Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34407

LIST OF PETITION ACTION BY TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PERIOD 5/18/01–6/18/01—Continued

Firm name Address Date petition

accepted Product

Bearse Manufacturing Co., Inc ...... 3815 West Cortland Street, Chicago, IL 60647.05/25/01 Luggage and garment bags of nylon, and bags for

hand tool dust collection and filtration.

Everbrite, Inc .................................. 4949 S. 110th Street, Greenfield,

WI 53228.

05/25/01 Illuminated signs.

Harper Manufacturing Co., Inc ....... 617 Lachiocotte Road, Lugoff, SC

29078.

06/04/01 Wooden furniture for the bedroom.

Konkolville Lumber Co., Inc ........... 2705 E. Michigan Avenue, Orofino,

ID 83544.

06/04/01 Douglas fir and larch lumber.

Pine Hill Plastics, Inc ..................... 10261 Smithville Highway,

McMinnville, TN 37111.

06/04/01 Plastic injection component molds for air conditioners, telephone hand sets, and small appliances.

DaMa Jewelry Technology, Inc ...... 25 Oakdale Avenue, Johnston, RI

02919.

06/04/01 Earring clutches, posts and clips.

Chuck Roast Equipment, Inc ......... Odell Hill Road, Conway, NH

03818.

06/04/01 Men’s women’s and children’s fleece outerwear and

sportwear.

Blitz U.S.A., Inc .............................. 404 26th Avenue, NW., Miami,

Oklahoma 74354.

06/04/01 Plastic gas containers, funnels and pans for the

automotive industry.

Ronson Machine & Manufacturing,

Inc.

3000 Little Blue Expressway, Independence, MO 64057.06/05/01 Fabricated sheet metal boxes.

Inland-Joseph Fruit Company ........ 300 North Frontage Road,

Wapato, WA 98951.

06/06/01 Fruits—pears, applies, cherries, peaches, nectarines, apricots, plums and prunes.

Hotwatt, Inc .................................... 128 Maple Street, Danvers, MA

01923.

06/12/01 Dielectric heating elements.

Apeasay, Inc .................................. 789 Highline Road, Hood River,

OR 97031.

06/12/01 Pears and apples.

Tahoe Jewelry, Inc ......................... 20 J. Medeiros Way, East Providence, RI 02914.06/13/01 Women’s costume necklaces, bracelets, earrings,

pins, cuff links and rings.

The petitions were submitted

pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act

of 1974 (U.S.C. 2341). Consequently, the

United States Department of Commerce

has initiated separate investigations to

determine whether increased imports

into the United States of articles like or

directly competitive with those

produced by each firm contributed

importantly to total or partial separation

of the firm’s workers, or threat thereof,

and to a decrease in sales or production

of each petitioning firm.

Any party having a substantial

interest in the proceedings may request

a public hearing on the matter. A

request for a hearing must be received

by Trade Adjustment Assistance, Room

7315, Economic Development

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no

later than the close of business of the

tenth calendar day following the

publication of this notice.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance official program number and

title of the program under which these

petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

Dated: June 19, 2001.

Anthony J. Meyer,

Coordinator, Trade Adjustment and

Technical Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–16242 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–24–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–337–806]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: IQF Red Raspberries

from Chile

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig W. Matney or Jennifer D. Jones at

(202) 482–1778 and (202) 482–4194,

respectively; Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

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 the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part

351 (April 2000).

The Petition

On May 31, 2001, the Department

received a petition filed in proper form

by the IQF Red Raspberry Fair Trade

Committee (hereinafter ‘‘the

petitioner’’). The Department received

information supplementing the petition

throughout the initiation period.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioner alleges that

imports of IQF red raspberries from

Chile are being, or are likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair

value within the meaning of section 731

of the Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioner and its members filed this

petition on behalf of the domestic

industry because it is an interested party

as defined in section 771(9)(C), (E) and

(G) of the Act and it has demonstrated

sufficient industry support with respect

to the antidumping investigation that it

is requesting the Department to initiate

(see the Industry Support section,

below).

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this petition

are imports of individually quick frozen

(IQF) whole or broken red raspberries

from Chile, with or without the addition

34408 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination;

Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of

Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–81 (July 16, 1991).

of sugar or syrup, regardless of variety,

grade, size or horticulture method (e.g.,

organic or not), the size of the container

in which packed, or the method of

packing. The scope of the petition

excludes fresh red raspberries and block

frozen red raspberries (i.e., puree,

straight pack, juice stock, and juice

concentrate).

