2880 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices

and will instruct Customs to release any

cash deposits or bonds posted. If

applicable, the Department will further

instruct Customs to refund with interest

any cash deposits on entries made after

July 31, 1998.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

Romania entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

For the reviewed companies the

Department shall require no deposit of

estimated antidumping duties; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigate

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 75.04

percent. This is the ‘‘All Others’’ rate

from the LTFV investigation. (See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 58 FR

37209 (July 9, 1993)).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

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 351.305. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

We are issuing and publishing this

administrative review and notice in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i) of the Tariff Act.

Dated: January 5, 2001.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

Comments and Responses.

1. Rescinding the Review.

2. Barter Transactions.

3. Factor Valuation.

4. Overhead.

5. Use of Inflator.

6. Application of Inflator to Labor Costs.

7. Circumstance-of-Sale Adjustments.

8. Facts Available.

9. Ministerial Errors.

[FR Doc. 01–1106 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–835]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From

Japan: Extension of Time Limit for

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit

for final results of administrative

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samantha Denenberg or Mark Hoadley,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1386 or (202) 482–

0666, respectively.

The 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 Departments’s

regulations are to the current

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Background

On August 26, 1999, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) received

a request from Dril-Quip Inc. (Dril-Quip)

for an administrative review of the

following parties: Hallmark Tubulars

Ltd. (Hallmark), Itochu Corp. (Itochu),

Itochu Project Management Corp. (IPM),

and Nippon Steel Corp. (Nippon)

regarding the antidumping duty order

on oil country tubular goods from Japan.

On August 31, 1999, petitioner and

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. (SMI)

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of SMI. On

October 1, 1999, the Department

published a notice of initiation of this

administrative review, covering the

period of August 1, 1998 through July

31, 1999 (64 FR 53318). On September

11, 2000, the Department published its

preliminary results of this

administrative review (65 FR 54838).

Extension of Time Limits for Final

Results

Because of the complexities

enumerated in the Memorandum from

Barbara E. Tillman to Joseph A.

Spetrini, Extension of Time Limit for the

Administrative Review of Oil Country

Tubular Goods from Japan, dated

January 3, 2001, it is not practical to

complete this review within the time

limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A)

of the Act.

Therefore, in accordance with section

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

is extending the time limit for the final

results of review from January 9, 2001

to February 8, 2001.

Dated: January 3, 2001.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–976 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–856, A–580–846, A–469–810]

Notice of Preliminary Determinations

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Stainless Steel Angle From Japan,

Korea, and Spain

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jarrod Goldfeder (Japan) at (202) 482–

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices 2881

1The petitioners are Slater Steels Corporation,

Speciality Alloys Division (‘‘Slater’’), and the

United Steel Workers of America, AFL–CIO/CLC

(collectively, ‘‘the petitioners’’).

2Section A of the questionnaire requested general

information concerning the company’s corporate

structure and business practices, the merchandise

under investigation that it sells, and the sales of that

merchandise in all markets. Sections B and C of the

questionnaire requested home market sales listings

and U.S. sales listings. Section D of the

questionnaire requested information regarding the

cost of production (‘‘COP’’) of the foreign like

product and the constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the

merchandise under investigation. Section E of the

questionnaire requested information regarding the

cost of further manufacture or assembly performed

in the United States.

0189, Brian Smith (Korea) at (202) 482–

1766, Davina Hashmi (Spain) at (202)

482–5760, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC, 20230.

Preliminary Determinations

We preliminarily determine that

stainless steel angle (‘‘SSA’’) from Japan,

Korea, and Spain are being, or are likely

to be, sold in the United States at lessthan-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) prices, as

provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

The 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 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 19

CFR Part 351 (2000).

