Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 76609

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Our use of facts otherwise available in

this review has not changed from the

preliminary results, in which we

assigned a PRC-wide rate of 376.67

percent since the three respondents did

not respond to our requests for

information. For a detailed discussion of

our application of facts otherwise

available, see our preliminary results at

65 FR 48464 (August 8, 2000).

Final Results of the Review

We determine that a margin of 376.67

percent exists for all producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise as

the PRC-entity for the period November

1, 1998, through October 31, 1999. The

Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

The following deposit rates will be

effective upon publication of this notice

of final results of administrative review

for all shipments of fresh garlic from the

PRC entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) For all

PRC exporters, all of which were found

not to be entitled to separate rates, the

cash-deposit rate will be 376.67 percent;

and (2) for all non-PRC exporters of

subject merchandise from the PRC, the

cash-deposit rate will be the rate

applicable to the PRC supplier of that

exporter. These deposit requirements

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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, pursuant

to 19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), could result in

the Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning disposition of

proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR

351.305 and 19 CFR 351.306. Timely

written notification of the 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. See 19

CFR 351.306 and 19 CFR 354.3.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

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

the Act.

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–31235 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–503]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Iron Construction Castings

from Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

respondent Canada Pipe Company

Limited (‘‘Canada Pipe’’), the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on iron

construction castings (‘‘ICCs’’) from

Canada. The period of review (‘‘POR’’)

is March 1, 1999, through February 28,

2000. This review covers imports of ICC

from one producer, Canada Pipe.

We have preliminarily determined the

dumping margin for Canada Pipe to be

7.07 percent.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nithya Nagarajan, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Office IV, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations at 19 CFR part

351 (2000).

Background

On March 5, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register (51

FR 7600) the antidumping duty order on

ICC from Canada. On March 16, 2000,

the Department published in the

Federal Register (65 FR 14242) a notice

of opportunity to request an

administrative review of this

antidumping duty order. On March 31,

2000, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(1), the respondent Canada

Pipe requested that the Department

conduct an administrative review of its

exports of subject merchandise to the

United States. We published the notice

of initiation of this review on May 1,

2000 (65 FR 25303).

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by the order

consists of certain iron construction

castings from Canada, limited to

manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch

basin grates and frames, cleanout covers

and frames used for drainage or access

purposes for public utility, water and

sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy

castings under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

7325.10.0010, 7325.10.0020, and

7325.10.0025. The HTS item number is

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes only. The written description

remains dispositive.

Product Comparisons

The ICC exported by Canada Pipe to

the United States includes manhole sets,

catch basin sets, and trench gates and is

the identical merchandise sold by

Canada Pipe in its home market in

Canada. Therefore, we have compared

U.S. sales to contemporaneous sales of

identical or similar merchandise in

Canada.

Export Price

Section 772(a) of the Act defines

export price (‘‘EP’’) as the price at which

the subject merchandise is first sold

before the date of importation by the

exporter or producer outside the United

States to an unaffiliated purchaser for

exportation to the United States.

Canada Pipe sells subject

merchandise directly to its customers in

the United States and uses its affiliate

Bibby USA as the importer of record.

The sales documentation on the record

in this proceeding indicates that Canada

Pipe’s U.S. sales occurred in Canada

between Canada Pipe and the

unaffiliated U.S. purchaser. Specifically,

we have found the following facts: (1)

Bibby USA does not contact the U.S.

customers; (2) Bibby Ste-Croix in

Canada contacts the U.S. customers; (3)

the U.S. customers send the purchase

76610 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

order to Canada Pipe; (4) Canada Pipe

makes all arrangements for shipping and

delivery to the U.S. customers directly

in Canada; (5) Canada Pipe invoices are

issued and the U.S. customers pay

Canada Pipe directly in Canada; and (6)

Canada Pipe retains title to the

merchandise until the point of delivery

to the U.S. customers. Given these facts,

we preliminarily determine that these

sales were made in Canada by Canada

Pipe and, thus, should be treated as EP

transactions (see Cold-Rolled and

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Korea, Final Results of

Administrative Review, 65 FR 13359

(March 13, 2000) and accompanying

Decision Memorandum at Comment 12;

and Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from

Mexico, Final Results of Administrative

Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and

accompanying Decision Memorandum

at Comment 2).

We calculated an EP for all of Canada

Pipe’s sales because the merchandise

was sold directly by Canada Pipe to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation, and

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was

not otherwise warranted based on the

facts of record. We made deductions

from the starting price for movement

expenses in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These include

foreign movement expense (inland

freight), international freight, U.S.

brokerage and U.S. duties. We also

deducted the amount for billing

adjustments from the starting price and

added duty drawback, in accordance

with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.

Normal Value

We compared the aggregate quantity

of home market and U.S. sales and

determined that the quantity of the

company’s sales in its home market was

more than five percent of the quantity

of its sales to the U.S. market.

Consequently, in accordance with

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

normal value (‘‘NV’’) on home market

sales, all of which were to unaffiliated

customers.

We calculated monthly weightedaverage NVs based on ex-works or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers. We made adjustments to the

starting price, where appropriate, for

billing adjustments. We made

deductions, where appropriate, from the

starting price for early payment

discounts, inland insurance, and inland

freight. We made circumstance of sale

(‘‘COS’’) adjustments, in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act,

for direct selling expenses, including

credit expenses.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or

CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of

the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on constructed value (‘‘CV’’), that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general and administrative

(‘‘SG&A’’) expenses and profit. With

respect to U.S. price and EP

transactions, the LOT is the level of the

sale to the unaffiliated customer, and

with respect to CEP transactions, the

LOT is the level of the constructed sale

from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP

transactions, we examine 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 are at a different LOT and the

difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent

price differences between the sales on

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

transaction, we make a LOT adjustment

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

Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the

CEP level, and there is no basis for

determining whether the difference in

the levels between NV and CEP affects

price comparability, we adjust NV

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

(the CEP-offset provision). 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).

