Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices 22525

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

G-Link Technology ................... 10.68

GSI Technology, Inc ................. 4.22

Integrated Silicon Solution Inc .. 16.25

Winbond Electronics Corp ........ 0.58

The Department will disclose to

parties the calculations performed in

connection with these preliminary

results within five days of the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing within 30

days of the publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held two days after

the date rebuttal briefs are filed.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

not later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs,

within 120 days of the publication of

these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We have

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of each importer’s

sales during the POR. These rates will

be assessed uniformly on all entries of

particular importers made during the

POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),

we will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries for any importer for

whom the assessment rate is de minimis

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of SRAMs from Taiwan

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided

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

The cash deposit rates for G-Link, GSI

Technology, ISSI, and Winbond will be

the rates established in the final results

of this review, except if the rate is less

than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.106, the cash deposit will be zero;

(2) for previously reviewed or

investigated 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 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 41.75

percent, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

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

Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T.

Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11310 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A–489–807)

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing

Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner and two producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain steel

concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey.

This review covers four manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States. This is the third

period of review, covering April 1, 1999,

through March 31, 2000.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value by the companies subject

to this review. If these preliminary

results are adopted in the final results

of this review, we will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who wish to submit comments

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument: (1) a

statement of the issue; and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina

Itkin, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone:(202)

482–0656.

Applicable Statue 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’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (2000).

Background

On April 12, 2000, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on certain steel

concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from

Turkey (65 FR 19736).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(2), in April 2000, the

Department received requests from Diler

Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S.,

Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret

A.S. and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.

(collectively ‘‘Diler’’) and ICDAS Celik

Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S.

(ICDAS) to conduct an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on rebar from Turkey. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on May 1,

2000, the Department also received a

request for an administrative review

22526 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

1Ekinciler’s request was also regarding its cost

data.

from the petitioner, AmeriSteel, for the

following three producers/exporters of

rebar: Colakaglu Metalurji A.S.

(Colakoglu), Ekinciler Holding, A.S. and

Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S. (collectively

‘‘Ekinciler’’), and ICDAS.

In May 2000, Diler requested that the

Department modify its reporting

requirement with respect to home

market sales, in light of the fact that

Diler only made U.S. sales in certain

months of the period of review (POR).

In June 2000, we granted this request

and shortened Diler’s reporting period

to May 1 through October 31, 1999. For

further discussion, see the

memorandum to Louis Apple from

Gerald Surowiec, entitled ‘‘1999–2000

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Concrete Steel Reinforcing

Bar from Turkey—Request by Diler for

a Shortened Reporting Period,’’ dated

June 14, 2000 (Diler Reporting Period

Memo).

In June and July 2000, the Department

initiated an administrative review for

Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, and ICDAS

(65 FR 35320 (June 2, 2000) and 65 FR

41942 (July 7, 2000)) and issued

questionnaires to them.

Also in June and July 2000, Ekinciler

and ICDAS requested that the

Department similarly modify their

reporting requirements with respect to

their home market sales data.1 In July

2000, we also granted these requests and

shortened Ekinciler’s and ICDAS’s

reporting periods to October 1, 1999,

through March 31, 2000, and April 1

through September 30, 1999,

respectively. For further discussion, see

the memorandum to Louis Apple from

Gerald Surowiec, entitled ‘‘1999–2000

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of Concrete Steel Reinforcing

Bar from Turkey—Request by Ekinciler

for a Shortened Reporting Period,’’

dated July 7, 2000 (Ekinciler Reporting

Period Memo), as well as the

memorandum to Louis Apple from

Gerald Surowiec, entitled ‘‘Request by

ICDAS for a Shortened Reporting Period

in the 1999–2000 Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review on Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from

Turkey,’’ dated July 21, 2000 (ICDAS

Reporting Period Memo).

In July and August 2000, we received

responses to sections A through C of the

questionnaire (i.e., the sections

regarding sales to the home market and

the United States) from each of the

respondents. Also in August 2000, we

received responses to Section D of the

questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding

cost of production (COP) and

constructed value (CV)) from Colakoglu

and Ekinciler.

In August 2000, the petitioner alleged

that both Diler and ICDAS were selling

at prices below their COPs in the home

market. Based on an analysis of these

allegations, in August and September

2000, respectively, the Department

initiated investigations to determine

whether ICDAS and Diler made home

market sales at prices below their COPs

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act. Consequently, we requested

that these companies submit responses

to section D of the questionnaire. We

received responses to these

questionnaires in September and

October 2000.

