Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices 23269

general expenses in Indonesia of 27.5

percent. The specific calculations

underlying each of these methodologies

are detailed in the tables attached to the

AD/CVD checklist. Since the petitioner

did not include an amount for profit

within its CV calculation, we note that

the estimated CV would be higher if an

amount for profit were added. In

accordance with 773 of the Act, the

methodology used by the petitioner to

derive NV comports with Department

practice and petition requirements.

The comparisons of NV to net U.S.

prices result in estimated dumping

margins that range from 0.81 percent

(highest CEP compared to lowest NV

estimate) to 62 percent (lowest CEP to

highest NV estimate).

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioner, there is reason to believe that

imports of rubber thread from Indonesia

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value.

Allegations of Subsidies

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the

Department to initiate a countervailing

duty proceeding whenever an interested

party files a petition, on behalf of an

industry, that (1) alleges the elements

necessary for an imposition of a duty

under section 701(a), and (2) is

accompanied by information reasonably

available to petitioner supporting the

allegations. We are including in our

investigation the following programs

alleged in the petition to have provided

subsidies to producers and exporters of

the subject merchandise in Indonesia.

1. Export Financing

2. Import Duty Exemptions on Capital

Equipment

3. Corporate Income Tax Holidays

4. Investment Credit for the Expansion

of the Rubber Industry

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Investigations

The Department has examined the

petition on rubber thread from

Indonesia and has found that it

complies with the requirements of

sections 702(b) and 732(b) of the Act.

Therefore, in accordance with sections

702(b) and 732(b), we are initiating

antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations to determine whether

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of rubber thread from Indonesia are

being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value and

whether manufacturers, producers or

exporters of rubber thread from

Indonesia received subsidies. See Tab B

accompanying the AD/CVD Checklist

(public version) which is on file in room

B–099 of the main Commerce building.

Unless the relevant deadline is

extended, we will make our preliminary

determinations for the countervailing

duty investigation no later than June 24,

1998 and for the antidumping duty

investigation no later than September 8,

1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with sections

702(b)(4)(A)(i) and 732(b)(3)(A) of the

Act, copies of the public version of the

petition have been provided to the

representatives of the Government of

Indonesia. We will attempt to provide

copies of the public version of the

petition to all exporters named in the

petition, as provided for in section

351.203(c)(2) of the Department’s

regulations.

ITC Notification

Pursuant to sections 702(d) and

732(d) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of these initiations.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 15,

1998, whether there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is being materially

injured, or is threatened with material

injury, by reason of imports from

Indonesia of rubber thread. A negative

ITC determination will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigations will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: April 20, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11274 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–601]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada;

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On October 29, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register a notice of

termination of the administrative review

of brass sheet and strip from Canada

covering imports of subject merchandise

for the period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993. Due to a procedural

oversight by the Department of

Commerce, the signature date of this

notice of termination, October 21, 1997,

was one day prior to the date of the

respondent’s formal written request for

termination of the 1993 review, which

was submitted to the Department of

Commerce on October 22, 1997. In light

of this procedural error, the Department

of Commerce rescinded its termination

of this review and reopened the

administrative record of this proceeding

for comments by interested parties on

the question of termination of this

review. After careful review of the

comments submitted by interested

parties, the Department of Commerce

decided that this review should be

terminated and hereby terminates this

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Stolz or Thomas Futtner, Office of

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482–

3814, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations:

Unless otherwise stated, all citations to

the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) published an antidumping

duty order on brass sheet and strip from

Canada on January 12, 1987 (52 FR

1217). On January 5, 1994, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on brass

sheet and strip from Canada (59 FR

564). On January 21, 1994, a

manufacturer/exporter, Wolverine Tube

(Canada) Inc., (Wolverine) requested an

administrative review of its exports of

the subject merchandise to the United

States for the period of review (POR)

January 1, 1993, through December 31,

1993. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(c), we initiated the review on

February 17, 1994 (59 FR 7979).

