77560 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 12, 2000 / Notices

the plant’s international

competitiveness.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment is invited from

interested parties. Submissions (original

and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the

Board’s Executive Secretary at the

address below. The closing period for

their receipt is February 12, 2001.

Rebuttal comments in response to

material submitted during the foregoing

period may be submitted during the

subsequent 15-day period to February

25, 2001.

A copy of the application and the

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

U.S. Department of Commerce, Export

Assistance Center, 500 Dallas, Suite

1160, Houston, TX 77002.

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room

4008, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–31493 Filed 12–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 67–2000]

Foreign-Trade Zone 115—Beaumont,

Texas, Area; Application for Expansion

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board

(the Board) by the Foreign-Trade Zone

of Southeast Texas, Inc., grantee of

Foreign-Trade Zone 115, requesting

authority to expand its zone to include

a petroleum terminal in Nederland

(Jefferson County), Texas, within the

U.S. Customs Service consolidated port

of Port Arthur and Sabine. The

application was submitted pursuant to

the provisions of the Foreign-Trade

Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–

81u), and the regulations of the Board

(15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed

on November 29, 2000.

FTZ 115 was approved on March 20,

1985 (Board Order 296, 50 FR 13261, 4/

3/85). The zone project currently

consists of seven sites (244 acres) in

Orange and Jefferson Counties.

The applicant is now requesting

authority to expand the general-purpose

zone to include Proposed Site 8 (952

acres)—at the Sun Pipe Line Company

(Sun PLC) crude oil petroleum terminal

located in Nederland, Texas. The site

includes all of the facilities of Sun PLC’s

Nederland Terminal, including the

buildings, marine berths, storage tanks,

pipelines, manifolds, pumps, valves,

filters, meters, etc. The terminal

includes an 802-acre marine facility that

provides storage for crude oil and

certain refined petroleum products. The

terminal also includes a 150-acre tank

farm that provides for storage of crude

oil. Several of the storage tanks at the

proposed zone site already are covered

by two existing FTZ subzone grants

(Mobil Oil Corporation (FTZ–115B) and

Fina Oil & Chemical Company (FTZ–

116–B)), and those tanks are excluded

from this application. Sun PLC, the

owner and anticipated operator of the

proposed site, is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Sunoco, Inc. The facilities

will be primarily used to store and

distribute crude oil for Sunoco affiliates,

but the facilities will also be available

for use by other petroleum companies

that lease tanks from Sun PLC. Sun PLC

(or Sunoco) will be the operator of the

site.

No specific manufacturing requests

are being made at this time. Such

requests would be made to the Board on

a case-by-case basis.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is February 12, 2001. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to February 26, 2001).

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

Office of the Port of Beaumont, 1225

Main Street, Beaumont, Texas 77701,

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 4008,

U.S. Department of Commerce 14th &

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–31494 Filed 12–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–805]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From Mexico: Preliminary Results and

Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

two respondents, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) initiated an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe (P&T) from

Mexico. We are rescinding the review

with respect to one of the respondents,

Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (Hylsa). The review

covers one manufacturer and exporter of

the subject merchandise, Tuberia

Nacional S.A. de C.V. (TUNA). The

period of review (POR) is November 1,

1998, through October 31, 1999. We

preliminarily determine that sales have

been made below normal value (NV). If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to

assess antidumping duties based on the

difference between export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Drury or Nancy Decker, Enforcement

Group III, Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0195 or

(202) 482–0196, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act) are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are

references to the provisions codified at

19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 12, 2000 / Notices 77561

from Mexico on November 2, 1992 (57

FR 49453). The Department published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1998/99

review period on November 16, 1999

(64 FR 62167). Respondents TUNA and

Hylsa, as well as petitioners, requested

that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

from Mexico. We initiated this review

on December 21, 1999. See 64 FR 72644

(December 21, 1998).

The Department received timely

requests for withdrawal from the

administrative review from the

respondent Hylsa on March 15, 2000.

On March 22, 2000, petitioners also

withdrew their request for a review of

Hylsa. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1), the Department is now

terminating this review for respondent

Hylsa because both petitioners and

respondent have withdrawn their

requests for review and no other

interested parties have requested a

review.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for issuing a preliminary

determination in an administrative

review if it determines that it is not

practicable to complete the preliminary

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On August 11, 2000, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case to

November 29, 2000. See Extension of

Time Limit: Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Pipe From Mexico; Antidumping

Administrative Review, 65 FR 49223

(August 11, 2000).

