19720 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices

Resume on File lllllllllllll

Panel No. llllllllllllllll

Local llllllllllllllllll

COI on File lllllllllllllll

Domain(s) llllllllllllllll

Travel lllllllllllllllll

Dates Available: lllllllllllll

PO: lllllllllllllllllll

Federal Employee llllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Public reporting burden for this voluntary

collection of information is estimated to

average fifteen minutes per request,

including the time for reviewing instructions

and completing and reviewing the collection

of information. Send comments regarding

this burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

TIIAP, NTIA, Rm 6043, U.S. Dept. of

Commerce, 14 and Constitution Ave NW,

Washington DC 20230 and to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Washington DC 20503 (Attn: NTIA

Paperwork Reduction Desk Officer). Do not

send completed forms to OMB.

[FR Doc. 95–9696 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–60–M

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 15–95]

Foreign-Trade Zone 15—Kansas City,

Missouri Area Application for

Expansion

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the Greater Kansas City

Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of

Foreign-Trade Zone 15, requesting

authority to expand its zone in the

Kansas City, Missouri area, within the

Kansas City, Missouri, Customs port of

entry. The application was submitted

pursuant to the provisions of the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended

(19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations

of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was

formally filed on April 14, 1995.

FTZ 15 was approved on March 23,

1973 (Board Order 93, 38 FR 8622, 4/4/

73) and expanded on October 25, 1974

(Board Order 102, 39 FR 39487, 11/7/

74). The zone project includes 3 generalpurpose sites in the Kansas City,

Missouri, port of entry area: Site 1

(250,000 sq. ft.)—Midland International

Corp. warehouse, 1650 North Topping,

Kansas City; Site 2 (2,815,000 sq. ft.)—

Hunt Midwest Real Estate Development,

Inc., surface and underground

warehouse complex, 8300 N.E.

Underground Drive, Kansas City; and,

Site 3 (101,000 sq. ft.)—Kansas City

International Airport, 7,984 sq. ft.

building and 93,016 sq. ft. of land,

12600 N.W. Prairie View Road, Kansas

City.

The applicant is now requesting

authority to further expand the generalpurpose zone to include an additional

site (proposed new Site 4—416 acres) at

the Carefree Industrial Park, a surface

and subsurface business park located at

1600 N M–291 Highway, Sugar Creek,

Missouri. (A portion of the park is also

in the City of Independence.)

No specific manufacturing requests

are being made at this time. Such

requests would be made to the Board on

a case-by-case basis.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations (as revised, 56 FR 50790–

50808, 10–8–91), a member of the FTZ

Staff has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is June 19, 1995. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to July 5, 1995).

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

U.S. Department of Commerce District

Office, 601 East 12th Street, Room

635, Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room

3716, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: April 14, 1995.

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9835 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

[A–570–808]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the

People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration/Import Administration.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

the Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review of chrome-plated lug nuts from

the People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on chromeplated lug nuts (lug nuts) from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC) in

response to requests by petitioner,

Consolidated International Automotive,

Inc. (Consolidated), for the first and

second reviews, and an importer,

Krossdale Accessories, Inc., for the

second administrative review. These

reviews cover shipments of this

merchandise to the United States during

the period April 18, 1991, through

August 31, 1992, and September 1,

1992, through August 31, 1993.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

foreign market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct U.S.

Customs to assess antidumping duties

equal to the difference between the

United States price (USP) and FMV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Little, Elisabeth Urfer, or

Maureen Flannery, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4733.

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register an antidumping duty

order on lug nuts from the PRC on April

24, 1992 (57 FR 15052). On September

11, 1992, and September 7, 1993, the

Department published in the Federal

Register (57 FR 41725 and 58 FR 47116)

notices of opportunity to request

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on lug nuts

from the PRC covering the periods April

18, 1991, through August 31, 1992, (91–

92 review) and September 1, 1992,

through August 31, 1993 (92–93

review).

For the 91–92 review, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1994), the

petitioner, Consolidated, requested that

we conduct an administrative review of

China National Automotive Industry I/

E Corp.; China National Machinery &

Equipment Import and Export

Corporation, Jiangsu Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu);

Rudong Grease Gun Factory (Rudong);

China National Automotive Industry

Shanghai Automobile Import & Export

Corp. (Shanghai Automobile); Chu Fong

Metallic Industrial Corporation (Chu

Fong); and San Chien Electric Industrial

Works, Ltd. (San Chien). We published

a notice of initiation of this
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices 19721

antidumping duty administrative review

on October 22, 1992 (57 FR 48201).