In September and October 2000, we

issued supplemental questionnaires to

the respondents. We received responses

to these questionnaires in September,

October, and December 2000.

On October 3, 2000, the Department

postponed the preliminary results of

this review until no later than April 30,

2001. See Steel Concrete Reinforcing

Bars From Turkey; Notice of Extension

of Time Limits for Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 60169

(Oct. 10, 2000).

We verified the sales and cost

information submitted by all four

respondents in November 2000, as well

as in January and February 2001, in

accordance with section 782(i) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.307(b)(1)(iv). In

March 2001, we requested and received

revised databases from Diler, Ekinciler,

and ICDAS, incorporating our findings

at verification.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

all stock deformed steel concrete

reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths

and coils. This includes all hot-rolled

deformed rebar rolled from billet steel,

rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel.

It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii)

rebar that a processor has further

worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated

rebar. Deformed rebar is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

under item numbers 7213.10.000 and

7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings

are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written

description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

The POR is April 1, 1999, through

March 31, 2000.

Level of Trade and Constructed Export

Price (CEP) Offset

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine normal value

(NV) based on sales in the comparison

market at the same level of trade as

export price (EP) or CEP. The NV level

of trade is that of the starting-price sales

in the comparison market or, when NV

is based on CV, that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

profit. For EP, the U.S. level of trade is

also the level of the starting-price sale,

which is usually from the exporter to

the unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP,

it is the level of the constructed sale

from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP or CEP

sales, we examine stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the unaffiliated

customer. If the comparison-market

sales are at a different level of trade and

the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the

level of trade of the export transaction,

we make a level-of-trade adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the

CEP level and there is no basis for

determining whether the difference in

the levels between NV and CEP affects

price comparability, we adjust NV

under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

(the CEP offset provision). See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997).

Colakoglu claimed that it made home

market sales at more than one level of

trade, while the remaining respondents

claimed that they made home market

sales at only one level of trade. We

analyzed the information on the record

for each company and found that each

respondent, including Colakoglu,

performed essentially the same

marketing functions in selling to all of

its home market customers, regardless of

customer category (e.g., end user,

distributor, etc.). Therefore, we

determined that these sales are at the

same level of trade and that no level of

trade adjustment is possible for any of

the respondents because the record does

not contain the type of information to

make such an adjustment, given that

there is only one level of trade in the

home market. For a detailed explanation

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices 22527

of this analysis, see the memorandum

from the Team to Louis Apple, entitled

‘‘Concurrence Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of the 1999–2000

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review on Certain Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,’’ dated

April 30, 2001.

Comparisons to Normal Value

To determine whether sales of rebar

from Turkey were made in the United

States at less than normal value, we

compared the EP to the NV. Because

Turkey’s economy experienced

significant inflation during the POR, as

is Department practice, we limited our

comparisons to home market sales made

during the same month in which the

U.S. sale occurred and did not apply our

‘‘90/60’’ contemporaneity rule (see, e.g.,

Certain Porcelain on Steel Cookware

from Mexico: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 42496, 42503 (Aug. 7,

1997)). This methodology minimizes the

extent to which calculated dumping

margins are overstated or understated

due solely to price inflation that

occurred in the intervening time period

between the U.S. and home market

sales.

We first attempted to compare

products sold in the United States to

products sold in the home market in the

ordinary course of trade that were

identical with respect to the following

characteristics: grade, size, ASTM

specification, and form. Where there

were no home market sales of

merchandise that were identical in these

respects to the merchandise sold in the

United States, we compared U.S.

products with the most similar

merchandise sold in the home market

based on the characteristics listed

above, in that order of priority.

Regarding Colakoglu, we were unable

to make product comparisons for certain

models which were produced and sold

during 1999 because this respondent

failed to report cost information for

them, including both difference-inmerchandise and CV data.

Consequently, for purposes of the

preliminary results, we based the

margin for the sales of these products on

facts available pursuant to section

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. As facts

available, we used the highest nonaberrant margin calculated for any U.S.

transaction for Colakoglu, in accordance

with our practice. See, e.g., Static

Random Access Memory

Semiconductors From Taiwan;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 65 FR 26577,

26579 (May 8, 2000) (unchanged by the

final results); and Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils

from Germany, 64 FR 30710, 30732

(June 8, 1999). In selecting a factsavailable margin, we sought a margin

that is sufficiently adverse so as to

effectuate the statutory purposes of the

adverse facts-available rule, which is to

induce respondents to provide the

Department with complete and accurate

information in a timely manner. We also

sought a margin that is indicative of the

respondent’s customary selling practices

and is rationally related to the

transactions to which the adverse facts

available are being applied. To that end,

we selected the highest margin on an

individual sale which fell within the

mainstream of Colakoglu’s transactions

(i.e., transactions that reflect sales of

products that are representative of the

broader range of models used to

determine NV).