Case History

Since the initiation of these

investigations (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Investigations: Stainless

Steel Angle from Japan, Republic of

Korea, and Spain (65 FR 55504,

(September 14, 2000)) (‘‘Initiation

Notice’’), the following events have

occurred:

On September 19, 2000, the

Department sent letters to the

petitioners1 and all parties named in the

petition requesting comments on the

product-matching criteria and matching

hierarchy in the three individual cases.

These parties included: Daido Steel Co.,

Ltd. (‘‘Daido’’), Aichi Steel Corporation

(‘‘Aichi’’), and Sumitomo Metal

Industries, Ltd., (‘‘Sumitomo’’), possible

exporters/producers of SSA from Japan;

Bae Myung Metal Co., Ltd. (‘‘Bae

Myung’’), a possible exporter/producer

of SSA from Korea; and Roldan, S.A.

(‘‘Roldan’’), a possible exporter/

producer of SSA from Spain. See

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section of this

notice for further discussion of how the

Department determined the respondents

in these investigations. On September

21, 2000, the petitioners submitted

comments on the physical

characteristics for product-matching

purposes in all three cases.

On September 25, 2000, Bae Myung

submitted a letter of appearance and a

request that certain SSA be excluded

from the scope of the investigation

concerning Korea. On October 4, 2000,

the petitioners filed comments on Bae

Myung’s scope-exclusion request. See

‘‘Scope Comments’’ section of this

notice for further discussion. On

September 28, 2000, the United States

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

SSA from Japan, Korea, and Spain are

materially injuring (or threatening with

material injury) the United States

industry. See Stainless Steel Angle from

Japan, Korea and Spain, 65 FR 60451

(October 11, 2000), and USITC

publication 3356 (October 2000) entitled

Stainless Steel Angle from Japan, Korea

and Spain: Investigation Nos. 731–TA–

888–890 (Preliminary).

As a result of our research to

determine the proper recipients of the

antidumping questionnaires in the three

cases, on October 12, 2000, we issued

antidumping duty questionnaires2 to

two Korean companies (Bae Myung and

SK Global Co., Ltd. (‘‘SK Global’’)) and

to the Spanish company (Roldan). On

October 13, 2000, we issued

questionnaires to three Japanese

companies (Aichi, Daido, and

Sumitomo). See ‘‘Respondent Selection’’

section of this notice for further

discussion. On October 17, 2000,

Roldan submitted a letter of appearance.

On November 20, 2000, Bae Myung’s

counsel indicated that Bae Myung

would not be submitting a response to

the antidumping duty questionnaire. At

that time, the Department informed Bae

Myung’s counsel that Bae Myung’s

failure to submit a response would

result in the application of facts

available. See November 20, 2000,

memorandum to the case file

concerning SSA from Korea. On

November 21, 2000, Roldan’s counsel

indicated that Roldan was not

submitting a response to the

antidumping duty questionnaire. At that

time, the Department informed Roldan’s

counsel that Roldan’s failure to submit

a response would result in the

application of facts available. See

November 21, 2000, memorandum to

the case file concerning SSA from

Spain. On November 27, 2000, the

Department sent letters to SK Global

(i.e., the other Korean respondent) and

the three Japanese respondents

informing them that the Department did

not receive their responses to the

antidumping duty questionnaire and

that, if they did not contact the

Department by December 4, 2000, the

Department would resort to facts

available in making its preliminary

determinations. None of these

respondents contacted the Department

by December 4, 2000.

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

the term ‘‘stainless steel angle’’ includes

hot-rolled, whether or not annealed or

descaled, stainless steel products of

equal leg length angled at 90 degrees,

that are not otherwise advanced. The

stainless steel angle subject to these

investigations is currently classifiable

under subheadings 7222.40.30.20 and

7222.40.30.60 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedules of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Specifically excluded from

the scope of these investigations is

stainless steel angle of unequal leg

length. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of these

investigations is dispositive.

Scope Comments

On September 25, 2000, Bae Myung,

a Korean respondent, requested that the

Department exclude from the scope of

the proceeding on SSA from Korea

certain SSA products that Slater (i.e.,

one of the petitioners) does not produce.