For the 92–93 review, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(a), Consolidated

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of China National

Automotive Industry I/E Corp; Jiangsu;

China National Automobile Import and

Export Corp., Yangzhou Branch

(Yangzhou); Rudong; Ningbo Knives &

Scissors Factory (Ningbo); Shanghai

Automobile; and Tianjin Automotive

Import and Export Co. (Tianjin). In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a),

Krossdale Accessories, Inc. requested a

review of its supplier, China National

Machinery & Equipment Import &

Export Corp., Nantong Branch

(Nantong). We published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on October 18,

1993 (58 FR 53710). The Department is

conducting these administrative reviews

in accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Review

On April 19, 1994, the Department

issued its ‘‘Final Scope Clarifications on

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from Taiwan

and the PRC.’’ The scope, as clarified, is

described in the subsequent paragraph.

All lug nuts covered by these reviews

conform to the April 19, 1994, scope

clarification.

Imports covered by these reviews are

one-piece and two-piece chrome-plated

lug nuts, finished or unfinished. The

subject merchandise includes chromeplated lug nuts, finished or unfinished,

which are more than 11⁄16 inches (17.45

millimeters) in height and which have

a hexagonal (hx) size of at least 3⁄4

inches (19.05 millimeters) but not over

one inch (25.4 millimeters), plus or

minus 1⁄16 of an inch (1.59 millimeters).

The term ‘‘unfinished’’ refers to

unplated and/or unassembled chromeplated lug nuts. The subject

merchandise is used for securing wheels

to cars, vans, trucks, utility vehicles,

and trailers. Zinc-plated lug nuts,

finished or unfinished, and stainlesssteel capped lug nuts are not included

in the scope of this review. Chromeplated lock nuts are also not subject to

this review.

Chrome-plated lug nuts are currently

classified under subheading

7318.16.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written

description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

These reviews cover the periods April

18, 1991, through August 31, 1992, and

September 1, 1992, through August 31,

1993. The 91–92 review covers six

producer/exporters of Chinese lug nuts.

The 92–93 review covers eight

producer/exporters of Chinese lug nuts.

Separate Rates

To establish whether a company

operating in a state-controlled economy

is sufficiently independent to be

entitled to a separate rate, the

Department analyzes each exporting

entity under the test established in Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Sparklers from the People’s

Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6,

1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China (59 FR

22585, May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide).

Under this policy, exporters in nonmarket economies (NMEs) are entitled

to separate, company-specific margins

when they can demonstrate an absence

of government control, both in law and

in fact, with respect to exports.

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control includes: (1) An

absence of restrictive stipulations

associated with an individual exporter’s

business and export licenses; (2) any

legislative enactments decentralizing

control of companies; and (3) any other

formal measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. De

facto absence of government control

with respect to exports is based on four

factors: (1) Whether each exporter sets

its own export prices independently of

the government and without the

approval of a government authority; (2)

whether each exporter retains the

proceeds from its sales and makes

independent decisions regarding the

disposition of profits or financing of

losses; (3) whether each exporter has the

authority to negotiate and sign contracts

and other agreements; and (4) whether

each exporter has autonomy from the

government regarding the selection of

management.

Nantong was the only exporter that

responded to the Department’s request

for information; therefore, Nantong was

the only firm on which we made a

determination of whether it should

receive a separate rate. The

determination of whether Nantong

should receive a separate rate is to be

made under the policy set forth in

Silicon Carbide and Sparklers. In

Silicon Carbide we concluded that

ownership by the people does not

require the application of a single rate,

and amplified the test set out in

Sparklers by examining the management

of an enterprise.

Nantong is owned by the local

government. Such ownership does not,

however, preclude a determination that

a separate rate is appropriate. Nantong’s

management is elected by Nantong’s

staff, and is responsible for all decisions

such as profit distribution, employment

policy and marketing strategy.

We have found that the evidence on

the record demonstrates an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to Nantong’s exports

according to the criteria identified in

Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. With

respect to the absence of de jure

government control, evidence on the

record indicates that, even though

Nantong is registered as a state-owned

company, it is an independent entity.