Export Price

For all U.S. sales we used EP, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and CEP methodology was

not otherwise warranted based on the

facts of record.

A. Colakoglu

We based EP on packed prices to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions for ocean

freight expenses, marine insurance

expenses, inspection fees, bill of lading

issuance fees, loading charges, and

demurrage expenses (offset by freight

commission revenue, wharfage revenue,

despatch revenue, demurrage

commission revenue, and agency fee

revenue), where appropriate, in

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of

the Act.

B. Diler

We based EP on packed prices to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions for foreign

inland freight expenses, brokerage and

handling expenses, port and loading

fees, and ocean freight expenses, where

appropriate, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

C. Ekinciler

We based EP on packed prices to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions for foreign

inland freight expenses, surveying fees,

forklift expenses, dunnage expenses,

loading fees, brokerage and handling

expenses, ocean freight expenses, and

customs clearance fees, where

appropriate, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

D. ICDAS

We based EP on packed prices to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made deductions for foreign

inland freight expenses, surveying fees,

brokerage and handling expenses, and

ocean freight expenses, where

appropriate, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is five percent or

more of the aggregate volume of U.S.

sales), we compared the volume of each

respondent’s home market sales of the

foreign like product to the volume of

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act. Based on this comparison, we

determined that each respondent had a

viable home market during the POR.

Consequently, we based NV on home

market sales.

All four respondents made sales of

rebar to affiliated parties in the home

market during the POR. Consequently,

we tested these sales to ensure that they

were made at ‘‘arm’s-length’’ prices, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To

conduct this test, we compared the unit

prices of sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers net of all

movement charges, direct selling

expenses, and packing. Where prices to

the affiliated party were on average 99.5

percent or more of the price to the

unaffiliated parties, we determined that

these sales were made at arm’s length

(see Preamble, Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule 62 FR

27295, 27355 (May 19, 1997)). In

accordance with the Department’s

practice, we only included in our

margin analysis those sales to the

affiliated party that were made at arm’s

length.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act, for Colakoglu and Ekinciler,

there were reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that these

respondents had made home market

sales at prices below their COPs in this

review because the Department had

disregarded sales below the COP for

these companies in the most recently

completed segment of this proceeding in

which these companies participated

(i.e., the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation and the first review,

respectively). See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

22528 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

2We note that each of these companies waived its

right to a cost recovery test as a condition of

obtaining a modified home market sales and cost

reporting period. For further discussion, see the

Diler Reporting Period Memo, Ekinciler Reporting

Period Memo, and the ICDAS Reporting Period

Memo.

Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR

9737, 9740 (Mar. 4, 1997). See also

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars

From Turkey; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and New Shipper Review, 64 FR

49150, 49152 (Sept. 10, 1999). Pursuant

to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, for

Diler and ICDAS, there were reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that these

respondents had made home market

sales at prices below their COPs in this

review because of information

contained in the cost allegations

properly filed in this review by the

petitioner (see the memorandum from

The Team to Louis Apple, entitled,

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing

Bars from Turkey: Analysis of the

Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales Below

the Cost of Production for Diler Demir

Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici

Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and

Diler Dis Ticaret A.S.,’’ dated September

1, 2000, as well as the memorandum

from the Team to Louis Apple, entitled

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review on Steel Concrete Reinforcing

bars from Turkey: Analysis of the

Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales Below

the Cost of Production for ICDAS Celik

Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S.,’’

dated August 29, 2000). As a result, the

Department initiated investigations to

determine whether each respondent

made home market sales during the POR

at prices below their respective COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for SG&A

and packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied

on the latest databases submitted by

each respondent, adjusted for our

findings at verification. Regarding

ICDAS, we adjusted the reported

secondary materials costs, which were

based on historical costs, to reflect the

weighted-average current purchase price

at the time of consumption. We also

disallowed ICDAS’s material offset for

sales of short-length rebar.

As noted above, we determined that

the Turkish economy experienced

significant inflation during the POR.

Therefore, in order to avoid the

distortive effect of inflation on our

comparison of costs and prices, we

requested that each respondent submit

the product-specific cost of

manufacturing (COM) incurred during

each month of the reporting period. We

calculated a period-average COM for

each product after indexing the reported

monthly costs during the reporting

period to an equivalent currency level

using the Turkish Wholesale Price Index

from the International Financial

Statistics published by the International

Monetary Fund. We then restated the

period-average COMs in the currency

values of each respective month. For

further discussion of the reporting

periods for Diler, Ekinciler, and ICDAS,

see the ‘‘Background’’ section of this

notice, above.