Specifically, Bae Myung stated that

Slater does not make SSA with leg

lengths under one inch or over three

inches and that SSA of different leg

lengths cannot be used in the same

application and thus are not

substitutable. We did not receive scope

comments from SK Global or from the

respondents in the cases of SSA from

Japan or Spain.

On October 4, 2000, we received

comments from the petitioners

requesting that we reject Bae Myung’s

request to exclude products that Slater

did not produce. The petitioners based

their request on established Department

practice, which is not to alter the

petitioner’s scope definition except to

clarify ambiguities in the language or

address administrability problems,

citing the Notice of Final Determination

2882 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices

of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value:

Melamine Institutional Dinnerware

Products from the People’s Republic of

China, 62 FR 1708 (Jan. 13, 1997) and

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet

and Strip in Coils from Italy, 64 FR

30624, 30635 (June 8, 1999). The

petitioners state that, in this case, they

have identified the products in the

petition clearly. Moreover and most

importantly, the petitioners state, the

statute does not require that the

domestic industry must currently

produce every kind of product included

within the scope of a petition. Rather,

the petitioners maintain, products are

often included in the scope of an

investigation because they are similar to

and competitive with the domestic like

product.

In analyzing Bae Myung’s scopeexclusion request, we examined the

ITC’s preliminary determination report

(i.e., ITC publication No. 3356, dated

October 2000) to determine whether the

ITC found that the specific products

identified by Bae Myung in its exclusion

request constitute a domestic like

product distinct from the rest of the

products covered by the scope of these

investigations. We found no indication

in the ITC’s preliminary determination

report that leg lengths under one inch or

over three inches should be considered

as separate domestic like products. In

addition, we examined whether this

scope-exclusion request had been an

issue in an earlier proceeding involving

SSA from Japan (see Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Angle from

Japan, 60 FR 16608 (March 31, 1995)).

In this past case, as well as in the

current cases, we found no indication

that any sizes of SSA with equal leg

lengths should constitute distinct

domestic like products or foreign like

products for comparison purposes.

Therefore, after reviewing the comments

submitted by Bae Myung and the

petitioners, the ITC report, and the

earlier investigation on SSA case from

Japan, we have determined that the

scope of the investigation of SSA from

Korea, as well as that of the

investigations of SSA from Japan and

Spain, should also include SSA with leg

lengths under one inch and over three

inches.

Period of Investigation

The period of these investigations

(‘‘POI’’) is August 1, 1999, through July

31, 2000.

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs

the Department to calculate individual

dumping margins for each known

exporter and producer of the subject

merchandise. However, section

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the

Department discretion, when faced with

a large number of exporters/producers,

to limit its examination to a reasonable

number of such companies if it is not

practicable to examine all companies.

Where it is not practicable to examine

all known exporters/producers of

subject merchandise, this provision

permits the Department to investigate

either (1) a sample of exporters,

producers, or types of products that is

statistically valid based on the

information available at the time of

selection, or (2) exporters and producers

accounting for the largest volume of the

subject merchandise that can be

reasonably examined.

In their petition, the petitioners

identified Aichi, Daido, and Sumitomo

as possible exporters/producers of SSA

from Japan, Bae Myung as a possible

exporter/producer of SSA from Korea,

and Roldan as a possible exporter/

producer of SSA from Spain. On

September 25, 2000, we sent a cable to

our U.S. embassy in each of the three

countries to inquire whether there were

any other companies besides those

listed in the petition that either

exported or produced SSA during the

POI in that particular country. The

embassies did not indicate that there

were any other exporters or producers of

the subject merchandise.