Canada Pipe reported that during the

POR it sold subject merchandise

through three channels of distribution

in the home market: sales made by

Canada Pipe directly to original

equipment manufacturers (OEM)

(Channel 1), sales from Canada Pipe

directly to end-users (Channel 2), and

sales from Canada Pipe to distributors

(Channel 3). In examining the record,

we found that Canada Pipe performs

substantially similar selling functions

(e.g. sales planning, advertising,

technical service, etc.) for all three

reported channels of distribution. Due

to the proprietary nature of the

examined selling functions, see

Preliminary Determination: Level of

Trade Analysis (Preliminary LOT

Memorandum), dated concurrently with

this notice, on file in Room B–099 of the

main Department of Commerce

Building, the Central Records Unit

(‘‘CRU’’). Based upon an analysis of the

information provided on the record, we

conclude that there is no difference in

the selling functions performed by

Canada Pipe in making sales through

these three channels of distribution.

Therefore, using the information on the

record, the Department preliminarily

determines that Canada Pipe makes all

sales at the same LOT in the home

market.

See Preliminary LOT Memorandum

Canada Pipe reported two channels of

distribution (i.e. sales to OEMs and sales

to distributors) in the United States

during the POR. In examining the

record, we found that Canada Pipe

performs substantially similar selling

functions (e.g. sales planning,

advertising, technical service, etc.) for

both reported channels of distribution.

Due to the proprietary nature of the

examined selling functions, see

Preliminary LOT Memorandum. Based

upon an analysis of the information

provided on the record, we conclude

that there is no significant difference in

the selling functions performed by

Canada Pipe in making sales through

both channels of distribution. Therefore,

the Department preliminarily

determines that Canada Pipe makes all

sales at the same LOT in the United

States market. See Preliminary LOT

Memorandum.

In order to determine whether sales in

the United States are at a different LOT

than sales in the home market, we

reviewed the selling activities

associated with the LOT in each market.

We compared Canada Pipe’s selling

activities for U.S. EP transactions to the

selling activities performed for the home

market LOT sales by Canada Pipe (e.g.

sales planning, advertising, technical

service, etc.). We found that there was

no significant difference in the selling

functions performed for Canada Pipe’s

EP sales than for sales at the home

market LOT, sufficient to constitute a

difference in LOT. See Preliminary LOT

Memorandum.

As such, we have preliminarily

determined that a LOT adjustment is not

appropriate. See Preliminary LOT

Memorandum.

Currency Conversion

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the

Act, we made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that a 7.07

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 76611

percent dumping margin exists for

Canada Pipe for the period March 1,

1999, through February 29, 2000. The

Department will disclose calculations

performed within five days of the date

of publication of this notice to the

parties of this proceeding in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 these

preliminary results of review. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication. Interested parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. Further, we would appreciate

it if parties submitting written

comments would also provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public versions of those comments

on diskette. The Department will issue

the final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments, within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated importer specific duty

assessment rates based on the ratio of

the total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of examined sales.

Where the importer-specific assessment

rate is above de minimus, we will

instruct Customs to assess duties on that

importer’s entries of subject

merchandise. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of ICC from Canada 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 Canada Pipe will be the

rate established in the final results of

this administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less-thanfair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, or the original LTFV

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 review,

the cash deposit rate will be 14.67

percent, the ‘‘all-others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of

administrative review for a subsequent

review period.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–31236 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmostpheric

Administration

Notice of Indirect Cost Rates for the

Damage Assessment and Restoration

Program

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

DOC.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: NOAA’s Damage Assessment

and Restoration Program (DARP) is

announcing new indirect cost rates and

a policy on the recovery of indirect costs

for its component organizations

invovled in natural resource damage

assesment and restoration activities.

These new rates and the DARP policy

are effective as of October 1, 2000. More

information on these rates and the

DARP policy can be found at the DARP

web site (www.darp.noaa.gov), or from

the address provided below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eli

Reinharz, 301–713–3038, ext. 193;

(FAX: 301–713–4387; e-mail:

Eli.Reinharz@noaa.gov), or Linda

Burlington, 301–713–1217 (FAX: 301–

713–1229; e-mail:

Linda.B.Burlington@noaa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

mission of the DARP is to restore

natural resource injuries caused by

releases of hazardous substances or oil

under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33

U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), or physical injuries

in Naitonal Marine Sanctuaries under

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act

(NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). The

NOAA DARP consists of three

component organizations: The Damage

Assessment Center (DAC) within the

National Ocean Service; the Restoration

Center within the National Marine

Fisheries Services; and the Office of the

General Counsel for Natural Resources

(GCNR). The DARP conducts Natural

Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs)

as a basis for recovering damages from

responsible parties, and uses the funds

recovered to restore injured natural

resources.

When addressing NRDA incidents,

the costs of the damage assessment are

recoverable from responsible parties

who are potentially liable for an

incident. Costs include direct and

indirect costs. Direct costs are costs for

activities that are clearly and readily

attributable to a specific output. In the

context of the DARP, outputs may be

associated with damage assessment

cases, or may be represented by other

program products such as damage

assessment regulations. In contrast,

indirect costs reflect the costs for

activities that collectively support the

DARP’s mission and operations. For

example, indirect costs include general

administrative support and traditional

overheads. Although these costs may

not be readily traced back to a specific

direct activity, indirect costs may be

allocated to direct activities using an

indirect cost distribution rate.

Consistent with Federal accounting

requirements, the DARP is required to

account for and report the full costs of

its programs and activities. Further, the

DARP is authorized by law to recover