33522 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

swordfish import report; 10 minutes for

a wreckfish, snowy grouper/tilefish, or

red snapper dealer report; 3 minutes for

a no-purchase report from a wreckfish,

snowy grouper/tilefish, or red snapper

dealer; 15 minutes for a rock shrimp,

golden crab, or coral dealer report; and

5 minutes for an annual vessel

inventory submission.

Needs and Uses: NOAA’s Southeast

Region of the National Marine Fisheries

Service requires purchase reporting by

dealers participating in certain

federally-regulated fisheries. It also

conducts an interview program with

vessel operators about their catch and

effort, and to gather biological data on

their catch. This reporting is needed to

monitor fishing quotas and to otherwise

manage the region’s fisheries.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations, individuals or

households.

Frequency: Weekly, monthly,

annually, and by-trip.

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.

OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker,

(202) 395–3897.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Madeleine Clayton,

Departmental Paperwork Clearance

Officer, (202) 482–3129, Department of

Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at

MClayton@doc.gov).

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent

within 30 days of publication of this

notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk

Officer, Room 10202, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: June 15, 2001.

Madeleine Clayton,

Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–15746 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–848]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Final Results of New-Shipper

Antidumping Reviews: Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s

Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Maureen

Flannery, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4052 and (202) 482–3020,

respectively.

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.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 351

(2000).

Background

On March 29, 2000 and March 31,

2000 the Department received requests

from China Kingdom Import and Export

Co., Ltd.; Nantong Shengfa Frozen Food

Co., Ltd.; and Weishan Fukang

Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. to conduct new

shipper reviews of the antidumping

duty order on freshwater crawfish tail

meat from the People’s Republic of

China. On May 25, 2000, the

Department initiated these new shipper

reviews covering the period September

1, 1999 through February 28, 2000 (65

FR 35046). On October 30, 2000 , the

Department extended the time limit for

the preliminary results of these new

shipper reviews to March 21, 2000 (65

FR 64666). On March 18, 2001, the

Department expanded the period of

review for these new shipper reviews by

one month to enable the Department to

capture the entries corresponding to

sales to the United States for the three

respondents. See Memorandum to

Barbara E. Tillman from Jacqueline

Arrowsmith, ‘‘Expansion of the Period

of Review of New Shipper Reviews of

the Antidumping Duty Order on

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated

March 18, 2001. This is a public

memorandum, which is on file in the

Central Records Unit of the main

Department of Commerce building

(HCHB B–099). On April 10, 2001, the

Department published the Notice of

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty New Shipper Administrative

Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat

from the People’s Republic of China, 66

FR 18604 (April 10, 2001).

Extension of Time Limits for Final

Results

Section 353.214(i)(1) of the

Department’s regulations requires the

Department to make a final

determination 90 days after the date on

which the preliminary results in a new

shipper review are issued. However, if

the Secretary concludes that a new

shipper review is extraordinarily

complicated, the Secretary may extend

the 90-day period to 150 days under

§ 351.214(i)(2) of the Department’s

regulations. We find the valuation

issues in these reviews to be

extraordinarily complicated, and,

therefore, we are unable to complete

these reviews by the scheduled

deadline. Therefore, in accordance with

§ 351.214(i)(2) of the Department’s

regulations, the Department is extending

the time period for issuing the final

results of these new shipper reviews by

60 days until August 18, 2001.

This extension is in accordance with

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, as

amended, and § 351.214(i)(2) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: June 15, 2001.

Edward C. Yang,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–15740 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–PS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–860]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Constance Handley,

Group II, Office 5, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4162, (202) 482–

0631, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (April 2000).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33523

1The petitioner in this investigation is the Rebar

Trade Action Coalition (RTAC), and its individual

members, AmerSteel, Auburn Steel Co., Inc.,

Birmingham Steel Corp., Border Steel, Inc., Marion

Steel Company, Riverview Steel, and Nucor Steel

and CMC Steel Group.

Final Determination

We determine that steel concrete

reinforcing bar (rebar) from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) is being sold,

or is likely to be sold, in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV), as

provided in section 735 of the Act. The

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are

shown in the Final Margins section of

this notice.

Case History

The preliminary determination in this

investigation was issued on January 16,

2001. See Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From

the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR

8339 (January 30, 2001) (Preliminary

Determination).