Wolverine was the only interested party

to request this review. On or about

October 17, 1997, Wolverine notified

the Department by telephone of its
23270 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices

intent to request termination of this

review. The Department then prepared

a notice of termination for the Federal

Register pending receipt of Wolverine’s

formal written request. This written

request was dated and received by the

Department on October 22, 1997. The

notice of termination was published in

the Federal Register on October 29,

1997 (62 FR 56150). However, due to a

procedural oversight, the signature date

of the notice was October 21, 1997, one

day prior to actual receipt of the written

request for termination. In the interest of

procedural integrity, the Department

rescinded its termination of this review

in order to afford interested parties the

opportunity to comment as to whether

this review should have been

terminated. Hussey Copper, Ltd.; The

Miller Company; Olin Corporation;

Revere Copper Products, Inc.;

International Association of Machinists

and Aerospace Workers; International

Union, Allied Industrial Workers of

America (AFL–CIO); Mechanics

Educational Society of America, and

United Steelworkers of America (AFL–

CIO) (collectively, the petitioner) and

the respondent both submitted

comments and rebuttal comments

within the time limits specified by the

Department.

Comments

On January 16, 1998, Wolverine and

the petitioner submitted comments

regarding the issue of termination. On

January 27, 1998, Wolverine and the

petitioner submitted rebuttal comments

with respect to the January 16, 1998,

comments. The following is a summary

and the Department’s position on each

of these comments.

Comment 1: 1993 Review Virtually

Completed, Completion Would Not

Affect the Timing of the 1996 Review.

Wolverine claims that completing the

1993 review would further delay

completion of the 1996 review. It further

notes that termination would reduce the

Department’s administrative burden.

The petitioner claims that the 1993

review was virtually completed and that

the Department’s resources would not

be unduly taxed by completing the

review. The petitioner further notes that

completing the 1993 review would not

cause additional delays or strain the

Department’s resources in completion of

the 1996 review.

Department Position: Although the

review process reached the preliminary

results stage, many critical steps such as

arriving at departmental positions and

drafting a final analysis, remained to be

completed. In addition, as in any

review, the potential for allegations of

clerical errors as well as the potential

for litigation and remands has to be

considered a part of the administrative

burden. Thus, the petitioner is incorrect

in claiming that the review was

essentially completed. Notwithstanding

this fact, the Department does not

believe that completion of the 1993

review would necessarily delay the

completion of the 1996 review.

However, for the reasons stated above,

we determined that it was not required

to complete the 1993 review, and that

doing so would not have any affect on

our determination with respect to the

1996 review.

Comment 2: 1993 Review Result

Could Affect Outcome of 1996 Review

With Regard to Revocation. The

petitioner asserts that the final outcome

of the 1993 review could affect the

Department’s pending determination

with respect to revocation in the 1996

review. The petitioner asserts that

completion of this review is necessary

to support a historical record of

dumping spanning beyond the three

years of zero or de minimis margins on

which the revocation request is based.

The petitioner argues that an analysis of

such an expanded time-frame would

demonstrate that Wolverine cannot ship

to the U.S. in significant commercial

quantities without dumping. Wolverine

notes that although the petitioner claims

that the 1993 review could affect the

outcome of the 1996 review, the

Department bases each of its

determinations on the factual record of

the relevant segment of the proceeding.

Department Position: The Department

cannot find merit in the petitioner’s

assertion, which was not supported by

any compelling argument and/or factual

information. The petitioner has not

established on the record of this 1993

review the precise manner in which the

completed results of this review would

potentially have a bearing on the

outcome of the revocation and other

issues before the Department with

respect to the 1996 review. Even were

the record of the 1993 review to show

a marked decline in U.S. shipments as

Wolverine’s dumping margins became

zero or de minimis, this by itself would

not necessarily lead the Department to

determine that these shipments were

not at less than commercial quantities,

and would not in itself support denial

of revocation as requested in the 1996

review.

Comment 3: Department Obligated to

Consider Petitioner’s Interests. The

petitioner claims that the Department is

obligated to consider the interests of the

domestic industry, noting that the

primary purpose of the antidumping

statute is to protect domestic industry.

Wolverine asserts that the petitioner’s

claim that the Department is obligated

to consider the interests of the domestic

industry is not based on any authority,

law, or regulation. Wolverine asserts

that it was the only party to request the

review and had subsequently requested

termination. Wolverine states that it is

the only party affected by termination

and that the petitioner has no legal basis

on which to object to termination.

Finally, Wolverine notes that the

petitioner was served by hand a copy of

the request for termination on October

22, 1997, but did not object to

termination until after publication of the

termination notice in the Federal

Register, seven days later.

