. For a detailed

description of our LOT methodology

and a summary of company-specific

LOT findings for these preliminary

results, see the November 29, 2000,

‘‘Antidumping Administrative Review

of Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary

Level of Trade Analysis’’’

memorandum, on file in the Central

Records Unit (CRU). The companyspecific LOT analysis is included in the

business proprietary analysis

memorandum for each company.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of these preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

in accordance with section 773A(a) of

the Act, based on the official exchange

rates published by the Federal Reserve.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate

involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In accordance

with the Department’s practice, we have

determined as a general matter that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is

defined as the rolling average of rates for

the past 40 business days. When we

determine that a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following percentage weighted-average

margins exist for the period November

1, 1998, through October 31, 1999:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices 76223

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Hyundai ..................................... 3.77

Shinho ....................................... 1.38

SeAH ........................................ 0.98

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. An

interested party may request a hearing

within 30 days of publication of these

preliminary results. See 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs and/or written comments no

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, which must be limited to

issues raised in such briefs or

comments, may be filed no later than 37

days after the date of publication.

Parties who submit arguments 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 a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, including

the results of its analysis of issues raised

in any such comments, within 120 days

of publication of these preliminary

results.

Assessment Rate

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the

Department calculates an assessment

rate for each importer of the subject

merchandise. Upon issuance of the final

results of this administrative review, if

any importer-specific assessment rates

calculated in the final results are above

de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent),

the Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

appropriate entries by applying the

assessment rate to the entered value of

the merchandise. For assessment

purposes, we calculate importer-specific

assessment rates for the subject

merchandise by aggregating the

dumping margins for all U.S. sales to

each importer and dividing the amount

by the total entered value of the sales to

that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

To calculate the cash-deposit rate for

each producer and/or exporter included

in this administrative review, we

divided the total dumping margins for

each company by the total net value for

that company’s sales during the review

period.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of standard pipe from Korea entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

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

deposit rate for the reviewed companies

will be the rates established in the final

results of this administrative review,

except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent

and, therefore, de minimis, the cash

deposit will be zero; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in this review but covered

in the original less-than-fair-value

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, the

previous review, or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 4.80

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the less-than-fair-value investigation.

See Notice of Antidumping Orders:

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of

Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela,

and Amendment to Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453

(November 2, 1992).

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice 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

administrative review in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of

the Act.

Dated: November 29, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary, for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–31105 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense will

submit to OMB for emergency

processing, the following proposal for

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Title and OMB Number: Personnel

Security Investigation Projection for

Industry Survey; OMB Number 0704–

[To Be Determined].

Type of Request: New Collection;

Emergency processing requested with a

shortened public comment period

ending December 11, 2000. An approval

date by December 15, 2000, has been

requested.

Number of Respondents: 242.

Responses Per Respondents: 1.

Annual Responses: 242.

Average Burden Per Response: 75

minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 303.

Needs and Uses: Under the National

Industrial Security Program (NISP), the

Defense Security Service (DSS) is

responsible for personnel security

clearance investigations within

industry. The Defense Security Service

has used historical data for agency

budget projections.

This collection of information is

necessary to request the voluntary

assistance of a segment of the cleared

industry facilities to provide projections

of numbers and types of personnel

security investigations. This initial

effort will serve as the prototype for an

annual data collection from industry.

This information collection will only

address the largest cleared facilities that

account for a significant number of the

security clearances. The data would

become part of the total clearance

projections for industry to be included

in an automated database for use with

DSS budget submissions.

Affected Public: Business or Other

For-Profit.