To identify further the universe of

potential respondents from the three

countries to which we should send an

antidumping duty questionnaire for

purposes of these LTFV investigations,

we performed the following steps in

each case. For the case concerning

Japan, we conducted a U.S. Customs

Service (‘‘Customs Service’’) query and

obtained information on the quantity

and value of SSA imported from Japan

into the United States on an annual

basis for 1997, 1998, 1999, and January

to June 2000. An analysis of the

Customs Service data confirmed two of

the three manufacturers of SSA in Japan

named in the petition. The query

covered SSA within the HTS numbers

7222.40.30.20 and 7222.40.30.60, which

may include non-subject SSA (e.g.,

unequal lengths). Additionally, we

conducted an internet search which

yielded no additional information.

Based on these steps, we determined

that Aichi, Daido, and Sumitomo were

the only appropriate Japanese recipients

of our questionnaire for purposes of

conducting this investigation. See

‘‘Memorandum to the File regarding

Questionnaire Recipients’’ dated

December 27, 2000, for further

discussion.

For the case concerning Korea, we

conducted a Customs Service query and

obtained information on the quantity

and value of SSA imported from Korea

into the United States on an annual

basis for 1997, 1998, 1999, and January

to June 2000. An analysis of the

Customs Service data indicated that

there was only one manufacturer/

exporter of SSA in Korea. The query

covered SSA within the HTS numbers

7222.40.30.20 and 7222.40.30.60, which

may include non-subject SSA (e.g.,

unequal lengths). Finally, we conducted

an internet search which revealed that

another Korean company, SK Global,

may have also exported or produced

SSA that entered the U.S. market during

the POI. Based on the above-mentioned

steps, we determined that Bae Myung

and SK Global were the only

appropriate Korean recipients of our

questionnaire for purposes of

conducting this investigation. See

‘‘Memorandum to the File regarding

Questionnaire Recipients’’ dated

December 11, 2000, for further

discussion.

For the case concerning Spain, we

conducted a Customs Service query and

obtained information on the quantity

and value of SSA imported from Spain

into the United States on an annual

basis for 1997, 1998, 1999, and January

to June 2000. An analysis of the

Customs Service data indicated that

there were possibly ten manufacturers/

exporters of SSA in Spain. Based on this

data, we found that Roldan accounted

for almost 100 percent of the total

quantity of subject merchandise entered

into the United States in 1999 and 2000.

The other manufacturers accounted for

an insignificant amount of the total

quantity entered into the United States.

The query covered SSA within the HTS

numbers 7222.40.30.20 and

7222.40.30.60, which may include nonsubject SSA (e.g., unequal lengths). We

also consulted the 1999 steel

manufacturer’s reference book, Iron and

Steel Works of the World, which

indicated that Roldan was the only SSA

manufacturer in Spain. Our internet

search indicated that Roldan was the

only manufacturer/exporter of SSA in

Spain and, thus, the only appropriate

Spanish recipient of our questionnaire

for purposes of conducting this

investigation. See ‘‘Respondent

Selection Memorandum to the File’’

dated January 3, 2001, for further

discussion.

After confirming the proper recipients

of the antidumping questionnaires in

the three cases, we determined that,

given our resources, we would be able

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices 2883

to investigate all companies identified

in the petition and the additional

Korean company (SK Global) identified

in our internet research.

Facts Available

As stated above, none of the

respondents from any of the three SSA

cases responded to the Department’s

antidumping duty questionnaire.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that, ‘‘if an interested party or any other

person—(A) withholds information that

has been requested by the administering

authority; (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for the

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782;

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title; or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i),

the administering authority...shall,

subject to section 782(d), use the facts

otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.’’ Pursuant to section 776(a) of the

Act, we have determined that the use of

facts available is appropriate in

determining the preliminary dumping

margins for Aichi, Daido, and Sumitomo

(i.e., the three respondents in the Japan

case), Bae Myung and SK Global (i.e.,

the two respondents in the Korea case),

and Roldan (i.e., the sole respondent in

the Spain case) because all of these

companies failed to respond to our

questionnaire.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that the Department may use adverse

inferences in selecting facts otherwise

available if a party has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information. See also Statement of

Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’)

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No.

