3540 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

Office, located at 10600 NE 51st Circle,

Vancouver, Washington. The meeting

will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until

4:15 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is

to: (1) Review Forest Monitoring for FY

2000, (2) Discuss the Secure Rural

Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000, (3) Discuss

the mission of the committee, and (4)

Provide for a Public Open Forum. All

Southwest Washington Provincial

Advisory Committee meetings are open

to the public. Interested citizens are

encouraged to attend. The ‘‘open forum’’

provides opportunity for the public to

bring issues, concerns, and discussion

topics to the Advisory Committee. The

‘‘open forum’’ is scheduled as part of

agenda item (4) for this meeting.

Interested speakers will need to register

prior to the open forum period. The

committee welcomes the public’s

written comments on committee

business at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting

to Linda Turner, Public Affairs

Specialist, at (360) 891–5191, or write

Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford

Pinchot National Forest, 10600 NE. 51st

Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.

Dated: January 9, 2001.

Claire LaVendel,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 01–1228 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–815 & A–580–816]

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews: Certain

Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews and Intent Not to Revoke

Antidumping Duty Order in Part.

SUMMARY: On September 7, 2000, the

Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) published the

preliminary results of the administrative

reviews of the antidumping duty orders

and intent not to revoke antidumping

duty order in part on certain cold-rolled

and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products from Korea. These reviews

cover three manufacturers/exporters.

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is August

1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes in the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margins for

the reviewed firms are listed below in

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the

Reviews.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Panfeld (the POSCO Group),

Marlene Hewitt (Dongbu) and (Union),

or James Doyle, Enforcement Group III,

Office 9, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone 202–

482–0172 (Panfeld), 202–482–1385

(Hewitt), or 202–482–0159 (Doyle), fax

202–482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930

(‘‘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

(‘‘URAA’’). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Scope of the Reviews

The review of ‘‘certain cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products’’ covers coldrolled (cold-reduced) carbon steel flatrolled products, of rectangular shape,

neither clad, plated nor coated with

metal, whether or not painted,

varnished or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances, in coils

(whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(‘‘HTS’’) under item numbers

7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030,

7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0090,

7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060,

7209.17.0090, 7209.18.1530,

7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2550,

7209.18.6000, 7209.25.0000,

7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000,

7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000,

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000,

7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000,

7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500,

7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060,

7211.23.6085, 7211.29.2030,

7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500,

7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000,

7215.50.0015, 7215.50.0060,

7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000,

7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000,

7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000,

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030,

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in

this review are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’) —for example, products

which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded from this review is

certain shadow mask steel, i.e.,

aluminum-killed, cold-rolled steel coil

that is open-coil annealed, has a carbon

content of less than 0.002 percent, is of

0.003 to 0.012 inch in thickness, 15 to

30 inches in width, and has an ultra flat,

isotropic surface.

The review of ‘‘certain corrosionresistant carbon steel flat products’’

covers flat-rolled carbon steel products,

of rectangular shape, either clad, plated,

or coated with corrosion-resistant

metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-

, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based

alloys, whether or not corrugated or

painted, varnished or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances

in addition to the metallic coating, in

coils (whether or not in successively

superimposed layers) and of a width of

0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths

which, if of a thickness less than 4.75

millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch

or greater and which measures at least

10 times the thickness or if of a

thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more

are of a width which exceeds 150

millimeters and measures at least twice

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the HTS under item numbers

7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060,

7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030,

7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000,

7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030,

7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090,

7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000,

7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000,

7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090,

7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000,

7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,

7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000,

7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000,

7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500,

7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560,

7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3541

7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. Included in

this review are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)—for example, products

which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded from this review are

flat-rolled steel products either plated or

coated with tin, lead, chromium,

chromium oxides, both tin and lead

(‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and

chromium oxides (‘‘tin-free steel’’),

whether or not painted, varnished or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances in addition to

the metallic coating. Also excluded from

this review are clad products in straight

lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in

composite thickness and of a width

which exceeds 150 millimeters and

measures at least twice the thickness.

Also excluded from this review are

certain clad stainless flat-rolled

products, which are three-layered

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatrolled products less than 4.75

millimeters in composite thickness that

consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled

product clad on both sides with

stainless steel in a 20%–60%–20%

ratio.

These HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

descriptions remain dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to these

administrative reviews are addressed in

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memo’’) from Joseph A.

Secretary for Import Administration

to Troy H. Cribb, Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated January 5,

2001, which is hereby adopted by this

notice. A list of the issues which parties

have raised and to which we have

responded, all of which are in the

Decision Memo, is attached to this

notice as an Appendix. Parties can find

a complete discussion of all issues

raised in these reviews and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public memorandum which is on file at

the U.S. Department of Commerce, in

the Central Records Unit, in room B–

099. In addition, a complete version of

the Decision Memo, accessible in B–099

and on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.

The paper copy and electronic version

of the Decision Memorandum are

identical in content.

Use of Facts Available

In accordance with section 776 of the

Act, we have determined that the use of

facts available is appropriate for certain

portions of our analysis of the POSCO

Group. For a discussion of our

determination with respect to this

matter, see comments 1 and 2 of the

POSCO Group’s company-specific

section of the Decision Memo,

accessible in B–099 and on the Web at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov.

Sales Below Cost in the Home Market

The Department disregarded home

market below-cost sales that failed the

cost test for Dongbu, the POSCO Group,

and Union in these final results of

review.

Request for Revocation

The POSCO Group

On August 31, 1999, POSCO

submitted a request, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.222(e), that the Department

revoke the order covering cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products from Korea

with respect to its sales of this

merchandise. In accordance with 19

CFR 351.222(e), this request was

accompanied by certifications from

POSCO that it had sold the subject

merchandise in commercial quantities,

at not less than NV for a three-year

period, including this review period,

and would not sell at less than NV in

the future. POSCO also agreed to

immediate reinstatement in the relevant

antidumping order, as long as any firm

is subject to the order, if the Department

concludes under 19 CFR 351.216 that,

subsequent to revocation, POSCO sold

the subject merchandise at less than NV.

The Department conducted

verifications of POSCO’s responses for

this period of review. In the two prior

reviews of this order we determined that

POSCO sold cold-rolled carbon steel flat

products from Korea at not less than NV

or at de minimis margins. We have

determined that POSCO sold cold-rolled

carbon steel flat products at not less

than NV during the instant review

period.

However, in determining whether a

requesting party is entitled to a

revocation inquiry, the Department

must be able to determine that the

company has continued to participate

meaningfully in the U.S. market during

each of the three years at issue. See Pure

Magnesium from Canada, 63 FR 26147

(May 12, 1998). This practice has been

codified by § 351.222(e) where a party

requesting a revocation review is

required to certify that it has sold the

subject merchandise in commercial

quantities. See also § 351.222(d)(1) of

the Department’s regulations, which

state that, ‘‘before revoking an order or

terminating a suspended investigation,

the Secretary must be satisfied that,

during each of the three (or five) years,

there were exports to the United States

in commercial quantities of the subject

merchandise to which a revocation or

termination will apply.’’ (emphasis

added); See also, the preamble of the

Department’s latest revision of the

revocation regulation stating: ‘‘The

threshold requirement for revocation

continues to be that respondent not sell

at less than normal value for at least

three consecutive years and that, during

those years, respondent exported subject

merchandise to the United States in

commercial quantities’’ (emphasis

added). Amended Regulation

Concerning the Revocation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders, 64 FR 51236, 51237 (September

22, 1999).

For purposes of revocation, the

Department must be able to determine

that past margins reflect a company’s

normal commercial activity. Sales

during the POR which, in the aggregate,

are an abnormally small quantity do not

provide a reasonable basis for

determining that the discipline of the

order is no longer necessary to offset

dumping. As the Department has

previously stated, the commercial

quantities requirement is a threshold

matter. See e.g., Pure Magnesium from

Canada, 64 FR 50489, 50490 (September

17, 1999). Thus, a party must have

meaningfully participated in the

marketplace in order to substantiate the

need for further inquiry regarding

whether continued imposition of the

order is warranted.

Based on the current record, we find

that POSCO did not sell merchandise in

the United States in commercial

quantities during the fourth

administrative review (one of the three

consecutive reviews cited by POSCO to

support its request for revocation).

