2076 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices

The DEIS is projected to be filed with

the Environmental Protection Agency in

February 1996. Public comment on the

DEIS will be solicited for a minimum of

45 days from the date the Notice of

Availability appears in the Federal

Register. Subsistence hearings, as

required by Section 8 of the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation

Act, are planned during this 45-day

comment period.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it is important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of DEIS’s must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the DEIS stage but that are not

raised until after completion of the final

EIS may be waived or dismissed by the

courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803

F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and

Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490

F. Suppl. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).

Because of these court rulings, it is very

important that those interested in this

proposed action participate by the close

of the 45-day comment period so that

substantive comments and objections

are made available to the Forest Service

at a time when it can meaningfully

consider them and respond to them in

the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the DEIS should be as

specific as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of

the alternatives formulated and

discussed in the statement. Reviewers

may wish to refer to the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions

of the National Environmental Policy

Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing

these points.

Issuance of the Final Environmental

Impact Statement is projected in

November 1996. The responsible official

for the decision is Linn Shipley, Acting

District Ranger, Tongass National

Forest, Ketchikan Ranger District, 3031

Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, AK 99901.

Permits

Permits required for construction of

the transmission line may include the

following:

Federal

U.S. Forest Service

• Special use permit

• Permit for surveying the right-ofway

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• Approval of the discharge of

dredged or fill materials into waters of

the United States under Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act

• Approval of the construction of

structures or work in navigable waters

of the United States under Section 10 of

the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

• Notice of proposed construction

State

Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation

• Certificate of Reasonable Assurance

regarding discharge of dredged or fill

materials into waters of the United

States

• Prevention of Significant

Deterioration permit for the exhaust of

any fossil-fuel-burning equipment used

during construction

• Open-burn permit for waste burning

• Solid waste disposal permit

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

• Habitat Protection Permits when

streams are to be crossed and when

other wildlife habitats are affected

• Title 16 Fish Habitat permit for

disturbing anadromous fish streams

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

• Tideland lease for structures below

mean high water line

• Easement for crossing Alaska State

uplands

• Permit required if more than 500

gallons per day is withdrawn from any

stream

• Permits required for log transfers

facilities

Dated: December 28, 1994.

David D. Rittenhouse,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 95–280 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–602]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has conducted

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on brass sheet

and strip from Germany. The reviews

cover one manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise to the United States,

Wieland Werke AG (Wieland). The

periods covered are March 1, 1990

through February 28, 1991, March 1,

1991 through February 29, 1992, and

March 1, 1992 through February 28,

1993. The reviews indicate the existence

of dumping margins for these periods.

As result of these reviews, the

Department has preliminarily

determined to assess antidumping

duties equal to the differences between

United States price (USP) and foreign

market value (FMV). We invite

interested parties to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Killiam, Chip Hayes, or John

Kugelman, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 6, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (52

FR 6997) the antidumping duty order on

brass sheet and strip from Germany.

Based on timely requests for review, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we

initiated administrative reviews of

Wieland on March 8, 1991 (56 FR 9937),

March 5, 1992, (57 FR 7910) and on

March 12, 1993 (58 FR 13584) for the

1990–1991, 1991–1992, and 1992–1993

periods of review (POR’s) respectively.

The Department is now conducting

these administrative reviews in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices 2077

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by these reviews are

brass sheet and strip, other than leaded

and tin brass sheet and strip, from

Germany. The chemical composition of

the products under review is currently

defined in the Copper Development

Association (C.D.A.) 200 Series or the

Unified Numbering System (U.N.S.)

C20000 series. These reviews do not

cover products the chemical

compositions of which are defined by

other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. The

physical dimensions of the products

covered by these reviews are brass sheet

and strip of solid rectangular cross

section over 0.006 inches (0.15

millimeters) through 0.188 inches (4.8

millimeters) in gauge, regardless of

width. Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse

wound), and cut-to-length products are

included. The merchandise is classified

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 7409.21.00 and

7409.29.20. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

These reviews cover one

manufacturer/exporter, Wieland. The

POR’s are March 1, 1990 through

February 28, 1991, March 1, 1991

through February 29, 1992, and March

1, 1992 through February 28, 1993.

