26150 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices

1See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–829, A–533–814, A–588–844, A–580–

830, A–469–808, A–583–829]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Stainless Steel Round

Wire from Canada, India, Japan, the

Republic of Korea, Spain, and Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Schauer (Canada) at (202) 482–

4852; Diane Krawczun (India) at (202)

482–0198; Edward Easton (Japan) at

(202) 482–1777; Gabriel Adler (the

Republic of Korea) at (202) 482–1442;

Michael Panfeld (Spain) at (202) 482–

0168; or Michelle Frederick (Taiwan) at

(202) 482–0186, Import AdministrationRoom 1870, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

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 regulations published in the Federal

Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

The Petition

On March 27, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received

a petition filed in proper form by the

following companies: ACS Industries,

Inc., Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp.,

Branford Wire & Manufacturing

Company, Carpenter Technology Corp.,

Handy & Harman Specialty Wire Group,

Industrial Alloys, Inc., Loos & Company,

Inc., Sandvik Steel Company, Sumiden

Wire Products Corporation, and

Techalloy Company, Inc. (‘‘the

petitioners’’). Sumiden Wire Products

Corporation is not a petitioner in the

Japanese case, and Carpenter

Technology Corp. and Techalloy

Company, Inc., are not petitioners in the

Canadian case. The Department

received numerous supplemental

submissions throughout the month of

April, 1998.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of stainless steel round wire

(‘‘SSRW’’) from Canada, India, Japan,

the Republic of Korea (Korea), Spain,

and Taiwan are being, or are likely to

be, sold in the United States at less than

fair value within the meaning of section

731 of the Act, and that such imports

are materially injuring, or threatening

material injury to, an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioners filed the petition on behalf of

the domestic industry because they are

interested parties as defined in section

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they

have demonstrated sufficient industry

support (see discussion below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

the product covered is stainless steel

round wire. Stainless steel round wire is

any cold-formed (i.e., cold-drawn, coldrolled) stainless steel product, of a

cylindrical contour, sold in coils or

spools, and not over 0.703 inch (18 mm)

in maximum solid cross-sectional

dimension. SSRW is made of iron-based

alloys containing, by weight, 1.2 percent

or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or

more of chromium, with or without

other elements. Metallic coatings, such

as nickel and copper coatings, may be

applied.

The merchandise subject to these

investigations is classifiable under

subheadings 7223.00.1015,

7223.00.1030, 7223.00.1045,

7223.00.1060, and 7223.00.1075 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed with the petitioners whether

the proposed scope was an accurate

reflection of the product for which the

domestic industry is seeking relief. The

petitioners indicated that the scope in

the petition accurately reflected the

product for which they are seeking

relief. Consistent with the preamble to

the new regulations (62 FR at 27323),

we are setting aside a period for parties

to raise issues regarding product

coverage. The Department encourages

all parties to submit such comments by

20 days after the publication of this

notice. Comments should be addressed

to Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania

Avenue and 14th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. This period of

scope consultation is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and to consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who account for

production of the domestic like product.

The International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for

determining whether the domestic

industry has been injured, must also

determine what constitutes a domestic

like product in order to define the

industry. While both the Department

and the ITC are required to apply the

same statutory provision regarding the

domestic like product (section 771(10)

of the Act), they do so for different

purposes and pursuant to separate and

distinct authority. In addition, the

Department’s determination is subject to

limitations of time and information.

Although this may result in different

definitions of the domestic like product,

such differences do not render the

decision of either agency contrary to

law.1 Section 771(10) of the Act defines

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the

reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition. The

domestic like product referred to in the

petition is the single domestic like

product defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section, above. We
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26151

consulted with the ITC, the U.S.

Customs Service, and petitioners and

have, as a result of these discussions,

adopted the domestic like product

definition set forth in the petition.

On April 8, 1998, the ITC presented

us with information indicating that

there may be as many as 25 additional

producers of the domestic like product

that were not included in the petition.

On April 9, 1998, Central Wire

Industries Ltd. and Greening Donald

Co., Ltd., two Canadian producers of

subject merchandise, submitted a list of

47 non-petitioning companies that they

claimed represented U.S. producers of

the domestic like product. See Letter

from Central Wire Industries Ltd. and

Greening Donald Co., Ltd. to the

Secretary of Commerce dated April 9,

1998 (the Central Wire submission).

Certain of these companies were

included in the list of non-petitioning

producers in the petition, but a majority

were not. Because there was a question

as to whether petitioners’ met the

statutory requirements cited above, we

exercised our statutory discretion under

section 732(c)(1)(B) to extend the

deadline for determining whether to

initiate an investigation to a maximum

of 40 days from the date of filing in

order to resolve this issue. See

Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini

from Laurie Parkhill dated April 16,

1998. We also invited parties to identify

any other potential producers of the

domestic like product.

