Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Notices 28355

Officer, room 10201, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: May 14, 1998.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 98–13793 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–846]

Brake Rotors From the People’s

Republic of China: Initiation of New

Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has received a request to conduct a new

shipper administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on brake rotors

from the People’s Republic of China. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d), we

are initiating this administrative review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Smith or Sunkyu Kim, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–1766 or 482–2613,

respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) regulations are to the

provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351

(62 FR 27295, May 19, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department has received a timely

request from Yantai Chen Fu Machinery

Co., Ltd., (‘‘YCFM’’), in accordance with

19 CFR 351.214(d), for a new shipper

review of the antidumping duty order

on brake rotors from the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), which has

an April anniversary date. YCFM (‘‘the

respondent’’) has certified that it did not

export brake rotors to the United States

during the period of investigation

(‘‘POI’’), and that it is not affiliated with

any exporter or producer which did

export brake rotors during the POI.

In accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended, and

19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on

information on the record, we are

initiating the new shipper review as

requested.

It is the Department’s usual practice

in cases involving non-market

economies to require that a company

seeking to establish eligibility for an

antidumping duty rate separate from the

country-wide rate provide de jure and

de facto evidence of an absence of

government control over the company’s

export activities. Accordingly we will

issue a separate rates questionnaire to

the above-named respondent, allowing

30 days for response. If the response

from the respondent provides sufficient

indication that the YCFM is not subject

to either de jure or de facto government

control with respect to its exports of

brake rotors, this review will proceed. If,

on the other hand, YCFM does not

demonstrate its eligibility for a separate

rate, then YCFM will be deemed to be

affiliated with other companies that

exported during the POI and that did

not establish entitlement to a separate

rate, and this review will be terminated.

Initiation of Review

In accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a new

shipper review of the antidumping duty

order on brake rotors from the PRC. On

May 11, 1998, YCFM agreed to waive

the time limits in order that the

Department, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.214(j)(3), may conduct this review

concurrent with the first annual

administrative review of this order for

the period October 10, 1996–March 31,

1998, which is being conducted

pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

See, Antidumping Duties,

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, (62

FR 27295, 27395, May 19, 1997).

Therefore, we intend to issue the final

results of this review not later than 245

days after the last day of the anniversary

month.

Antidumping duty

proceeding

Period to be

reviewed

PRC: Brake Rotors, A–

570–846:

Yantai Chen Fu Machinery Co., Ltd ... 10/10/96–03/31/98

We will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to allow, at the option of the

importer, the posting, until the

completion of the review, of a bond or

security in lieu of a cash deposit for

each entry of the merchandise exported

by the above listed company. This

action is in accordance with 19 CFR

351.214(e) and (j)(3).

Interested parties that need access to

the proprietary information in this new

shipper review should submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b).

This initiation and this notice are in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR

351.214(d).

Dated: May 14, 1998.

Maria Harris Tildon,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–13803 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Commission

[A–351–820]

Ferrosilicon From Brazil: Notice of

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.

SUMMARY: On January 16, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on Ferrosilicon from Brazil. This review

covers exports of this merchandise to

the United States by one manufacturer/

exporter, Companhia de Ferro Ligas da

Bahia, during the period March 1, 1996,

through February 28, 1997.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have not changed the final results from

those presented in the preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Frankel or Sal Tauhidi, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Office Four,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5849 or

(202) 482–4851, respectively.
28356 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 to the

Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR part

353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

The Department published the

antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon

from Brazil on March 14, 1994 (59 FR

11769). On January 16, 1998, the

Department published the preliminary

results of the 1996–1997 administrative

review of that antidumping duty order

(63 FR 2661). On March 4, 1998, and

March 16, 1998, we received case and

rebuttal briefs from Companhia de Ferro

Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa), and Aimcor

and SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc. (the

petitioners). Based on our analysis of

the comments received, we have not

changed the final results from those

presented in the preliminary results.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is ferrosilicon, a ferro alloy

generally containing, by weight, not less

than four percent iron, more than eight

percent but not more than 96 percent

silicon, not more than 10 percent

chromium, not more than 30 percent

manganese, not more than three percent

phosphorous, less than 2.75 percent

magnesium, and not more than 10

percent calcium or any other element.