Period of Review

The review covers the period

November 1, 1998 through October 31,

1999. The Department is conducting

this review in accordance with section

751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by these orders

are circular welded non-alloy steel

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters

(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,

and other liquids and gases in plumbing

and heating systems, air conditioning

units, automatic sprinkler systems, and

other related uses, and generally meet

ASTM A–53 specifications. Standard

pipe may also be used for light loadbearing applications, such as for fence

tubing, and as structural pipe tubing

used for framing and support members

for reconstruction or load-bearing

purposes in the construction,

shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment,

and related industries. Unfinished

conduit pipe is also included in these

orders.

All carbon steel pipes and tubes

within the physical description outlined

above are included within the scope of

these orders, except line pipe, oil

country tubular goods, boiler tubing,

mechanical tubing, pipe and tube

hollows for redraws, finished

scaffolding, and finished conduit.

Standard pipe that is dual or triple

certified/stenciled that enters the United

States as line pipe of a kind used for oil

or gas pipelines is also not included in

these orders.

Imports of the products covered by

these orders are currently classifiable

under the following Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) 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 HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of these proceedings is

dispositive.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered each circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

product produced by the respondent,

covered by the descriptions in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this

notice, supra, and sold in the home

market during the POR, to be a foreign

like product for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales of circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe and tube. Where there were

no sales of identical merchandise in the

home market to compare to U.S. sales,

we compared U.S. sales to the next most

similar foreign like product on the basis

of the characteristics listed in the

Department’s August 25, 2000,

supplemental questionnaire, or to

constructed value (CV).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by TUNA (sales and cost) using

standard verification procedures,

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities and the

examination of the relevant sales and

financial records.

Our verification results are outlined

in the public versions of the verification

reports. See Sales Verification Report

dated November 29, 2000 and Cost

Verification Report dated November 29,

2000.

Based on our findings at verification,

we made changes to TUNA’s reported

general and administrative expenses,

direct materials costs, and fixed

overhead costs.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from Mexico to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) to the

normal value (NV), as described in the

‘‘Export Price and Constructed Export

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of

this notice, below. 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.

We have used the date of invoice as

the date of sale for all home market and

U.S. sales made by TUNA during the

POR.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

We analyzed sales made to the United

States, and determined that there were

both EP and CEP sales in the United

States during the POR. For certain sales

to the United States, we calculated CEP

in accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was first sold by TUNA’s U. S. affiliate

(Acerotex) after having been imported

into the United States. We based CEP on

packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers

in the United States. Where appropriate,

we made deductions from the starting

price for foreign inland freight, foreign

brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage

and handling, and U.S. customs duties.

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of

the Act, we deducted those selling

expenses associated with economic

activities occurring in the United States,

including direct selling expenses (credit

costs, warranty expenses), and indirect

selling expenses. For CEP sales, we also

made an adjustment for profit in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act.

We determined that the remaining

sales were EP sales based on the fact

that TUNA sold the subject merchandise

directly to the unaffiliated U.S.

customer prior to importation, and CEP

treatment was not otherwise indicated.

We calculated EP in accordance with

77562 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 12, 2000 / Notices

section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP

on packed prices to unaffiliated

customers in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling,

U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S.

customs duties.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home-market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of the foreign like product sold

in the exporting country was sufficient

to permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States, pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold for

consumption in the home market.

Sales to affiliated customers for

consumption in the home market which

were determined not to be at arm’slength 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 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 Notice of Final Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Roller Chain,

Other Than Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR

60472 (November 10, 1997); 62 FR

27295, 27355–56 (May 19, 1997). We

included those sales that passed the

arm’s-length test in our analysis (see 19

CFR 351.403; 62 FR at 27355–56).

Where such sales did not pass the

arm’s length test, we used sales from

affiliated resellers to the first

unaffiliated customer. Additionally, we

used sales from TUNA, Lamina y Placa

Monterrey and Lamina y Placa

Commercial which were made directly

to unaffiliated customers. We

preliminarily determine that TUNA,

Lamina y Placa Monterrey and Lamina

y Placa Commercial are all producers of

the subject merchandise, as defined by

section 771(28) of the Act, and that all

three should be collapsed into a single

entity for purposes of calculating

normal value. See 19 CFR 351.401(f).

The Department collapses the

operations of producers into a single

entity when: (1) The producers are

affiliated, (2) the producers have

production facilities which would not

require substantial retooling for

producing similar or identical products,

and (3) there is a significant potential

for manipulation of price or production.

In determining whether a significant

potential for manipulation exists, the

Department may consider: (1) The level

of common ownership, (2) overlapping

managerial employees or board

members of the affiliated firms, and (3)

whether the operations of the affiliated

firms are intertwined. Based on the

totality of the circumstances, the

Department collapses affiliated

producers and treats them as a single

entity when these criteria are met. See

Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, 63 FR 40452–53 (July

29, 1998).