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classifiable under

0811.20.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed the scope with the petitioner

to ensure that it accurately reflects the

product for which the domestic industry

is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed

in the preamble to the Department’s

regulations (see Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR

27295, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are

setting aside a period for parties to raise

issues regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments within 20

calendar days of publication of this

notice. Comments should be addressed

to Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. The period of

scope consultations is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determination.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product, and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who produce the

domestic like product. The International

Trade Commission (ITC), which is

responsible for determining whether

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been

injured, must also determine what

constitutes a domestic like product in

order to define the industry. While both

the Department and the ITC must apply

the same statutory definition regarding

the domestic like product (section

771(10) of the Act), they do so for

different purposes and pursuant to

separate and distinct authority. In

addition, the Department’s

determination is subject to limitations of

time and information. Although this

may result in different definitions of the

domestic like product, such differences

do not render the decision of either

agency contrary to the law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an

investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus,

the reference point from which the

domestic like product analysis begins is

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’

i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to

be investigated, which normally will be

the scope as defined in the petition.

The domestic like product referred to

in the petition is the single domestic

like product defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigations’’ section above. No party

has commented on the petition’s

definition of the domestic like product,

and there is nothing on the record to

indicate that this definition is

inaccurate. The Department, therefore,

has adopted the domestic like product

definition set forth in the petition.

Moreover, the Department has

determined that the petition contains

adequate evidence of industry support;

therefore, polling is unnecessary (see

Initiation Checklist, dated June 20, 2001

(Initiation Checklist), at Industry

Support). The petitioner indicated that

there may be several additional small

U.S. producers accounting for less than

10 percent of U.S. production who are

not members of the IQF Red Raspberry

Fair Trade Committee. We have no

knowledge of any other domestic

producers of IQF red raspberries.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that this petition is filed on

behalf of the domestic industry within

the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the

Act.

Initiation Standard for Cost

Investigations

Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,

the petitioner submitted information

providing reasonable grounds to believe

or suspect that sales made by Chilean

producers/exporters in the comparison

markets were at prices below the cost of

production (COP) and, accordingly,

requested that the Department initiate

country-wide sales-below-COP

investigations in connection with this

investigation. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), submitted

to the Congress in connection with the

interpretation and application of the

URAA, states that an allegation of sales

below COP need not be specific to

individual exporters or producers. SAA,

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 833 (1994).

The SAA, at 833, states that ‘‘Commerce

will consider allegations of below-cost

sales in the aggregate for a foreign

country, just as Commerce currently

considers allegations of sales at less

than fair value on a country-wide basis

for purposes of initiating an

antidumping investigation.’’

Further, the SAA provides that new

section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act retains

the requirement that the Department

have ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that below-cost sales have

occurred before initiating such an

investigation. Reasonable grounds exist

when an interested party provides

specific factual information on costs and

prices, observed or constructed,

indicating that sales in the foreign

market in question are at below-cost

prices. Id. We have analyzed the

country-specific allegations as described

below.

Export Price and Normal Value

The data used by the petitioner to

calculate U.S. price, COP and

constructed value (CV) are discussed in

the June 20, 2000 Initiation Checklist

(Initiation Checklist) available in room

B–099 of the main Commerce building.

Should the need arise to use any of this

information as facts available under

section 776 of the Act in our

preliminary or final determination, we

may re-examine the information and

revise the margin calculations, if

appropriate.

Export Price

The petitioner based export price (EP)

on the unit values for the sales made

during the POI, according to Chilean

export data. The per-unit prices from

the Chilean export statistics are stated

on an FOB, Chilean-port basis.

Therefore, the petitioner did not

subtract any U.S. or international

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices 34409

movement expenses from the gross unit

price. Moreover, the petitioner did not

adjust EP for foreign inland freight

expenses. The petitioner explained that

it is not aware of any differences in such

expenses between U.S. sales and the

third country sales used for normal

value (NV). No other deductions to the

starting price were made to calculate EP.

Normal Value

Price-to-Price Comparisons

The petitioner claims that there was

not a viable home market for IQF red

raspberries in Chile. Therefore, the

petitioner identified the largest thirdcountry market for each of the Chilean

producers used in the margin

calculations.

