26152 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices

case, 3.46 to 66.44 percent in the Korea

case, and 12.99 to 35.80 percent in the

Spain case.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,

the petitioners alleged that sales in the

home market of Canada, India, Korea,

and Taiwan were made at prices below

the cost of production (COP) and,

accordingly, requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales-below-COP investigation in

Canada, India, Korea, and Taiwan. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(‘‘SAA’’), submitted to Congress in

connection with the interpretation and

application of the Uruguay Round

Agreements, states that an allegation of

sales below COP need not be specific to

individual exporters or producers. SAA,

H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.,

at 833 (1994). The SAA states at 833 that

‘‘Commerce will consider allegations of

below-cost sales in the aggregate for a

foreign country, just as Commerce

currently considers allegations of sales

at less than fair value on a country-wide

basis for purposes of initiating an

antidumping investigation.’’

The statute at section 773(b) states

that the Department must have

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that below-cost sales have

occurred before initiating such an

investigation. ‘‘Reasonable grounds’’

exist when an interested party provides

specific factual information on costs and

prices, observed or constructed,

indicating that sales in the foreign

market in question are at below-cost

prices. Based upon the comparison of

the adjusted prices from the petition of

the foreign like product in Canada,

India, Korea, and Taiwan to the COP

calculated in the petition (and adjusted

in the Canada, India, and Taiwan cases

as described in Memoranda to File

dated April 16, 1998), we find

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that sales of these foreign like

products were made below their

respective COP within the meaning of

section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Department is

initiating the requested country-wide

cost investigation for Canada, India,

Korea, and Taiwan.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of SSRW from Canada,

India, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan

are being, or are likely to be, sold at less

than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petition alleges that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, and

is threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. The allegations of

injury and causation are supported by

relevant evidence including business

proprietary data from the petitioning

firms and U.S. Customs import data.

The Department assessed the allegations

and supporting evidence regarding

material injury and causation and

determined that these allegations are

sufficiently supported by accurate and

adequate evidence and meet the

statutory requirements for initiation.

Initiation of Antidumping

Investigations

We have examined the petition on

SSRW and have found that it meets the

requirements of section 732 of the Act.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of SSRW

from Canada, India, Japan, Korea, Spain,

and Taiwan are being, or are likely to

be, sold in the United States at less than

fair value. Unless extended, we will

make our preliminary determinations

for the antidumping duty investigations

by September 23, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of Canada, India, Japan,

Korea, Spain, and Taiwan. We will

attempt to provide a copy of the public

version of each petition to each exporter

named in the petition (as appropriate).

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by June 1,

1998, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of SSRW from

Canada, India, Japan, Korea, Spain, and

Taiwan are causing material injury, or

threatening to cause material injury, to

a U.S. industry. Negative ITC

determinations will result in the

particular investigations being

terminated; otherwise, the

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

Dated: May 6, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12593 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Wisconsin-Madison;

Notice of Decision on Application for

Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–106. Applicant:

University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Madison, WI 53706–1490. Instrument:

Length Controller and Force Transducer

System, Models 308B and 403A.

Manufacturer: Aurora Scientific,

Canada. Intended Use: See notice at 63

FR 5504, February 3, 1998.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides measurement of the contractile

force of muscle cells by mechanically

deforming the length of the muscle

fiber. The National Institutes of Health

advised April 27, 1998 that (1) this

capability is pertinent to the applicant’s

intended purpose and (2) it knows of no

domestic instrument or apparatus of

equivalent scientific value to the foreign

instrument for the applicant’s intended

use.

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 98–12445 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

The Department of Commerce (DOC)

has submitted to the Office of