103–316 at 870 (1994). Failure by Aichi,

Daido, Sumitomo, Bae Myung, SK

Global, and Roldan to respond to the

Departments’s antidumping duty

questionnaire constitutes a failure to act

to the best of their ability to comply

with a request for information, within

the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act.

Therefore, the Department has

determined that the use of an adverse

inference in selecting the facts available

to determine the preliminary margins

for these respondents is warranted.

Because we were unable to calculate

margins for these respondents from

Japan, Korea, and Spain, consistent with

our practice, we have assigned the

respondents in these cases the highest

margins alleged in the petition or as we

recalculated (see Notice of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan and

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and the

Republic of South Africa, 64 FR 69718,

69722 (December 14, 1999), and Notice

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Wire Rod from Germany, 63 FR 10847,

10848 (March 5, 1998)). Based on

amendments to the petition and the

Department’s recalculations, where

applicable, the highest margin for SSA

from Japan is 114.51 percent, the

highest margin in for SSA from Korea is

99.56 percent, and the highest margin

for SSA from Spain is 61.45 percent. See

Initiation Notice, 65 FR at 55505–55507.

Section 776(b) of the Act states that an

adverse inference may include reliance

on information derived from the

petition. See also SAA at 829–831.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that,

when the Department relies on

secondary information (such as the

petition) in using the facts otherwise

available, it must, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that information

from independent sources that are

reasonably at its disposal.

The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’

means that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value (see SAA at

870). The SAA also states that

independent sources used to corroborate

such evidence may include, for

example, published price lists, official

import statistics and U.S. Customs

Service data, and information obtained

from interested parties during the

particular investigation (see SAA at

870).

To corroborate the margin

calculations in the petition, we

examined the rates contained in the

petition. The U.S. prices in the petition

were based on quotes to U.S. customers,

most of which were obtained through

market research. Additionally, the

normal values were based on actual

price quotations obtained through

market research. See Notice of

Initiation, 65 FR at 55506, and

‘‘Country-Specific Import

Administration AD Investigation

Initiation Checklist’’ dated September 7,

2000, for a discussion of the margin

calculations in the petition applicable to

each LTFV proceeding.

In accordance with section 776(c) of

the Act, to the extent practicable, we

examined the key elements of the

calculations of export price and normal

value upon which the petitioners based

their margins for the petition. This

information includes evidence such as

U.S. Customs Service statistics or

market studies we consider to be

reliable because they are based on

actual, independent trade data and

analysis. We were able to corroborate

the U.S. prices in the petition by

comparing these prices to publicly

available information based on IM–145

import statistics. We consider export

prices which are based on U.S. import

statistics to be corroborated (see Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76,

84 (January 4, 1999) (Comment 13)

(‘‘CTL Plate from Mexico’’)). With regard

to the normal values in the petition, the

Department did not receive any useful

information from the respondents or

other interested parties and is aware of

no other independent sources of

information that would enable it to

corroborate the margin calculations in

the petition further. See ‘‘CountrySpecific Memoranda to the File

Regarding the Facts Available Rate and

Corroboration of Secondary

Information,’’ for each SSA case dated

January 3, 2001, for further discussion.

The implementing regulation for

section 776 of the Act, codified at 19

CFR 351.308(d), states, ‘‘(t)he fact that

corroboration may not be practicable in

a given circumstance will not prevent

the Secretary from applying an adverse

inference as appropriate and using the

secondary information in question.’’

Additionally, the SAA at 870 states

specifically that, where ‘‘corroboration

may not be practicable in a given

circumstance,’’ the Department may

nevertheless apply an adverse inference.