We conducted verification of the

questionnaire responses of Laiwu Steel

Group, Ltd., and Laiwu Steel

Corporation (collectively, Laiwu), from

March 5 through March 9, 2001.

On March 1, 2001, Laiwu requested a

hearing, and on March 2, 2001, the

petitioner 1 requested to participate in a

hearing if a hearing was to be held.

However, on May 4, 2001, Laiwu

withdrew its request for a hearing.

Section 734(m) of the Act states that

in the case of regional industry

investigations, the administering

authority shall offer exporters the

opportunity to enter into suspension

agreements. Proposed and finalized

agreements in these cases must comport

with the requirements set forth under

section 734 of the Act for the

suspension of antidumping duty

investigations. The exporter

participating in the instant investigation

was aware of its opportunity to propose

a suspension agreement. However, the

Department did not accept a suspension

agreement in this proceeding. See

Memorandum from Holly Kuga to The

File, dated April 2, 2001.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

product covered is all rebar sold in

straight lengths, currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) under item

number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff

item number. Specifically excluded are

plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or

smooth bars) and rebar that has been

further processed through bending or

coating. HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1999, through March 31,

2000. This period corresponds to the

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., June 2000).

Non-market Economy Country

The Department has treated the PRC

as a non-market economy (NME)

country in all past antidumping

investigations. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 33805

(May 25, 2000), and Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice

Concentrate from the People’s Republic

of China, 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000).

A designation as a NME remains in

effect until it is revoked by the

Department. See section 771(18)(C) of

the Act. The respondent in this

investigation has not requested a

revocation of the PRC’s NME status.

Therefore, we have continued to treat

the PRC as a NME in this investigation.

For further details, see the Department’s

Preliminary Determination.

Separate Rates

In our preliminary determination, we

found that Laiwu had met the criteria

for the application of separate

antidumping duty rates. We have not

received any other information since the

preliminary determination which would

warrant reconsideration of our separate

rates determination with respect to

Laiwu. Therefore, we continue to find

that Laiwu should be assigned an

individual dumping margin. For a

complete discussion of the Department’s

determination that Laiwu is entitled to

a separate rate, see the Department’s

Preliminary Determination.

The People’s Republic of China-Wide

Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise

Available

As explained in the Department’s

Preliminary Determination, Laiwu was

the only exporter to respond to the

Department’s questionnaire and

cooperate in this investigation.

Therefore, we have continued to

calculate a company-specific rate for

Laiwu only. However, in the

Preliminary Determination, we stated

that our review of U.S. import statistics

from the PRC reveals that Laiwu did not

account for all imports into the United

States from the PRC. For this reason, we

determined that some PRC exporters of

rebar failed to cooperate in this

investigation. In accordance with our

standard practice, as adverse facts

available, we are assigning as the PRCwide rate the higher of: (1) The highest

margin stated in the notice of initiation;

or (2) the margin calculated for Laiwu.

See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel

Products From The People’s Republic of

China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000). For

purposes of the final determination of

this investigation, we are using the

margin calculated for Laiwu since it is

higher than the margin stated in the

notice of initiation.

Surrogate Country

For purposes of the final

determination, we find that India

remains the appropriate primary

surrogate country for the PRC. For

further discussion and analysis

regarding the surrogate country

selection for the PRC, see the

Department’s Preliminary

Determination.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

proceeding and to which we have

responded are listed in the Appendix to

this notice and addressed in the Issues

and Decision Memorandum for the

Final Determination in the Antidumping

Duty Investigation of Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars from China (Decision

Memorandum), from Bernard T.

Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration to Faryar

Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated June 14, 2001,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

Parties can find a complete discussion

of the issues raised in this investigation

and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum, which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the

main Department building. In addition,

a complete version of the Decision

Memorandum can be accessed directly

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

paper copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memorandum are identical in

content.

Changes Since the Preliminary

Determination

Based on our findings at verification,

and analysis of comments received, we

have made adjustments to the

calculation methodology in calculating

the final dumping margin in this

proceeding. These adjustments are

summarized below:

33524 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

1. For the export price, we have

recalculated the inflator used to adjust

the rate of brokerage and handling. For

further details, see Comment 9 in the

Decision Memorandum, and

Memorandum To the File, Analysis

Memorandum for Laiwu Steel Group

Ltd. and Laiwu Steel Corporation re:

Final Determination (Analysis

Memorandum), dated June 14, 2001.