During the POR covered by that review

(August 1996 though July 1997), POSCO

appeared to have made only one sale in

the United States. Moreover, the total

tonnage of this sale was small. See

Preliminary Analysis Memo at

Appendix II (August 30, 2000) (‘‘Prelim.

Analysis Memo’’). By contrast, during

the period covered by the antidumping

investigation, which was only six

months long (January 1992 through June

1992), POSCO made several thousand

sales whose total quantity is 400 times

greater than the quantity for the fourth

administrative review period. In other

words, POSCO’s sales for the entire year

covered by the fourth review period

were only 0.27% of its sales volume

during the six-months covered by the

investigation. Similarly, during the

current POR, POSCO sold

3542 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

approximately 400 times more subject

merchandise in the United States than

during the fourth administrative review.

Consequently, although POSCO

received a de minimis margin during the

fourth administrative review, this

margin was not based on commercial

quantities within the meaning of the

revocation regulation. The number of

sales and total sales volume is so small,

both in absolute terms, and in

comparison with the period of

investigation and other review periods

(see Prelim. Analysis Memo), that it does

not provide any meaningful information

of POSCO’s normal commercial

experience. Therefore, we find that

POSCO did not meaningfully participate

in the marketplace for purposes of

qualifying for a revocation analysis and

thus, because it has not sold the subject

merchandise for three years in

commercial quantities within the

meaning of 351.222(e) does not qualify

for a revocation analysis. For a full

discussion, see Decision Memo at

Comment 9.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made certain changes

in the margin calculations. We have also

corrected certain programming and

clerical errors in our preliminary

results, where applicable. Any alleged

programming or clerical errors with

which we do not agree are discussed in

the relevant sections of the Decision

Memo, accessible in B–099 and on the

Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.

Final Results of the Reviews

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period August 1, 1998

through July 31, 1999:

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products:

Dongbu .................................. 1.35

The POSCO Group ............... 0.12

Union ..................................... 1.53

Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products:

Dongbu .................................. 0.13

The POSCO Group ............... 2.24

Union ..................................... 0.21

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’)

shall assess, antidumping duties on all

appropriate entries. In accordance with

19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated

exporter/importer-specific assessment

rates. With respect to both export price

and constructed export price sales, we

divided the total dumping margins for

the reviewed sales by the total entered

value of those reviewed sales for each

importer. We will direct Customs to

assess the resulting percentage margins

against the entered Customs values for

the subject merchandise on each of that

importer’s entries under the relevant

order during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of

administrative reviews for all shipments

of cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant

carbon steel flat products from Korea

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rates for the reviewed companies will be

the rates shown above except that, for

firms whose weighted-average margins

are less than 0.5 percent and therefore

de minimis, the Department shall

require no deposit of estimated

antidumping duties; (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

original less than fair value (‘‘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 14.44

percent (for certain cold-rolled carbon

steel flat products) or 17.70 percent (for

certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel

flat products). These rates are the ‘‘all

others’’ rates from the LTFV

investigations. See Antidumping Duty

Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Korea, 58 FR 44159

(August 19, 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 doubled

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility

concerning the return or destruction of

proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR

351.305. 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 an APO is a violation which is subject

to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

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

Act.

Dated: January 5, 2001.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

Issues in Decision Memo

Comments and Responses

General Comments

1. The Net Financial Expenses of POSCO,

Dongbu and Union’s U.S. Selling Affiliates

Should Be Included As Part of POSCO,

Dongbu and Union’s U.S. Indirect Selling

Expenses.

2. Home Market ‘‘credit adjustment’’.

Company-Specific Comments

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dongbu’’)

3. Calculation and Allocation of U.S.

Indirect Selling Expenses.

4. Total Entered Value and the Assessment

Rate.

5. Weighting Factors for Quality in the

Model Match.

Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘POSCO’’),

Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (‘‘POCOS’’),

and Pohang Steel Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘PSI’’)

(collectively, ‘‘POSCO Group’’)

6. Home Market Imputed Credit Expenses.

7. Treatment of PSI Rebates.

8. Ministerial Errors.

9. Eligibility for Revocation.

10. Treatment of Sales with Warranty

Expenses.

11. Cost Variances.

Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Union’’)

12. Value Added Tax (‘‘VAT’’).

13. Obsolete Sales in the Home Market.

14. Home Market Weights v. U.S. Weights.

[FR Doc. 01–1223 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P