Department Position: The fact that

Wolverine was the only party to request

the review has not been disputed and it

has been the Department’s practice to

routinely terminate reviews at the

request of an interested party when no

other interested party has requested the

review. In this case, Wolverine was the

only party to request the review and

subsequently requested that the review

be terminated. Although Wolverine’s

request to terminate this review was

submitted after the 90-day time limit for

termination provided for at section

353.22(a)(5) of our regulations, that

provision also states that the Secretary

may extend this time limit if the

Secretary determines it is reasonable to

do so. In fact, it may be considered that

the domestic industry’s interest is being

served in that upon termination of this

review, liquidation of affected entries

will be at 21.39 percent, the cash

deposit rate in effect at the time of entry,

whereas the dumping margin

preliminarily determined in this review

was 1.39 percent.

Comment 4: Department Not

Obligated to Notify Petitioner of

Termination. Wolverine notes that the

Department was not required by its

regulations to consult with interested

parties or consider comments in its

decision to terminate the review.

Department Position: We agree with

Wolverine. The only party to request

this review, Wolverine, subsequently

requested that we terminate this review.

In addition, the petitioner was duly

served with a copy of the respondent’s

request to terminate this review on

October 22, 1997, in advance of

publication of our original termination

notice on October 29, 1997. Upon the

petitioner’s October 30, 1997, objection

to termination, although the Department

was under no legal obligation to do so,

in the interest of procedural integrity,

the Department reopened the record of

this review after the original termination

to consider interested party comments

regarding termination.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 81 /Tuesday, April 28, 1998 / Notices 23271

Termination

The Department has considered all

comments submitted by interested

parties and has determined that this

review should be terminated. Because

Wolverine was the only party to request

this review, and subsequently withdrew

its request, and because we find that

there are no other compelling reasons to

continue this review, we are terminating

this review.

The Department shall instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate all

appropriate entries. Shipments entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption during the January 1, 1993

through December 31, 1993, POR will be

liquidated at the cash deposit rate in

effect at the time of entry. Insofar as the

final results for the more current POR,

January 1, 1995, through December 31,

1995, were published prior to this

termination notice, the cash deposit

instructions contained in the notice

covering the January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995, POR will continue

to apply to all shipments to the United

States of subject merchandise entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after April 8, 1997

(the date of publication of the final

results of review covering the 1995

POR).

This notice also serves as final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during the 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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of thier

responsibility concerning disposition of

proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with section

353.34(d) of the Department’s

regulations. Timely within notification

of the return or destruction of APO

materials is hereby requested. Failure to

comply with the regulations and terms

of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Dated: April 15, 1998.

Maria Harris Tildon,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11277 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A–351–817)

Certain Cut-to-length Carbon Steel

Plate From Brazil; Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Extension of

Time Limit

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limit.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit of the preliminary results of the

antidumping duty administrative review

of Certain Cut-to-length Carbon Steel

Plate From Brazil. This review covers

the period August 1, 1996 through July

31, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen Kramer or Linda Ludwig, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0405 or

482–3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to the

time required to verify whether

shipments of merchandise covered by

the antidumping order occurred during

the period of review, it is not practicable

to complete this review within the

original time limit. See Decision

Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Enforcement Group III, to Robert S.

LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated April 21,1998.

Therefore, the Department is extending

the time limit for completion of the

preliminary results until August 31,

1998, in accordance with Section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act of 1994. The

deadline for the final results of this

review will continue to be 120 days

after publication of the preliminary

results.

This extension is in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675

(a)(3)(A)).

Dated: April 21, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 98–11276 Filed 4–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–810]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From

Argentina; Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Extension of time limit for

preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review of oil country

tubular goods from Argentina.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) is extending the

time limit for the preliminary results of

the second antidumping duty

administrative review of the

antidumping order on oil country

tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from

Argentina. This review covers Siderca

S.A.I.C., an Argentine producer and

exporter of OCTG, and Siderca

Corporation, a U.S. importer and

reseller of such merchandise,

collectively referred to as ‘‘Siderca.’’

The period of review is August 1, 1996

through July 31, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alain Letort or John R. Kugelman, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group III ‘‘ Office 8,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington

D.C. 20230, telephone (202) 482–4243 or

482–0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘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.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351.101, et seq. (62 FR 27296—May 19,

1997).

Extension of Preliminary Results

The Department initiated this

administrative review on September 25,

1997 (62 FR 50292). Under section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department

may extend the deadline for completion

of an administrative review if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the review within the