On April 21, 1998, the petitioners

provided production information

concerning 42 of the then 64

nonpetitioning companies that had been

identified as potential producers by the

ITC, the Central Wire submission, or by

the petitioners themselves at that time.

See Letter from the petitioners to the

Secretary of Commerce, April 21, 1998.

The sources of this production

information are affidavits from cocounsel for the petitioners, stating that

they have contacted each of the 42

producers and have received the

production information directly from

the companies. The petitioners also

included affidavits from co-counsel for

the petitioners, as well as one of the

petitioning company officials,

indicating that certain nonpetitioning

companies support the petition.

On April 21, 1998, Central Wire

submitted a list of all U.S. producers

(including the petitioners) that it

believed produced the domestic like

product. See Letter from Central Wire

Industries Ltd. and Greening Donald

Co., Ltd. to the Secretary of Commerce,

April 21, 1998. While most of these

potential producers had already been

identified, there were several potential

producers who had not been previously

identified, and thus were not included

in the list of 64 companies provided in

the petitioners’ April 21, 1998 letter.

We were able to contact all but one of

the companies identified, and based on

the data now on the record, we

determine that the petitioners have

established industry support in

accordance with the statutory

requirements cited above. See

Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill and

Gary Taverman to Richard W. Moreland

dated May 6, 1998. Accordingly, we

determine that the petition is filed on

behalf of the domestic industry within

the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the

Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

The following are descriptions of the

allegations of sales at less than fair value

upon which our decisions to initiate

these investigations are based. Should

the need arise to use any of this

information in our preliminary or final

determinations for purposes of facts

available under section 776 of the Act,

we may re-examine the information and

revise the margin calculations, if

appropriate.

With respect to sales to the U.S.

market, the petitioners used an export

price (EP) analysis because the

producers in each country make their

first sale of exports to unaffiliated

importers. The petitioners based export

prices on affidavits based on call reports

and price quotes, as appropriate. The

petitioners calculated EP by subtracting

domestic inland freight (except in the

India and Taiwan cases), ocean freight

and marine insurance (except in the

Canada case), import duties (except in

the India case), harbor maintenance

fees, U.S. merchandise processing fees,

and U.S. inland freight (except in the

Canada and India cases). The data for

these adjustments was based on market

research, U.S. Customs statistics,

affidavits, and the 1997 import duty

rates. The petitioners did not deduct

domestic inland freight in the Indian

case because they were not able to

obtain such data. Although the

petitioners did not explain why they did

not deduct domestic inland freight in

the Taiwan case, we note that this will

not cause the dumping margins to be

overstated. All adjustments not

mentioned above that were not made by

the petitioners in specific cases were

due to the terms of the sales. We

restated some of the export prices in the

India case to conform with the affidavits

the petitioners submitted. See

Memorandum to File dated April 16,

1998.

The petitioners based normal value

(NV) on home market prices, as

obtained by market research. They

adjusted the home market prices by

deducting foreign inland freight (except

in the India case due to the terms of

sale) and imputed credit, and by adding

the imputed credit calculated on the

U.S. sale (except in the India case).

Though the petitioners did not adjust

for imputed credit in the India case, we

were able to calculate an imputed credit

expense for that case and did deduct it

from NV. See Memorandum to File

dated April 16, 1998. The data for the

adjustments the petitioners made to NV

were based on market research and

International Financial Statistics

(published by the International

Monetary Fund). The petitioners

submitted affidavits to support their

claims regarding packing costs in the

U.S. and Japanese markets. However,

there was no adjustment for packing in

other cases, either because information

was not available for a country or

because the petitioners assumed that

packing costs were the same for sales to

the home market and the U.S. market.

There is no public evidence available to

adjust NV for the differences in packing

costs between the U.S. and home

markets. Furthermore, our experience in

steel cases generally suggests that the

packing costs of export sales are nearly

always greater than or equal to the

packing costs of domestic sales, because

additional precautions are usually

necessary to protect exported

merchandise (for example, from rust)

during its longer time in transit.

Therefore, we conclude that not

adjusting for differences in packing

costs is conservative.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and

773(e) of the Act, the petitioners also

based NV for sales in all countries,

except Japan, on constructed value (CV).

CV consists of COM, selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A),

packing and profit. The petitioners

based their calculations for COM, SG&A

and packing on costs obtained by

market research, affidavits from the

petitioning companies’ officials, and

U.S. industry data compiled by the

petitioners. We recalculated the CVs

used in the Canada, India, and Taiwan

cases. The nature of the recalculations

and the reasons for the recalculations

are explained in Memoranda to File

dated April 16, 1998.

Based on comparisons of EP to NV,

the petitioners estimate margins of 2.18

to 64.24 percent in the Taiwan case. We

recalculated the estimated margins to be

2.38 to 40.48 percent in the Canada

case, 3.47 to 36.52 percent in the India

case, 2.02 to 29.58 percent in the Japan
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