2. With regard to two inputs into the

production of rebar, iron ore concentrate

and iron ore fines, a portion of these

inputs was produced by Laiwu, and the

remaining portion was purchased from

suppliers. The valuation of the selfproduced portion of these material

inputs was based on adverse facts

available because we found at

verification that Laiwu misreported its

corporate structure. Had we known

prior to verification that certain

divisions of Laiwu actually produced a

portion of its iron ore concentrate and

iron ore fines, we would have requested

Laiwu’s factors of production for these

inputs. We used, as adverse facts

available, the Egyptian 1998 nonagglomerated iron ore price from the

United Nation’s Handbook of World

Mineral Statistics, 1993–1998, inflated

to the POI. For the remaining portion of

iron ore concentrate, which was

purchased from domestic suppliers,

with the exception of one transaction

involving a market-economy country,

we used a surrogate value from the

Philippines because we could not find

an appropriate surrogate value from

India. Unlike the preliminary

determination, we did not use the actual

market-economy price because at

verification we discovered that the

transaction in question was unusual in

that the iron ore purchased was not

comparable to the iron ore concentrate

normally used by Laiwu. For the

remaining portion of iron ore fines,

which was purchased from a marketeconomy country at market-economy

prices, we continued to use the actual

price paid by Laiwu. For further details,

see Comment 1 in the Decision

Memorandum, and the Analysis

Memorandum.

3. For selling, general and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

overhead, we used a simple average of

the ratios derived from the financial

statements of Tata Iron and Steel

Company Limited and the Steel

Authority of India (SAIL). With respect

to profit, we used only TATA’s profit

rate because SAIL’s financial statement

does not reflect profit. For further

details, see Comment 8 in the Decision

Memorandum, and the Analysis

Memorandum.

4. With respect to the by-products

water slag and oxide iron skin, we have

determined that the Indian values for

those by-products were aberrational. For

this reason, we based the value for water

slag on pricing information provided in

the U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals,

Commodities Summaries, and the value

for oxide iron skin on the U.N.

Commodity Trade Statistics for

Indonesia. For further details see

Comment 5–B in the Decision

Memorandum, and the Analysis

Memorandum.

5. We did not offset the normal value

for the by-product ammonia water

because, at verification, Laiwu was

unable to present evidence that it sold

ammonia water to outside customers, or

that the ammonia water was of a

commercial value and had indeed been

reintroduced in the production process

of Laiwu’s non-subject products. See

Comment 5–C in the Decision

Memorandum, and the Analysis

Memorandum.

6. For the input hoist link, we granted

Laiwu an offset to the cost of the hoist

links equal to the value of the endcutting scrap provided by Laiwu to the

manufacturer of hoist link. See

Comment 5–H of Decision

Memorandum, and the Analysis

Memorandum.

7. We corrected minor errors in the

value of ferrosilicon and aluminum

manganese to reflect the quantity and

value of imports from only marketeconomy countries. See Comment 9 of

the Decision Memorandum, and the

Analysis Memorandum.

8. We revised the value of coal to

reflect bituminous coal, and the value of

coal fines to reflect anthracite coal. See

Comment 5–E of the Decision

Memorandum, and the Analysis

Memorandum.

9. We revised the value of briquetting

scrap to correspond to the value for cast

iron scrap. See Comment 5–E of

Decision Memorandum, and the

Analysis Memorandum.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified the information

submitted by the respondent for use in

our final determination. We used

standard verification procedures

including examination of relevant

accounting and production records, and

original source documents provided by

the respondents.

Critical Circumstances

Based on new information on the

record of this investigation and

information provided in our preliminary

affirmative critical circumstances

determination, we have determined, for

purposes of the final determination, that

critical circumstances exist for Laiwu

Steel Group and the non-responding

exporters. For further details, see the

Memorandum from Case Analysts to

Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Import Administration,

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the

People’s Republic of China PRC—Final

Affirmative Determination of Critical

Circumstances, dated June 14, 2001.