In this instance, all three producers

are in the same corporate group, the

Villacero group, which is family owned.

The facility of the TUNA entity for

producing merchandise is used by all

three producers. The merchandise

produced by all three producers also is

identical. The managerial employees

and board members which control the

Lamina y Placa companies also control

TUNA. Finally, the operations of all

three producers are not merely

intertwined, but are conducted at the

same facility in terms of production of

subject merchandise. Based on the facts

of the case, we are collapsing all three

producers into a single entity for the

purpose of this review in accordance

with the Department’s regulations. See

TUNA Analysis Memorandum, dated

November 29, 2000.

Where appropriate, in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, we

deducted credit expenses, warranties,

advertising, insurance, packing, and

certain discounts.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) 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 CV, that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general and

administrative expenses and profit. For

EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the

starting price sale, which is usually

from the exporter to the importer. For

CEP, it 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 sales, 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 comparison market 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 differences in the levels

between NV and CEP affect price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP

offset provision). See e.g., 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).

As the Department explained in Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker from

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review (Cement

from Mexico), 62 FR 17156 (April 9,

1997), for both EP and CEP the relevant

transaction for the LOT analysis is the

sale from the exporter to the importer.

While the starting price for CEP is that

of a subsequent resale to an unaffiliated

buyer, the construction of the CEP

results in a price that would have been

charged by the exporter to the importer

if the importer had not been affiliated.

We calculate the CEP by removing from

the first resale to an unaffiliated U.S.

customer the expenses referenced in

section 772(d) of the Act and the profit

allocated to these expenses. These

expenses represent activities undertaken

by the affiliated importer in making the

sale to the unaffiliated customers.

Because the expenses deducted under

section 772(d) of the Act are incurred

for selling activities in the United

States, the deduction of these expenses

may yield a different LOT for the CEP

than for the later resale (which we use

for the starting price). Movement

charges, duties, and taxes deducted

under section 772(c) of the Act do not

represent activities of the affiliated

importer, and we do not remove them

to obtain the price on which the CEP

LOT is based.

To determine whether some or all

home market sales are at a different LOT

than U.S. sales, we examined the stages

of marketing and the selling functions in

both markets. An analysis of the selling

functions substantiates or invalidates

the claimed LOTs.

Our analysis of the data submitted by

TUNA indicates that sales to the United

States were made through two channels

of distribution, and sales in the home

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 12, 2000 / Notices 77563

market were through multiple channels

of distribution. Furthermore, there were

differences in selling functions between

certain types of customers in both

markets, depending upon the channel of

distribution. Sales in the home market

to unaffiliated parties were to end users

and distributors. Conversely, all sales in

the United States were to distributors.

An examination of the selling

functions in both markets indicates that

TUNA performs a ‘‘core’’ of selling

functions in the home market for all

customers. These functions include

inventory maintenance, salesman visits

to customers, and technical services.

Depending upon the channel of

distribution, TUNA also performs

additional selling functions for certain

customers in the home market. TUNA

provides certain selling functions in the

form of specialized services to one

channel of distribution, such as

engineering advice and custom designed

products, which are not provided to any

other home market customers. In a

separate channel of distribution, TUNA

performs additional selling functions,

related principally to affiliated resellers,

which allow the resellers to perform

selling functions for their unaffiliated

customers. The selling functions

provided by TUNA in this channel of

trade, such as excess inventory return

and personnel training, are unique.

Based on our analysis, we

preliminarily determine that there are

three levels of trade in the home market.

Those sales receiving certain selling

functions in the form of specialized

services constitute one level of trade.

Downstream sales through affiliates

receive a unique set of selling functions

and thus constitute a separate level of

trade. All other sales in the home

market constitute a third level of trade,

in which only the ‘‘core’’ selling

functions, described above, are

performed.

In the United States, we preliminarily

determine that there are two separate

levels of trade. These correspond to EP

and CEP sales, respectively. For CEP

sales, we found minimal selling

functions (such as inventory

maintenance) performed by TUNA for

its U.S. affiliate. Therefore, we

preliminarily determine that the CEP is

at a different LOT from any of the HM

LOTs. For EP sales, we found that

TUNA performs certain selling

functions consistent with the ‘‘core’’

functions performed for sales in the

home market. Therefore, the selling

functions are the same, and we

preliminarily determine that EP sales in

the United States are at the same level

of trade as those sales in the home

market which do not receive specialized

services, or services provided on

downstream sales (i.e., the third level of

trade in the home market).

Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act directs

us to make an adjustment for differences

in LOT where such differences affect

price comparability. For CEP, because

there are insufficient data to perform an

analysis of the effect on price

comparability, and each home market

LOT is more advanced than the CEP

LOT, the Department must make a CEP

offset. Therefore, regarding those sales

to the United States which are classified

as CEP sales, in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, a CEP offset is

warranted.