Ferrosilicon is a ferro alloy produced by

combining silicon and iron through

smelting in a submerged-arc furnace.

Ferrosilicon is used primarily as an

alloying agent in the production of steel

and cast iron. It is also used in the steel

industry as a deoxidizer and a reducing

agent, and by cast iron producers as an

inoculant.

Ferrosilicon is differentiated by size

and by grade. The sizes express the

maximum and minimum dimensions of

the lumps of ferrosilicon found in a

given shipment. Ferrosilicon grades are

defined by the percentages by weight of

contained silicon and other minor

elements. Ferrosilicon is most

commonly sold to the iron and steel

industries in standard grades of 75

percent and 50 percent ferrosilicon.

Calcium silicon, ferrocalcium silicon,

and magnesium ferrosilicon are

specifically excluded from the scope of

this review. Calcium silicon is an alloy

containing, by weight, not more than

five percent iron, 60 to 65 percent

silicon, and 28 to 32 percent calcium.

Ferrocalcium silicon is a ferro alloy

containing, by weight, not less than four

percent iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon,

and more than 10 percent calcium.

Magnesium ferrosilicon is a ferro alloy

containing, by weight, not less than four

percent iron, not more than 55 percent

silicon, and not less than 2.75 percent

magnesium. Ferrosilicon is currently

classifiable under the following

subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS):

7202.21.1000, 7202.21.5000,

7202.21.7500, 7202.21.9000,

7202.29.0010, and 7202.29.0050. The

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. Our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive. Ferrosilicon in the form of slag is

included within the scope of this order

if it meets, in general, the chemical

content definition stated above and is

capable of being used as ferrosilicon.

Parties that believe their importations of

ferrosilicon slag do not meet these

definitions should contact the

Department and request a scope

determination.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1

Ferbasa maintains that the

Department’s recalculation of cost of

manufacturing (COM) for ferrosilicon

based on the six-month period,

September 1, 1996 through February 28,

1997, instead of the twelve-month fiscal

year, January 1, 1996 through December

31, 1996, is inconsistent with the

instructions set forth in the

Department’s questionnaire. Ferbasa

notes the fact that, in a letter from the

Department dated June 19, 1997, the

Department allowed the company to

report home market sales data for the

six-month period. (See, the

Department’s letter from Holly Kuga to

Gilvan Durao, Executive Director of

Ferbasa.) At the same time, however,

Ferbasa observes that it followed the

Department’s questionnaire instructions

which allow respondents to report

production costs on a fiscal-year basis in

certain circumstances.

Ferbasa adds that the Department

verified its submitted fiscal year costs

and notes that the recalculation of COM

based on a six-month period is

inconsistent with the full-year selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and interest ratio calculations

used by the Department to compute cost

of production (COP) in the preliminary

results of this case. For these reasons,

Ferbasa contends that the Department

must use the company’s full fiscal-year

cost data to compute COP for the final

results of this administrative review.

The petitioners argue that the

Department correctly calculated

Ferbasa’s COM based on the six-month

period rather than the submitted fiscal

year data. The petitioners note that the

Department reasonably recalculated

COM based on the period of time which

coincides with Ferbasa’s reported home

market sales data. Moreover, the

petitioners maintain that the fact

Ferbasa reported its cost data on a fiscalyear basis does not obligate the

Department to use that information in

its sales-below-cost analysis.

The petitioners further note that both

the fiscal year and the six-month data

were tested at verification and,

therefore, the Department is not

compelled to use only the submitted

fiscal-year data. Finally, the petitioners

conclude that the Department’s normal

calculation of SG&A and interest

expense ratios based on the fiscal year

data is appropriate.

Department’s Position

We agree with petitioners that it was

appropriate in this case for us to revise

Ferbasa’s submitted COM figures to

reflect the six-month period. Based on a

timely request from Ferbasa, we

permitted the company to limit its

reporting of home market sales to only

those months that were

contemporaneous to its one U.S. sale.

We further note that the Department’s

questionnaire reflects our general

practice of allowing a respondent to

report costs for its normal fiscal year if

this fiscal period corresponds closely

with the period under investigation or

review.

In the instant proceeding, although

Ferbasa’s fiscal year corresponds closely

with the entire period under review it

was not sufficiently correlated to the

sales reporting period. We advised

Ferbasa of our intent to examine at

verification the extent to which the

submitted fiscal year costs were

representative of costs incurred during

the six-month sales reporting period.