The SAA at 869 emphasizes that the

Department need not prove that the

facts available are the best alternative

information. Therefore, based on our

efforts, described above, to corroborate

information contained in the petition for

each LTFV proceeding and in

accordance with 776(c) of the Act,

which discusses facts available and

corroboration, we consider the margins

in the petition to be corroborated to the

extent practicable for purposes of these

preliminary determinations (see CTL

Plate from Mexico, 64 FR at 84).

All Others Rate

Section 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, in

accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of

the Act, provides that, where the

estimated weighted-average dumping

margins established for all exporters and

producers individually investigated are

zero or de minimis or are determined

entirely under section 776 of the Act,

the Department may use any reasonable

method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers

2884 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices

not individually investigated. See also

SAA at 873. Our recent practice under

these circumstances has been to assign,

as the ‘‘all others’’ rate, the simple

average of the margins in the petition.

We have done so in these cases. See

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Plate in Coil from Canada, 64 FR 15457

(March 31, 1999), and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil

from Italy, 64 FR 15458, 15459 (March

21, 1999).

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

entries of SSA from Japan, Korea, and

Spain that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

We will also instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the dumping

margins, as indicated in the chart below.

These instructions will remain in effect

until further notice. The dumping

margins for each LTFV proceeding are

as follows: **FOOTNOTES** [1]: The

petitioners are Slater Steels Corporation,

Speciality Alloys Division (‘‘Slater’’),

and the United Steel Workers of

America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively,

‘‘the petitioners’’). [2]: Section A of the

questionnaire requested general

information concerning the company’s

corporate structure and business

practices, the merchandise under

investigation that it sells, and the sales

of that merchandise in all markets.

Sections B and C of the questionnaire

requested home market sales listings

and U.S. sales listings. Section D of the

questionnaire requested information

regarding the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) of the foreign like product and

the constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the

merchandise under investigation.

Section E of the questionnaire requested

information regarding the cost of further

manufacture or assembly performed in

the United States.

Exporter/Manufacturer

(Japan)

Weighted-Average Margin

Percentage

Japan.

Daido ........................... 114.51

Aichi ............................. 114.51

Sumitomo .................... 114.51

All Others ..................... 70.48

Korea.

Bae Myung .................. 99.56

SK Global .................... 99.56

All Others ..................... 40.21

Spain.

Exporter/Manufacturer

(Japan)

Weighted-Average Margin

Percentage

Roldan ......................... 61.45

All Others ..................... 24.32

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

preliminary determinations. If our final

determinations are affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of these preliminary

determinations or 45 days after our final

determinations whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than 50 days

after the date of publication of this

notice and rebuttal briefs no later than

55 days after the date of publication of

this notice. A list of authorities used, a

table of contents, and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Executive summaries should be limited

to five pages total, including footnotes.

In accordance with section 774 of the

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if

requested by any interested party, to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs. If a request for a

hearing is made, the hearing will be

tentatively held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, time and room to be determined,

at the U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC, 20230. Parties

should confirm by telephone the time,

date, and place of the hearing 48 hours

before the scheduled time. If such a

hearing is requested, the Department

may schedule a single hearing to

encompass all three LTFV proceedings.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If these

investigations proceed normally, we

will make our final determinations by

no later than 75 days after the date of

these preliminary determinations.

These determinations are published

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1)

of the Act.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–1107 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–831]

Notice of Extension of the Time Limit

for Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From

Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Panfeld, AD/CVD Enforcement

Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–0172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act) are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

Background

On September 6, 2000, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on Stainless

Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from

Taiwan, covering the period June 8,

1999 through June 30, 2000 (65 FR

64662). The initiation was amended on

November 30, 2000 (65 FR 71299).

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act

requires the Department to make a

preliminary determination within 245

days after the last day of the anniversary

month of an order or finding for which

a review is requested. The preliminary

results of this review are currently due

no later than April 2, 2001. Because of

the complex issues enumerated in the

Memorandum from Edward C. Yang to

Joseph A. Spetrini, Extension of Time

Limit for the Preliminary Results of