As we have determined that TUNA’s

home market sales at the third LOT are

at the same level of trade as the EP sales

in the United States, we have made no

LOT adjustment when TUNA’s EP sales

matched sales at this LOT. See TUNA

Analysis Memorandum, dated

November 29, 2000.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

Because the Department disregarded

sales below cost for TUNA in the

comparison market during the last

completed segment of the proceeding,

we initiated a cost of production

analysis in accordance with section

773(b) of the Act. We conducted the

COP analysis as described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of TUNA’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for home-market selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(‘‘SG&A’’), and packing costs in

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

Act. We relied on the submitted COPs

for TUNA, with changes. See TUNA

Analysis Memorandum, dated

November 29, 2000.

B. Test of Home-Market Prices

We used the respondents’ weightedaverage COPs for the period November

1, 1999, through October 31, 2000. We

compared the weighted-average COP

figures to home-market sales of the

foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act. In determining

whether to disregard home-market sales

made at prices below the COP, we

examined whether (1) within an

extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities, and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home-market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges, discounts, and rebates.

C. Results of COP Test

In accordance with section

773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent

of TUNA’s sales of a given product were

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 TUNA’s sales during

the POR 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) of

the Act. Furthermore, because we

compared prices to POR average COPs,

we determined that below-cost prices do

not permit recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time, in

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

the Act. Therefore, we disregarded such

below-cost sales of TUNA. Where all

contemporaneous sales of comparison

products were disregarded, we

calculated NV based on CV.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of TUNA’s cost of materials,

fabrication, SG&A, U.S. packing costs,

interest expenses as reported in the U.S.

sales database, and profit. In accordance

with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we

based SG&A 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.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

in accordance with section 773A of the

Act, based on the official exchange rates

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

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank

of New York. 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. See,

e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods

from France; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 8915, 8918 (March 6,

1998), and Policy Bulletin 96–1:

Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434

(March 8, 1996). The benchmark is

defined as the rolling average of rates for

the past 40 business days. When we

77564 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 12, 2000 / Notices

determine a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weighted-average margin

(percent)

TUNA .................................... 2.57

The Department will disclose to any

party to the proceeding, within ten days

of publication of this notice, the

calculations performed (19 CFR

351.224). Any interested party may

request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 37 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. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in such briefs or

comments, may be filed no later than 35

days after the date of publication. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

which will include the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or at a hearing,

within 120 days after the publication of

this notice.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs. The

final results of this review shall be the

basis for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by the determination and for

future deposits of estimated duties. For

duty assessment purposes, we

calculated an importer-specific

assessment rate by dividing the total

dumping margins calculated for the U.S.

sales to the importer by the total entered

value of these sales. This rate will be

used for the assessment of antidumping

duties on all entries of the subject

merchandise by that importer during the

POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of circular welded-non-alloy steel pipe

from Mexico 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

Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed firm will be the rate

established in the final results of

administrative review, except if the rate

is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore,

de minimis within the meaning of 19

CFR 351.106(c), in which case the cash

deposit rate will be zero; (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 most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received a company-specific

rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of these

reviews, or the LTFV investigation; and

(4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous review or the original fair

value investigation, the cash deposit

rate will be 36.62%, the ‘‘all other’’ rate

from the original investigation.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary 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 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: November 29, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–31491 Filed 12–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–824]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice

of Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstances Review of the

Antidumping Order and Intent To

Revoke Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation and

preliminary results of changed

circumstances antidumping duty

review, and intent to revoke order in

part

SUMMARY: In accordance with 19 CFR

351.216(b), Taiho Corporation of

America (‘‘Taiho America’’) requested a

changed circumstances review of the

antidumping order on certain corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products from

Japan with respect to the carbon steel

flat product as described below.

Domestic producers of the like product

have expressed no interest in

continuation of the order with respect to

this particular carbon steel flat product.

In response to Taiho America’s request,

the Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is initiating a changed

circumstances review and issuing a

notice of intent to revoke in part the

antidumping duty order on certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products from Japan. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brandon Farlander or Rick Johnson,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0182, (202) 482–3818,

respectively.

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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 23, 2000, Taiho America

requested that the Department revoke in

part the antidumping duty order on

certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel

flat products from Japan. Specifically,

Taiho America requested that the

Department revoke the order with

respect to imports meeting the following

specifications: carbon steel flat products

measuring 1.64 millimeters in thickness

and 19.5 millimeters in width consisting

of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a

lining clad with an aluminum alloy that

is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1

to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to