18878 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices

with respect to France, Germany, Japan,

Singapore, and Thailand;

Federal-Mogul Corporation and the

Torrington Company v. United States,

Slip Op. 97–9 (January 22, 1997) with

respect to Japan.

In the context of the above-cited

litigation, the CIT (in some cases based

on decisions by the CAFC) ordered the

Department to make methodological

changes and to recalculate the

antidumping margins for certain firms

under review. Specifically, the CIT

ordered the Department inter alia to: (1)

Change its methodology for computing

inventory carrying costs; (2) reallocate

NSK’s advertising expenses; (3) deny an

adjustment to foreign market value

(FMV) for home-market pre-sale freight

expenses where FMV was calculated

using purchase price; (4) develop a

methodology which removes post-sale

price adjustments and rebates paid on

sales of out-of-scope merchandise from

its calculations of FMV or, if no viable

method can be developed, deny such an

adjustment in its calculation of FMV; (5)

reconsider its decision to accept NTN’s

downward adjustments to United States

indirect selling expenses for interest

paid on cash deposits; (6) determine

whether NTN demonstrated that selling

expenses for aftermarket customers were

different than for distributors and OEMs

and, if not, collapse sales to aftermarket

customers and distributors to form a

single level of trade; (7) provide a

reasonable explanation as to why the

Department changed its findings in the

original investigation that NMB/

Pelmec’s ‘‘Route B’’ sales are thirdcountry sales or, if none can be given,

exclude these sales from the homemarket database; (8) determine whether

NMB/Pelmec’s related-party sales were

made at market prices and, if not,

exclude such sales from its calculation

of profit; and (9) correct various clerical

errors.

On December 12, 1996, the CIT

affirmed the Department’s final remand

results affecting final assessment rates

for all the above cases (except the

reviews involving SKF which are still

subject to further litigation). See

Federal-Mogul Corporation and the

Torrington Company v. United States,

Slip Op. 96–193 (December 12, 1996).

As there are now final and conclusive

court decisions in these actions, we are

amending our final results of review in

these matters, with the exception of

those cases which are still under appeal,

and we will subsequently instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate entries

subject to these reviews.

Amendment to Final Results

Pursuant to section 516A(e) of the

Tariff Act, we are now amending the

final results of administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

antifriction bearings (other than tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof from

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania,

Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the

United Kingdom, except for those cases

still under appeal, for the period May 1,

1991, through April 30, 1992. The

revised weighted-average margins are as

follows:

Company BBs CRBs SPBs

FRANCE

SKF ...................... 1.97 (1) (3)

SNR ..................... 1.13 0.81 (2)

GERMANY

FAG ..................... 11.83 17.63 (3)

Fichtel & Sachs ... (3) (2) (2)

INA ....................... 23.19 (3) (2)

NTN ..................... (3) (1) (1)

ITALY

FAG ..................... 5.36 (3) ..............

JAPAN

Koyo ..................... 8.28 3.19 (3)

Nachi .................... 7.59 (3) (2)

NPB ..................... 7.90 (2) (2)

NTN ..................... 2.94 0.73 6.41

NSK ..................... 17.85 27.09 (1)

Singapore

NMB/Pelmec ........ 8.54 .............. ..............

THAILAND

NMB/Pelmec ........ 0.17 .............. ..............

UNITED

KINGDOM

Barden Corporation ................... 7.57 (3) ..............

FAG ..................... 21.77 (3) ..............

RHP–NSK ............ 50.32 45.61 ..............

(1) No U.S. sales during the review period.

(2) No review requested.

(3) No rate change for a class or kind due to

litigation.

Accordingly, the Department will

determine and the U.S. Customs Service

will assess appropriate antidumping

duties on entries of the subject

merchandise made by firms covered by

these reviews. Individual differences

between United States price and foreign

market value may vary from the

percentages listed above. The

Department has already issued

appraisement instructions to the

Customs Service for certain companies

whose margins have not changed from

those announced in AFBs III and the

three previous amendments. For

companies covered by these amended

results, the Department will issue

appraisement instructions to the U.S.