Further, several PRC laws establish that

the responsibility for managing entities

has been transferred from the central

government to the enterprise. (See

August 30, 1994, memorandum to the

file, with attachments and November 18,

1994 memorandum to the file). In

particular, ‘‘The People’s Republic of

China All People’s Ownership Business

Law,’’ enacted on April 13, 1988,

indicates that branch companies have

become legally and financially

independent of centrally-controlled

foreign trade companies. Nantong is

such a branch company. Additionally,

lug nuts do not appear on the

‘‘Temporary Provisions for

Administration of Export

Commodities,’’ approved on December

21, 1992, and are not, therefore, subject

to the constraints of those provisions.

With respect to the absence of de facto

government control, Nantong states that

it makes decisions based upon market

requirements, that it is not subject to

adverse financial costs for choosing one

export strategy over another, that the

management team makes all decisions,

that there are no restrictions on the use

of its profits, that the employees of

Nantong elect the general manager and

management team, and that it conducts

negotiations with U.S. importers. For

further discussion of the Department’s

preliminary determination that Nantong

is entitled to a separate rate, see

Decision Memorandum: ‘‘Separate Rates

in the First and Second Administrative

Reviews of Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts

from the People’s Republic of China,’’

dated March 13, 1995; which is on file

in the Central Record Unit (room B099

of the Main Commerce Building).

United States Price

For sales made by Nantong we based

the USP on purchase price (PP), in

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise

was sold to unrelated purchasers in the

United States prior to importation into

the United States.
19722 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices

We calculated PP based on the FOB

price to unrelated purchasers. We made

deductions for brokerage and handling

and foreign inland freight. We valued

brokerage and handling and foreign

inland freight deductions using

surrogate data based on Indian freight

costs. We selected India as the surrogate

country for the reasons explained in the

‘‘Foreign Market Value’’ section of this

notice.

Foreign Market Value

For all companies located in NME

countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

provides that the Department shall

determine FMV using a factors-ofproduction methodology if (1) the

merchandise is exported from an NME

country, and (2) the information does

not permit the calculation of FMV using

home market prices, third country

prices, or constructed value (CV) under

section 773(a) of the Act.

In the amendment to the final

determination of sales at less than fair

value (LTFV), the Department treated

the PRC as an NME country, and

determined that lug nuts is not a

market-oriented industry. (See

Amendment to Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Amendment to Antidumping Duty

Order: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the

People’s Republic of China, 57 FR

15052, April 24, 1992.) Because no

company in this review has argued that

the PRC is a market-economy country,

or that the lug nut industry in the PRC

is market-oriented, we continue to

consider the PRC to be an NME country,

and the lug nut industry to be nonmarket oriented and, therefore, we have

applied surrogate values to factors of

production to determine CV and

movement costs.

We calculated FMV based on factors

of production in accordance with

section 773(c) of the Act and section

353.52 of the Department’s regulations.

We determined that India is comparable

to the PRC in terms of per capita gross

national product (GNP), the growth rate

in per capita GNP, and the national

distribution of labor, and is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

For these reviews, we chose India as the

most comparable surrogate on the basis

of the above criteria, and have used

publicly available information relating

to India to value the various factors of

production. (See Memorandum dated

July 29, 1994).

We valued the factors of production

as follows:

• For steel wire rods, we used a per

kilogram value obtained from the

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of

India for the period April through

December, 1992. Using wholesale price

indices (WPI) obtained from the

International Financial Statistics,

published by the International Monetary

Fund (IMF), we adjusted these values to

reflect inflation. We made further

adjustments to include freight costs

incurred between the supplier and the

factory in the PRC.

• For chemicals used in the

production of lug nuts, we used per

kilogram values obtained from the

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of

India, Chemical Business, and Chemical

Weekly. We adjusted these rates to

reflect inflation using WPI from the

International Financial Statistics.

• For direct labor, we used the

Business International Report IL&T

India released in November 1992. We

adjusted this rate to reflect inflation

using WPI from the International

Financial Statistics. The labor cost for

each component was calculated by

multiplying the labor time requirement

by the surrogate labor rate.

• For factory overhead, we used

information obtained from the Reserve

Bank of India Bulletin, December 1992,

for Indian metals and chemicals

industries. From this information, we

were able to determine factory overhead

as a percentage of total cost of

manufacture. We added factory

overhead into the cost of manufacture.

Factory overhead did not include

electricity; therefore, we added an

amount for electricity, using

information from Energy Indicators of

Developing Member Countries of Asian

Development Bank from July 1992. We

adjusted these rates to reflect inflation

using WPI from the International

Financial Statistics.