(See, Cost Verification Agenda, October

27, 1997, Section IV. C., at 5.)

Based on our testing at verification,

we determined that the reported fiscal

year costs were not reasonably reflective

of the costs incurred to produce the

subject merchandise sold during the sixmonth sales reporting period. (See,

Memorandum to the Official File re:

Verification of Cost of Production and

Constructed Value Information (Cost

Verification Report), at 2, and Section

IV.C., at 10 (January 12, 1998); see also,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Notices 28357

Memorandum to the Official File re:

Adjustments to Cost of Production and

Constructed Value (January 12, 1998).)

Accordingly, in reaching our

preliminary determination we relied on

the actual costs incurred to produce the

subject merchandise during the sixmonth period contemporaneous to the

reported sales. This approach is

consistent with the Department’s

obligation to ensure that the

calculations are based on costs which

‘‘* * * reasonably reflects and

accurately captures all of the actual

costs incurred in producing * * * the

product under investigation or review.’’

(See, Statement of Administrative

Action accompanying the URRA, H.R.

5110, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1

(1994) at 834 (SAA); see also Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews: Certain ColdRolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products From Korea, 63 FR

13170, 13192 (March 18, 1998), where

the Department determined that the

POR costs differed from the company’s

fiscal year costs, and after reviewing the

information, based the margin

calculations on the POR costs rather

than on the fiscal year costs.)

Accordingly, we continue to rely on

costs incurred during the six-month

period in these final results.

As to Ferbasa’s comment that the

Department’s general practice of

calculating SG&A and interest expense

based on the fiscal year requires that

COM be based on that same period, we

disagree. The Department normally

calculates SG&A and interest expenses

over the closest corresponding fiscal

year’s audited financial statements. We

then use these ratios to determine the

per-unit SG&A and interest expense

associated with each product. This

calculation measures, over a full fiscal

year, the level of G&A expenses

associated with the company’s sales.

The basis for calculating these ratios

over the full fiscal year is not because

it is the exact same period as that

examined for the cost calculation, but

rather because using the annual ratio is

most reflective of these type of

expenses, which are typically incurred

unevenly throughout the year. (See

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular

Goods from Argentina, 60 FR 33,539,

33,549 (June 28, 1995); and Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products, and Cut-to Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR

37105, 37113 (July 9, 1993).)

Comment 2

Ferbasa contends that the Department

should not have included valued added

taxes (IPI and ICMS) in the calculation

of constructed value (CV). According to

Ferbasa, section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act

provides for the exclusion of home

market consumption taxes from normal

value (NV) in order to maintain a tax

neutral comparison for purposes of

measuring whether dumping has

occurred.

The petitioners contend that the

Department properly included the IPI

and ICMS taxes in CV. According to the

petitioners, section 773(e) of the Act

provides that any home market tax

imposed on export goods should be

included in CV unless the tax is

refunded or remitted upon exportation.

The petitioner argues that Ferbasa has

not stated nor did the verification

conclude that these IPI and ICMS taxes

have been remitted or refunded upon

exportation.

Department’s Position:

Because the NV in these final results

was based on Ferbasa’s home market

prices and not on CV, this issue is moot.

Therefore, we are not addressing it here.

Final Results of Review

Our final results are unchanged from

those presented in our preliminary

results. Therefore, the dumping margin

for Ferbasa remains at zero percent for

the period March 1, 1996, through

February 28, 1997.

The following deposit requirement

will be effective for all shipments of

subject merchandise from Brazil

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be zero; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in previous reviews or the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the rate published in the

most recent final results or

determination for which the

manufacturer or exporter received a

company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, a

previous review, or the LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of this

review, earlier review or the LTFV

investigation, whichever is the most

recent; (4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous reviews, the cash deposit

will be 35.95 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’

rate made effective by the antidumping

duty order (59 FR 11769, March 14,

1994).

This notice serves as a 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 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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and terms of the

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: May 14, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–13802 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–826]

Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line

and Pressure Pipe From Brazil; Notice

of Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 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

administrative review, and intent to

revoke order in part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request made

on April 27, 1998, by the Gulf States

Tube Division of Vision Metals (‘‘Gulf