Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices 28423

1 In a letter dated January 5, 2001, HDP informed

the Department that its corporate name would

change to Hyundai Steel Company effective

February 1, 2001. On February 27, 2001, the

Department initiated a changed circumstances

review to determine whether entries naming

‘‘Hyundai Hysco’’ as manufacturer or exporter

should receive the cash deposit rate currently

applied to HDP. Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Initiation of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 66 FR 12460 (February 27,

2001). Pending a final determination in that

changed circumstances review, we will continue to

refer to the respondent in the instant review as

HDP.

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

(‘‘Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (2000).

Background

On April 11, 2001, the Department

published the Final Results. On April

16, 2001, the respondents Hyundai Pipe

Co., Ltd.1 (‘‘HDP’’), Shinho Steel Co.,

Ltd. (‘‘Shinho’’), and SeAH Steel

Corporation (‘‘SeAH’’) submitted

allegations that the Final Results

contained ministerial errors. On April

23, 2001, the domestic interested parties

submitted comments regarding Shinho’s

and SeAH’s allegations. The period of

review (‘‘POR’’) is November 1, 1998,

through October 31, 1999.

The Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe and tube, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4mm (16

inches) in outside diameter, regardless

of wall thickness, surface finish (black,

galvanized, or painted), or end finish

(plain end, beveled end, threaded, or

threaded and coupled). These pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard

pipes and tubes, and are intended for

the low-pressure conveyance of water,

steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids

and gases in plumbing and heating

systems, air-conditioning units,

automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipe may also be

used for light load-bearing applications,

such as for fence tubing, and as

structural pipe tubing used for framing

and as support members for

reconstruction or load-bearing purposes

in the construction, shipbuilding,

trucking, farm equipment, and other

related industries. Unfinished conduit

pipe is also included in this order.

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes

within the physical description above

are included within the scope of this

review except line pipe, oil-country

tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical

tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and

finished conduit. In accordance with the

Department’s Final Negative

Determination of Scope Inquiry on

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the

Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

Venezuela (61 11608, March 21, 1996),

pipe certified to the API 5L line-pipe

specification and pipe certified to both

the API 5L line-pipe specifications and

the less-stringent ASTM A–53 standardpipe specifications, which falls within

the physical parameters as outlined

above, and entered as line pipe of a kind

used for oil and gas pipelines is outside

of the scope of the antidumping duty

order.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS)

subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs,

the written description of the scope of

this proceeding is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

HDP argued that, due to an anomaly

in the SAS software used for the margin

calculations, certain U.S. sales were

matched to home market sales in a less

contemporaneous month, despite the

existence of more contemporaneous

home market sales of similar

merchandise. SeAH and Shinho argued

that although the Department intended

to remove specification as a matching

criterion for similar matches only it, in

fact, inadvertently removed

specification from the calculation

program completely—even for purposes

of identical matches.

The domestic interested parties made

no comments regarding HDP’s

ministerial error allegation. Regarding

SeAH’s and Shinho’s ministerial error

allegation, the domestic interested

parties argued that the allegations are

not ministerial in nature. Rather, the

domestic interested parties content,

SeAH and Shinho are merely rearguing

a major point from their briefs, namely,

that the margin calculation program

ought to reflect the matching

methodology or prior reviews of this

order.

We have addressed these comments

regarding ministerial error allegations in

detail in the Memorandum to Susan

Kuhback, ‘‘Ministerial Error Allegations

for Final Results of Review’’ (May 7,

2001). As explained in that

memorandum, we agree with DHP’s

ministerial error allegation. This error,

however, affects the margin program for

all three respondents and, therefore, we

have corrected the error for HDP, as well

as for SeAH and Shinho. Regarding

SeAh’s and Shinho’s ministerial error

allegations, we find these alleged errors

do not constitute ministerial errors

under 19 CFR 351.224(c) and,

accordingly, have made no changes to

the margins to correct them.

Amended Final Results

Based on our review of comments

received regarding ministerial errors, we

have made the following change to the

Final Results: We have corrected the

SAS calculation program to allow

proper matching of U.S. sales to home

market sales.

We determine the following dumping

margins exist for the period November

1, 1998, through October 31, 1999:

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

Shinho ....................................... 2.99

SeAH ........................................ 0.95

HDP .......................................... 2.53

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the

Act.

Dated: May 11, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–13052 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–865]

Notice of Postponement of Final

Determination of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Products From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of postponement of final

determination of antidumping duty

investigation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Blozy or James Doyle, Office IX,

28424 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices

DAS Group III, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–0165 and (202) 482–0159,

respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to Department of

Commerce (the Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

This investigation was initiated on

December 4, 2000. See Notice of

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products From

Argentina, India, Indonesia,

Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the

People’s Republic of China, Romania,

South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and

Ukraine, 65 FR 77568 (December 12,

2000). The period of investigation (POI)

is April 1, 2000 through September 30,

2000. On May 3, 2001, the Department

published the notice of preliminary

determination. See Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From

the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR

22183 (May 3, 2001).

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the date of the publication of the

preliminary determination if, in the

event of an affirmative determination, a

request for such postponement is made

by exporters who account for a

significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise, or in the event of

a negative preliminary determination, a

request for such postponement is made

by petitioner. The Department’s

regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2),

require that requests by respondents for

postponement of a final determination

be accompanied by a request for

extension of provisional measures from

a four-month period to not more than

six months.

In a May 7, 2001 request Shanghai

Baosteel Group Corporation, Baoshan

Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and Baosteel

Group International Trade Corporation

(collectively Baosteel Group) requested

that the Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 135

days after the date of the publication of

the preliminary determination in the

Federal Register and requested an

extension of the provisional measures.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b),

because (1) our preliminary

determination is affirmative, (2)

Baosteel Group accounts for a

significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise, and (3) no

compelling reasons for denial exist, we

are granting Baosteel Group’s request

and are postponing the final

determination until no later than 135

days after the publication of preliminary

determination in the Federal Register.

Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the

Act.

Dated: May 16, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–13053 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain

Cotton and Wool Textiles and Textile

Products Produced or Manufactured in

Colombia

May 18, 2001.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs adjusting

limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 25, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Unger, International Trade Specialist,

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212. For information on the quota

status of these limits, refer to the Quota

Status Reports posted on the bulletin

boards of each Customs port, call (202)

927–5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs

website at http://www.customs.gov. For

information on embargoes and quota reopenings, refer to the Office of Textiles

and Apparel website at http://

otexa.ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as

amended.

The current limit for Category 443 is

being increased for swing, reducing the

limit for Category 315 to account for the

swing being applied. In addition, the

limit for Category 443 is also being

increased for carryover.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328,

published on December 28, 2000). Also

see 65 FR 66719, published on

November 7, 2000.

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

May 18, 2001.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on October 27, 2000, by the

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directive

concerns imports of certain cotton and wool

textile products, produced or manufactured

in Colombia and exported during the twelvemonth period which began on January 1,

2001 and extends through December 31,

2001.

Effective on May 25, 2001, you are directed

to adjust the current limits for the following

categories, as provided for under the Uruguay

Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:

Category Adjusted twelve-month

limit 1

315 ........................... 31,097,800 square

meters.

443 ........................... 158,100 numbers.

1The limits have not been adjusted to account for any imports exported after December

31, 2000.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that

these actions fall within the foreign affairs

exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

D. Michael Hutchinson,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 01–13023 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F