The per-unit prices from the Chilean

export statistics for each third-country

market are stated on an FOB, Chileanport basis. Therefore, the petitioner did

not subtract any third-country or

international movement expenses from

the gross unit price. The petitioner did

not adjust NV for foreign inland freight

expenses or make any circumstance of

sale adjustments, other than

commission expenses for one exporter.

The petitioner explained that it is not

aware of any differences in such

expenses between the third country

sales used for NV and U.S. sales. For

Arvalan S.A., the petitioner made a

circumstance of sale adjustment to NV

for commissions paid in both the U.S.

and comparison markets. Also, the

petitioner did not adjust for differences

in packing, stating that exports to the

United States and third countries are

packed in the same way for the six

exporters used in the petition’s margin

calculations.

Based on information submitted in a

supplement to the petition, we also have

calculated a company-specific margin

for a seventh exporter. For further

discussion, see the Initiation Checklist.

Based on price-to-price comparisons,

calculated in accordance with section

773(a) of the Act, the estimated

dumping margins for IQF red

raspberries from Chile range from 0 to

10.32 percent.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

The petitioner also provided

information demonstrating reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of IQF red raspberries from Chile in the

United Kingdom, Netherlands, France

and Belgium were made at prices below

the fully absorbed COP, within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act,

and requested that the Department

conduct country-wide sales-below-cost

investigations of such sales.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the

Act, COP consists of COM; selling,

general and administrative expenses;

and packing. The petitioner calculated

COP by adding the cost of the

acquisition of the red raspberries to the

cost of processing these berries into IQF

red raspberries. The petitioner derived

the cost of the berries from a 1999

Chilean government estimate of the cost

of red raspberries during the 1999–2000

growing season and the ratio of

processing costs to berry acquisition

cost from a 1991 estimate from an

agricultural periodical. To support the

petitioner’s contention that the 1991

estimate is representative of POI

processing costs, a supplement to the

petition provides COP information,

including processing costs, from the

seventh Chilean producer of the subject

merchandise for a period substantially

closer in time to the POI. Because

processing costs in this supplement are

substantially similar to the 1991

estimate, they support the 1991

information as a basis for calculating

COP for the other six exporters, while

also providing company-specific

processing costs for the seventh exporter

(see June 20, 2001 Memorandum from

Susan Kuhbach to Richard Moreland).

Accordingly, we have used this

information, along with the raspberry

acquisition costs for the 1999–2000

growing season, as the basis for

initiating COP investigations.

Based upon a comparison of the

prices of the foreign like product in the

comparison markets to the calculated

COP of the product, we find reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that sales

of the foreign like product in the United

Kingdom, Netherlands, France and

Belgium were made below the COP,

within the meaning of section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,

the Department is initiating countrywide cost investigations for the United

Kingdom, Netherlands, France and

Belgium. However, if information

collected during the investigation

indicates that any exporter’s home

market is viable or the appropriate

comparison market is not the United

Kingdom, Netherlands, France or

Belgium, a new cost allegation for that

exporter or country will be required.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner also

based NV for sales in the comparison

markets on CV. The petitioner

calculated CV starting with the same

COP figure used to compute comparison

market costs. Consistent with section

773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioner also

included in CV an amount for profit. For

profit, the petitioner relied upon a

publicly-available amount reported for

the Chilean frozen red raspberry

industry. For further discussion, see the

Initiation Checklist.

Based upon the comparison of CV to

EP, after adjustments by the

Department, the petitioner calculated

estimated dumping margins ranging

from 2.73 to 61.27 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioner, there is reason to believe that

imports of IQF red raspberries are being,

or are likely to be, sold at less than fair

value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petition alleges that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of the imports of the subject

merchandise. The petitioner contends

that the industry’s injured condition is

evident in the declining trends in net

operating income, net sales volume and

value, profit to sales ratios, and capacity

utilization. The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales data, and pricing

information. We have assessed the

allegations and supporting evidence

regarding material injury and causation,

and have determined that these

allegations are properly supported by

accurate and adequate evidence, and

meet the statutory requirements for

initiation (see Initiation Checklist).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

Based upon our examination of the

petition on IQF red raspberries, we have

found that it meets the requirements of

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are

initiating an antidumping duty

investigation to determine whether

imports of IQF red raspberries from

Chile are being, or are likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair

value. Unless this deadline is extended,

we will make our preliminary

determination no later than 140 days

after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

Government of Chile. We will attempt to

provide a copy of the public version of

the petition to each exporter named in

the petition, as appropriate.