We compared the weighted-average

COP figures to home market prices of

the foreign like product, as required

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order

to determine whether these sales had

been made at prices below the COP. On

a product-specific basis, we compared

the COP to home market prices, less any

applicable movement charges and

selling expenses.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined whether such

sales were made: (1) In substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time; and (2) for Colakoglu only, at

prices which permitted the recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time in the normal course of trade. See

sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the

Act. Regarding Diler, Ekinciler, and

ICDAS, we did not conduct a recovery

of cost test because these companies did

not report all costs over the POR.2

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

a respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product were at prices below

the COP, we found that sales of that

model were made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time (as defined in section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In

such cases, for Colakoglu, we also

determined that such sales were not

made at prices which would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Therefore, for purposes of this

administrative review, we disregarded

these below-cost sales and used the

remaining sales as the basis for

determining NV, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where all

sales of a specific product were at prices

below the COP, we disregarded all sales

of that product.

A. Colakoglu

For those comparison products for

which there were sales at prices above

the COP, we based NV on ex-factory or

delivered prices to home market

customers. For those home market sales

which were negotiated in U.S. dollars,

we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather

than the Turkish lira (TL) price adjusted

for kur farki (i.e., an adjustment to the

TL invoice price to account for the

difference between the estimated and

actual TL value on the date of payment),

because the only price agreed upon was

a U.S.-dollar price, and this price

remained unchanged; the buyer merely

paid the TL-equivalent amount at the

time of payment. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

for foreign inland freight expenses, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of

the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for

credit expenses, bank charges, and

Exporters’ Association fees.

We deducted home market packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment

on the difference in the variable costs of

manufacturing for the foreign like

product and subject merchandise, using

POR-average costs as adjusted for

inflation for each month of the POR, as

described above.

B. Diler

For those comparison products for

which there were sales at prices above

the COP, we based NV on ex-factory or

delivered prices to home market

customers. For those home market sales

which were negotiated in U.S. dollars,

we used the U.S.-dollar price, rather

than the TL price adjusted for kur farki,

for the reasons noted above. Where

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price for foreign inland

freight, in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for

credit expenses, as well as Exporters’

Association fees.

We deducted home market packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs, in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices 22529

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment

on the difference in the variable costs of

manufacturing for the foreign like

product and subject merchandise, using

period-average costs as adjusted for

inflation for each month of the reporting

period, as described above.

C. Ekinciler

For those comparison products for

which there were sales at prices above

the COP, we based NV on ex-factory, exwarehouse or delivered prices to home

market customers, adjusted for billing

errors. We excluded from our analysis

home market re-sales by Ekinciler of

merchandise produced by unaffiliated

companies. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

for foreign inland freight and off-site

warehousing expenses, in accordance

with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for

credit expenses, bank charges, and

Exporters’ Association fees. We made no

adjustment for home market

commissions because Ekinciler did not

report any U.S. indirect selling expenses

for use as an offset. For further

discussion, see the memorandum from

Elizabeth Eastwood to the File, entitled

‘‘Calculations Performed for the

Ekinciler Group (Ekinciler) for the

Preliminary Results in the 1999–2000

Antidumping Administrative Review on

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars

from Turkey,’’ dated April 30, 2001.

We deducted home market packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act.

Where appropriate, we made

adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment

on the difference in the variable costs of

manufacturing for the foreign like

product and subject merchandise, using

period-average costs as adjusted for

inflation for each month of the reporting

period, as described above.

D. ICDAS

We based NV on delivered prices to

home market customers because we

found that all home market sales were

in the ordinary course of trade. We

made deductions from the starting price

for foreign inland freight expenses in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of

the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of

the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments for

credit expenses (offset by interest

revenue, where appropriate), bank

charges, and Exporters’ Association fees.

We deducted home market packing

costs and added U.S. packing costs, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act.

Currency Conversion

The Department’s preferred source for

daily exchange rates is the Federal

Reserve Bank. However, the Federal

Reserve Bank does not track or publish

exchange rates for Turkish Lira.

Therefore, we made currency

conversions based on the daily

exchange rates from the Dow Jones

News/Retrieval Service. See, e.g.,

Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars

From Turkey; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and New Shipper Review, 64 FR

49150, 49158 (Sept. 10, 1999).