Customs Service after publication of

these amended final results of reviews.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

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

Dated: April 7, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10040 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–403–801]

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon

From Norway; Notice of Rescission of

Antidumping New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping new shipper review.

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 65666) a notice

announcing the initiation of a new

shipper antidumping review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh and

chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway,

covering the period April 1, 1996,

through September 30, 1997, and one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise, Nornir Group A/S. This

review has now been rescinded as a

result of the withdrawal of the request

for administrative review by the

interested party.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

II, Import Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202) 482–4195 or 482–3814,

respectively.

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 of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351,

62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 73 /Thursday, April 16, 1998 / Notices 18879

Background

On October 31, 1997, Nornir Group

A/S (Nornir) requested a new shipper

review of its U.S. sales of subject

merchandise. On December 15, 1997, in

accordance with 19 CFR Sec.

351.214(b), we initiated the new shipper

review of this order for the period April

1, 1996, through September 30, 1997.

On January 16, 1998, the respondent,

Nornir, withdrew its request for review.

Rescission of Review

The respondent withdrew its request

within the time limit provided by the

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR

351.214(f)(1). Therefore the Department

is terminating this review. We note,

however, that this is the second

consecutive request for termination

made by Nornir. Pursuant to the

agency’s inherent authority to prevent

the abuse of its administrative

procedures, we will carefully evaluate

any future requests for a new shipper

review by this party to ensure that it is

not attempting to manipulate the

requirements of the new shipper review

process.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning disposition of

proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with section

354.34(d) of the Department’s

regulations. Timely written notification

of the return or destruction of APO

materials, or conversation to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with regulations and

terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This determination is published in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.214(f)(3).

Dated: April 10, 1998.

Maria Harris Tildon,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–10169 Filed 4–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–412–810]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review; certain hot-rolled lead and

bismuth carbon steel products from the

United Kingdom.

SUMMARY: On December 9, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth steel

products from the United Kingdom. The

review covers two manufacturers/

exporters, British Steel Engineering

Steels Limited (BSES) and Glynwed

Metal Processing Limited (Glynwed),

and the period March 1, 1996 through

February 28, 1997.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gideon Katz or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

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 353 (April 1,

1996).

Background

On December 9, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 64803) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled lead and bismuth steel products

from the United Kingdom (58 FR 15324,

March 22, 1993). On January 13, 1998,

petitioner, Inland Steel Bar Company,

submitted comments on the

Department’s preliminary results. On

January 20, 1998, BSES submitted

rebuttal comments. We held a hearing

on January 22, 1998. The Department

has now completed the review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are hot-rolled bars and rods of nonalloy

or other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

or more of bismuth, in coils or cut

lengths, and in numerous shapes and

sizes. Excluded from the scope of this

review are other alloy steels (as defined

by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1(f)), except steels classified as

other alloy steels by reason of

containing by weight 0.4 percent or

more of lead, or 0.1 percent of more of

bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also

excluded are semi-finished steels and

flat-rolled products. Most of the

products covered in this review are

provided for under subheadings

7213.20.00.00 and 7214.30.00.00 of the

HTSUS. Small quantities of these

products may also enter the United

States under the following HTSUS

subheadings: 7213.31.30.00, 60.00;

7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90;

7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; 7214.60.10,

00.30, 00.50; and 7228.30.80.00. HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description of the scope of

this order remains dispositive.

This review covers two

manufacturers/exporters of certain hotrolled lead and bismuth steel products,

BSES and Glynwed, and the period

March 1, 1996 through February 28,

1997.

Analysis of the Comments

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments from the petitioner,

Inland Steel Bar Company, and rebuttal

comments from BSES.

Comment 1: Petitioner alleges that the

Department erred in applying the arm’slength test after incorporating BSES’s

model matching concordance into the

margin calculation program. Citing the

September 26, 1997 ‘‘Antidumping Duty

Investigation on Steel Wire Rod from