34410 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners are Borden Inc., Hershey Foods

Corp. (Hershey Pasta), Grocery Corp Inc., and

Gooch Foods, Inc. (effective January 1, 1999,

Hershey Pasta and Grocery Corp. Inc. became New

World Pasta, Inc.).

2See letter from Collier Shannon Scott dated July

31, 2000, submitted on behalf of Borden and New

World Pasta, on file in room B–099 of the

Department’s main building. On September 7, 2000,

Collier Shannon Scott submitted a letter stating that

its July 31, 2000 letter should have been on behalf

of New World Pasta alone, because Borden had

submitted its own letter.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine, no later than

July 16, 2001, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

IQF red raspberries from Chile are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

will result in the investigation being

terminated; otherwise, these

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 20, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–16298 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–489–805]

Notice of Preliminary Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Pasta From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial rescission of antidumping

duty administrative review

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioners and two producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain pasta

(pasta) from Turkey for the period July

1, 1999 through June 30, 2000.

We preliminarily determine that

during the POR, Filiz Gida Sanayi ve

Ticaret A.S. (Filiz) and Pastavilla

Makarnacilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

(Pastavilla) sold subject merchandise at

less than normal value (NV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in the

final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties based on the difference between

the export price (EP) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding should also submit with

them: (1) A statement of the issues; (2)

a brief summary of their comments; and

(3) a table of authorities. Further, we

would appreciate it if parties submitting

written comments would provide the

Department with an additional copy of

the public version of any such

comments on diskette.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Terpstra or Lyman Armstrong,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 6, Group

II, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3965 or

(202) 482–3601, 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

regulations refer to the regulations

codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Case History

On July 24, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on pasta from

Turkey (61 FR 38545). On July 20, 2000,

we published in the Federal Register

the notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

an Administrative Review’’ of this

order, for the period July 1, 1999,

through June 30, 2000 (65 FR 45035).

From July 20 to July 31, 2000, we

received requests for review from

Borden Foods Corporation (Borden),

which is an affiliate of Borden Inc., a

petitioner 1 in the case, from New World

Pasta 2, and from individual Turkish

exporters/producers of pasta, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2).

In all, requests were made to review

four Turkish companies. On September

6, 2000, we published the notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review covering the

period July 1, 1999 through June 30,

2000, for Filiz, Pastavilla, Beslen

Makarna Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.

and its affiliate, Beslen Pazarlarma Gida

Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively

Beslen), and Maktas Makarnacilik ve

Ticaret A.S. (Maktas). See Notice of

Initiation, 65 FR 53980 (September 6,

2000).

On September 6, 2000, Borden

withdrew its request for certain

companies enumerated in its original

letter. Of the four companies named in

the Initiation Notice, we are rescinding

a review of one company, Maktas,

because Borden withdrew its request

and there was no request from any other

interested party. See Memorandum from

Melissa G. Skinner to Bernard Carreau,

‘‘Partial Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review’’ dated

June 21, 2001 (Partial Rescission Memo)

and the Partial Recission section below.

On September 13, 2000, we sent

questionnaires to the remaining three

companies for which we initiated the

review: (1) Filiz; (2) Pastavilla; and (3)

Beslen.

For Pastavilla and Filiz, the

Department disregarded sales that failed

the cost test during the most recently

completed segment of the proceeding in

which these companies participated.

Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales by these companies of the

foreign like product under consideration

for the determination of NV in this

review were made at prices below the

cost of production (COP). Therefore, we

initiated cost investigations on

Pastavilla and Filiz at the time we

initiated the antidumping review.

On September 21, 2000, Filiz stated

that it had no U.S. entries or sales

during the POR prior to January 1, 2000,

and therefore requested that, for

purposes of reporting home market sales

and cost data, the POR be shortened to

the six-month period from January 1

through June 30, 2000. Accordingly, on

October 5, 2000, we informed Filiz that

it could limit its reporting of home

market data to the period January 1

through June 30, 2000. In that letter we

also advised Filiz that if it elected to

limit its reporting of home market cost

data to the six-month period, in the

sales-below-cost investigation, it would

forego the application of the ‘‘recovery

of cost’’ test pursuant to section

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

Filiz and Pastavilla submitted their

section A questionnaire responses on

October 4, 2000, and sections B through

D on November 3, 2000.

The Department issued supplemental

sections A through C questionnaires to