United States Price

We based USP on purchase price (PP)

and exporter’s sales price (ESP), as

appropriate, in accordance with section

772 of the Act. We calculated PP and

ESP based on C.I.F., duty-paid prices,

delivered either to independent U.S.

warehouses or to the customers’

premises. In accordance with section

772(d)(2) of the Act, we made

deductions for movement expenses and

customs duty.

For ESP transactions, we also made

deductions for U.S. movement

expenses, direct selling expenses,

commissions, where appropriate, and

indirect selling expenses.

We adjusted USP for taxes in

accordance with our practice as

outlined in Siliconmanganese From

Venezuela; Preliminary Determination

of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 FR

31204 (June 17, 1994)

(Siliconmanganese).

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Foreign Market Value

Based on a comparison of the volume

of home market and third country sales,

we determined that the home market

was viable. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773 of the Act, we

compared U.S. sales with sales of such

or similar merchandise in the home

market.

We calculated FMV using monthly

weighted-average prices of sales of brass

sheet and strip having the same

characteristics as to alloy, gauge, width,

temper, form, and coating. The gauge

and width groupings are the same as

those used in prior reviews. The modelmatch methodology in these reviews

was the same as that used in the last

administrative review (August 22, 1986

through February 29, 1988), except the

Department included alloy-specific

information for each transaction, instead

of assigning sales into one of two alloy

grade groups having above or below

70% copper content. This added

specificity brings the model-match

methodology into conformance with

other orders on brass sheet and strip.

On January 5, 1994, the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in The

Ad Hoc Committee of AZ–NM–TX–FL

Producers of Gray Portland Cement v.

United States, No. 93–1239, held that

the Department could not deduct home

market movement charges from FMV

pursuant to its inherent power to fill in

gaps in the antidumping statute.

Accordingly, we now adjust for home

market movement expenses under the

circumstance-of-sale (COS) provision of

19 CFR 353.56 and the ESP offset

provision of 19 CFR 353.56(b) (1) and

(2), as appropriate. In these reviews,

home market movement expenses were

incurred between factory and customer,

after the sale, and were therefore treated

as direct COS deductions.

FMV was based on packed, delivered

prices to unrelated customers in the

home market, with appropriate

deductions from the home market price

for inland freight and insurance, credit

expenses, home market packing, and

rebates. We added U.S. packing to the

home market price in accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Act. For PP sales

we added credit expenses to FMV, as a

direct selling expense. For ESP sales we

made adjustments to the home market

price for indirect selling expenses,

which we limited to the amount of

indirect selling expenses in the United

States, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2). In addition, we included in

FMV the amount of value-added taxes

collected in the home market in

accordance with our practice as

outlined in Siliconmanganese. We also

made adjustments for differences in

merchandise.

Wieland claimed that ‘‘an adjustment

should be made for the per unit

differences in processing expenses

associated with different order size.’’

However, Wieland did not demonstrate

to what extent these claimed

adjustments affected price, or how they

were related to the transactions under

review. Accordingly, since we are not

‘‘satisfied that the amount of any price

differential is wholly or partly due to

that difference in quantities,’’ (19 CFR

353.55), we disallowed this claimed

adjustment.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Cost Test

Because allegations by petitioners in

the 1990–1991 administrative review

provided the Department with

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales in that period had been made

below cost, in accordance with section

773(b) of the Act, we investigated

whether Wieland sold such or similar

merchandise in the home market at

prices below the cost of production

(COP). In determining whether to

disregard home market sales made at

prices below the COP, we examined

whether such sales were made in

substantial quantities over an extended

period of time, and whether such sales

were made at prices which permitted

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in the normal course of

trade.

COP was reported as the sum of costs

for materials, labor, variable costs of

manufacturing, factory overhead, selling

and general expenses, net interest, and

packing. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.51(c), we compared COP to home

market prices net of discounts.

In accordance with our normal

practice, when less than 10 percent of

the home market sales of a model were

at prices below the COP, we did not

disregard any sales of that model. When

10 percent or more, but not more than

90 percent, of the home market sales of

a particular model were determined to

be below cost, we excluded the belowcost home market sales from our

calculation of FMV, provided that these

below-cost home market sales were

made over an extended period of time.