Final Margins

We determine that the following

weighted-average dumping margins for

the PRC exist:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Laiwu Steel Group .................... 133.00

PRC-Wide Rate ........................ 133.00

The PRC-wide rate applies to all

entries of the subject merchandise

except for entries from exporters/

producers that are identified

individually above.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing

the Customs Service to continue to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

steel concrete reinforcing bars from the

PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

November 1, 2000, (i.e., 90 days prior to

the date of publication of the

preliminary determinations in the

Federal Register). The Customs Service

shall continue to require a cash deposit

or the posting of a bond based on the

estimated weighted-average dumping

margins shown below. The suspension

of liquidation instructions will remain

in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (ITC) of

our determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, within 45 days, whether

these imports are causing material

injury, or threat of material injury, to an

industry in the United States. If the ITC

determines that material injury or threat

of injury does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33525

1The petitioner in this investigation is the Rebar

Trade Action Coalition (RTAC), and its individual

members, AmeriSteel, Auburn Steel Co., Inc.,

Birmingham Steel Corp., Border Steel, Inc., Marion

Steel Company, Riverview Steel, and Nucor Steel

and CMC Steel Group.

Customs officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the effective date of the suspension

of liquidation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 14, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

List of Comments in the Issues and

Decision Memorandum

I. GENERAL ISSUES

Comment 1: Value of iron ore

concentrate

Comment 2: Actual vs. theoretical

weight

Comment 3: Calculation of SG&A and

Overhead

Comment 4: Application of Overhead

Ratio to the Upstream Stages of

Production

Comment 5: Appropriate Surrogate

Values and Treatment for Certain

Material Inputs

Comment 6: Appropriate Rate for Ocean

Freight

Comment 7: Re-calculating Overhead to

Include the Cost of Minor Materials

Comment 8: Basis for Financial Ratios

Comment 9: Clerical Errors

[FR Doc. 01–15652 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–841–804]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from

Moldova

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nithya Nagarajan or Michele Mire at

(202) 482–5253 or (202) 482–4711,

respectively, AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 4, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to Department of Commerce (the

Department) regulations are to 19 CFR

part 351 (April 2000).

Final Determination

We determine that steel concrete

reinforcing bar (rebar) from Moldova is

being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the

United States at less than fair value

(LTFV), as provided in section 735 of

the Act. The estimated margin of sales

at LTFV is shown in the Final

Determination of Investigation section

of this notice.

Case History

On January 30, 2001, the Department

published the preliminary

determination of the antidumping

investigation of rebar from Moldova. See

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from

Moldova, 66 FR 8333 (January 30, 2001)

(Preliminary Determination). We

conducted verification of the

questionnaire responses of the

respondent, JV CJSC Moldova Steel

Works (MSW), during the week of

March 18, 2001. We gave interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

our Preliminary Determination and our

findings at verification. On April 26,

2001, MSW and the petitioner, the

Rebar Trade Action Coalition 1,

submitted case briefs; and on May 1,

2001, both parties submitted rebuttal

briefs. The Department received no

requests for a public hearing.

Section 734(m) of the Act states that

in the case of regional industry

investigations, the administering

authority shall offer exporters the

opportunity to enter into suspension

agreements. Proposed and finalized

agreements in these cases must comport

with the requirements set forth under

section 734 of the Act for the

suspension of antidumping duty

investigations. The exporter

participating in the instant investigation

was aware of its opportunity to propose

a suspension agreement. However, the

Department did not accept a suspension

agreement in this proceeding. See

Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga to

The File, dated March 30, 2001.

The Department has conducted this

investigation in accordance with section

731 of the Act.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

product covered is all steel concrete

reinforcing bars (rebar) sold in straight

lengths, currently classifiable in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) under item

number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff

item number. Specifically excluded are

plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or

smooth bars) and rebar that has been

further processed through bending or

coating. HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes only. The written description

of the scope of this proceeding is

dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1999, through March 31,

2000. This period corresponds to the

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., June 2000).

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

proceeding and to which we have

responded are listed in the Appendix to

this notice and addressed in the ‘‘Issues

and Decision Memorandum’’ (Decision

Memorandum), dated June 14, 2001,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

Parties can find a complete discussion

of the issues raised in this investigation

and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, room B–099 (B–

099) of the main Department building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum can be accessed

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary

Determination

Based on our findings at verification,

and analysis of comments received, we

have made adjustments to the

preliminary determination calculation

methodologies in calculating the final

dumping margin in this proceeding.

While we continued to use India as the

surrogate country, we made the

following changes: (1) We valued

oxygen and nitrogen based upon MSW’s

reported factors of production, which

were omitted inadvertently from the

preliminary determination; (2) we

valued lime and argon using United