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the

respondents during the period April 1,

1999, through March 31, 2000:

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin

percentage

Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. ........... 10.47

Ekinciler Holding A.S./Ekinciler

Demir Celik A.S. ................... 15.05

Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve

Ticaret A.S./Yazici Demir

Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./

Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. ............ 0.00

ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve

Ulasim Sanayi A.S. ............... 0.00

The Department will disclose to

parties the calculations performed in

connection with these preliminary

results within five days of the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing within 30

days of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held two days after

the date rebuttal briefs are filed.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested

parties may submit cases briefs not later

than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will issue

the final results of the administrative

review, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments, within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of the

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Diler, we have

calculated importer-specific assessment

rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of those sales.

Regarding Colakoglu, Ekinciler, and

ICDAS, for assessment purposes, we do

not have the information to calculate

entered value because these companies

are not the importers of record for the

subject merchandise. Accordingly, we

have calculated importer-specific duty

assessment rates for the merchandise in

question by aggregating the dumping

margins calculated for all U.S. sales to

each importer and dividing this amount

by the total quantity of those sales. The

assessment rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular importer made during the

POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),

we will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties any of Diler’s entries for which

the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e.,

less than 0.50 percent). The Department

will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of rebar from Turkey entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided for

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be the rates established

in the final results of this review; (2) for

previously investigated 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, or the 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 16.06 percent, the all

others rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR

22530 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

351.402(f)(2) 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.

We are issuing and publishing these

results of review in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the

Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard

T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11309 Filed 5–3–01; 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 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC.

Docket Number: 01–006. Applicant:

University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Madison, WI 53706. Instrument:

Photoelectron Emission Microscope,

Model PEEM III. Manufacturer:

ELMITEC Elektronenmikroskopie,

Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 66

FR 18445, March 26, 2001.

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 aberration correction for high

transmission and sub 10 nm resolution.

The National Institutes of Health

advises in its memorandum of March

12, 2001 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.

Gerald A. Zerdy,

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs

Staff.

[FR Doc. 01–11311 Filed 5–3–01; 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 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC.

Docket Number: 01–007. Applicant:

University of Wisconsin—Madison,

Madison, WI 53706. Instrument: Sample

Preparation Chamber with accessories.

Manufacturer: ELMITEC

Elektronenmikroskopie, Germany.

Intended Use: See notice at 66 FR

16445, March 26, 2001.

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: This is a compatible accessory

for an existing instrument purchased for

the use of the applicant. The instrument

and accessory were made by the same

manufacturer. The National Institutes of

Health advises in its memorandum of

March 12, 2001, that the accessory is

pertinent to the intended uses and that

it knows of no comparable domestic

accessory.

We know of no domestic accessory

which can be readily adapted to the

existing instrument.

Gerald A. Zerdy,

Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs

Staff.

[FR Doc. 01–11312 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Advanced Technology Program;

Announcement of a Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

invites interested parties to attend the

Advanced Technology Program (ATP)

National Meeting, ‘‘Technologies at the

Crossroads: Frontiers of the Future’’.

ATP provides a mechanism for industry

to extend its technological reach and

improve the quality of life and acts as

a facilitator to encourage companies,

universities, and research organizations

to work jointly and creatively to develop

new, synergistic technologies that will

benefit the nation.

DATES: The National Meeting will be

held on June 3, 2001, from 5:00 p.m. to

7:00 p.m. The Meeting will continue on

June 4, 2001, from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

and on June 5, 2001, from 7:30 a.m. to

4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor

Hotel, 101 West Fayette Street,

Baltimore, Maryland 21201. The hotel

can be reached at (410) 752–1100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Engelmeier at (301) 975–6026 or

e-mail: Linda.Engelmeier@nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ATP

statute originated in the Omnibus Trade

and Competitiveness Act of 1988

(Public Law 100–418) and was amended

by the American Technology

Preeminence Act of 1991 (Public Law

102–245). This law is codified at 15

U.S.C. 278n. The ATP implementing

regulations are published at CFR part

295, as amended. The ATP is a

competitive cost-sharing program

designed for the Federal government to

work in partnership with industry,

universities, and states to accelerate the

development and broad dissemination

of challenging, high-risk technologies

that offer the potential for significant

commercial payoffs and widespread

benefits for the nation.

The National Meeting will feature

keynote and futurist speakers who will

provide insights into the ‘‘Frontiers of

the Future’’. Meeting sessions are

designed to stimulate and encourage

attendees to pursue research leading to

path-breaking, innovative technologies

that will make a difference in people’s

lives and focus on the technology

crossroads that will lead us from today