When more than 90 percent of the home

market sales of a particular model were

made below cost over an extended

period of time, we disregarded all home

market sales of that model in our

calculation of FMV. See, for example,

Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan,

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958.

To determine whether sales below

cost had been made over an extended

period of time, we compared the

number of months in which sales below

cost occurred for a particular model to

the number of months in which that

model was sold. If the model was sold
2078 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Notices

in fewer than three months, we did not

disregard below-cost sales unless there

were below-cost sales of that model in

each month sold. If a model was sold in

three or more months, we did not

disregard below-cost sales unless there

were sales below cost in at least three

of the months in which the model was

sold.

We compared individual home

market prices with the monthly COP.

We tested the home market prices on

the basis of the six physical criteria used

for product matches, and found that, for

certain models, between 10 and 90

percent of home market sales were made

at below-COP prices. Since the

respondent provided no indication that

these sales were at prices that would

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time and in the

normal course of trade, we disregarded

the below-cost sales for those models, if

those sales were made over an extended

period of time. We used the remaining

above-cost sales for comparison

purposes.

For certain models, we used

constructed value (CV) as the basis for

FMV when there were no

contemporaneous home market sales of

such or similar merchandise.

We calculated CV in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. We included

the cost of materials, labor, and factory

overhead in our calculations. The

respondent reported selling, general,

and administrative expenses (SG&A)

greater than the statutory minimum of

10 percent of the cost of manufacture

(COM). Therefore, we used the

respondent’s reported SG&A expenses.

The respondent reported actual profit

greater than the statutory minimum of

eight percent of the sum of the COM and

SG&A. Therefore, we used the

respondent’s reported profit amounts.

We adjusted the CV for warranty and

credit expenses, and the lesser of home

market indirect selling expenses or U.S.

commissions.

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

As a result of our comparison of USP

to FMV, we preliminarily determine

that the following dumping margins

exist for the periods of review:

Review period

Manufacturer/exporterMargin

(Percent)

3/1/90–2/28/91 ........... Wieland .... 3.33

3/1/91–2/29/92 ........... Wieland .... 2.07

3/1/92–2/28/93 ........... Wieland .... 0.36

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication of

this notice. Any hearing will be held 44

days after the date of publication or the

first workday thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs within 30

days of the publication date 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. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

these administrative reviews, which

will include the results of its analyses

of issues raised in any such case briefs

or hearing.

The following deposit requirements

shall be effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise that are entered or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of these

administrative reviews, as provided by

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

deposit rates for the reviewed company

shall be those rates established in the

final results of these reviews; (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 these reviews, a

prior review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate shall be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in these or any previous

reviews by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 8.87%, 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 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during these review periods.

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.

These administrative reviews and this

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 23, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration

[FR Doc. 95–347 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–549–809]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

From Thailand

Correction

In notice document 94–24539

beginning on page 50568, in the issue of

Tuesday, October 4, 1994, make the

following corrections:

1. On page 50568, in the third

column, under Case History, in the third

paragraph, in the third line, ‘‘Asahi’’

should read ‘‘Awaji.’’

2. On page 50570, in the second

column, under Suspension of

Liquidation, after the second paragraph,

under the heading ‘‘Manufacturer/

Producer/Exporter,’’ ‘‘Asahi’’ should

read ‘‘Awaji.’’

Dated: December 26, 1994.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–348 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–570–820]

Certain Compact Ductile Iron

Waterworks Fittings and Glands From

the People’s Republic of China: Notice

of Court Decision; Exclusion From the

Application of the Antidumping Duty

Order, in Part; Termination of

Administrative Review in Part; and

Amended Final Determination and

Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

determination of sales at less-than-fairvalue, exclusion from the application of

the Antidumping Duty Order, and

termination of administrative review in

accordance with decision upon remand.

SUMMARY: On November 15, 1994, the

United States Court of International

Trade (CIT) affirmed the Department’s

September 30, 1994, remand

determination which was not contested

by defendant-intervenor, The U.S.

Waterworks Fittings Producers Council,

et al.; and entered Final Judgment with

prejudice. See China National Metal

Products Import and Export Corporation