• For SG&A expenses, we used

information obtained from the Reserve

Bank of India Bulletin from December

1992. From this information, we

calculated an SG&A rate by dividing

SG&A expenses by the cost of

manufacture. SG&A expenses were less

than ten percent of the cost of

manufacture. Therefore, we used the

statutory minimum of ten percent of the

cost of manufacture for SG&A.

• For profit, we used the profit rate

obtained from the Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin from December 1992 because it

was in excess of the statutory eight

percent minimum.

• For packing, we used, as best

information available (BIA), one percent

of the cost of production. We applied

BIA for packing because Rudong, the

producer, did not supply sufficient

factor information by which to allocate

packing costs. This percentage, applied

to publicly available data, was used in

the Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value: Tapered Roller

Bearings from Italy, 52 FR 24198 (June

29, 1987). This methodology is

consistent with the Department’s

valuation of packing in the Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Tapered Roller Bearings from

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR

67590 (December 31, 1991).

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a).

Currency conversions were made at the

rates certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank.

Best Information Available

We preliminarily determine, in

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, that the use of BIA is appropriate

for the China National Automotive

Industry I/E Corp., Jiangsu, Shanghai

Automobile, Chu Fong, San Chien,

Yangzhou, Ningbo, and Tianjin because

these firms did not respond to the

Department’s antidumping

questionnaire.

In deciding what to use as BIA, 19

CFR 353.37(b) provides that the

Department may take into account

whether a party refused to provide

requested information. Thus, the

Department determines on a case-bycase basis what is BIA. When a

company refuses to provide the

information requested in the form

required, or otherwise significantly

impedes the Department’s review, the

Department will normally assign to that

company the higher of (1) The highest

rate for any firm in the investigation or

prior administrative reviews of sales of

subject merchandise from that same

country; or (2) the highest rate found in

the review for any firm. When a

company has cooperated with the

Department’s request for information

but fails to provide the information

requested in a timely manner or in the

form required, the Department will

normally assign to that company the

higher of either: (1) The highest margin

calculated for that company in any

previous review or the original

investigation; or (2) the highest

calculated margin for any respondent

that supplied an adequate response for

the current review. (See Antifriction

Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the

Federal Republic of Germany, et. al.;

Final Results of Administrative Review,

56 FR 31705 (July 11, 1991).

For the 91–92 review we have applied

BIA to sales made by China National

Automotive Industry I/E Corp., Jiangsu,

Shanghai Automobile, Chu Fong, and

San Chien. Because these firms did not
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices 19723

respond to our questionnaire, we have

applied as BIA the highest margin ever

calculated in the investigation or this

first review.

For the 92–93 review we have applied

BIA to sales made by China National

Automotive Industry I/E Corp, Jiangsu,

Yangzhou, Ningbo, Shanghai

Automobile, and Tianjin. Because these

firms did not respond to our

questionnaire, as BIA we have applied

the highest margin ever calculated in

the investigation or this or the prior

review.

Rudong responded to the

Department’s requests for information

for both review periods, but reported no

direct exports to the United States

during either period. Therefore, we are

treating Rudong as a non-shipper for

these reviews. Since the Department has

never determined that a separate rate

should apply to exports from Rudong,

future exports from Rudong will be

subject to cash deposit at the PRC rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp., Nantong Branch ....................................... 09/01/92–08/31/93 45.41

Rudong Grease-Gun ...................................................................................................................................... 04/18/91–08/31/92 *42.42

Factory ........................................................................................................................................................... 09/01/92–08/31/93 *45.41

* No shipments during the period, but never determined to merit a separate rate. Therefore, we applied the PRC rate established in this review.

This is the rate for companies that had shipments, or are presumed to have shipments, during the period, but which were not given separate

rates.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be 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

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of lug nuts from the PRC entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For Nantong,

which has a separate rate, the cash

deposit rate will be the companyspecific rate published for the most

recent (1992–1993) period; (2) for

Jiangsu, which was previously

investigated and given a separate rate,

the cash deposit rate will be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent (1992–1993) period, which

is based on BIA; (3) for the companies

named above which were not found to

have separate rates, China National

Automotive Industry I/E Corp.,

Yangzhou, Ningbo, Shanghai

Automobile, and Tianjin, as well as for

all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit

rate will be 45.41 percent; and (4) for

non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate applicable

to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also 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 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 double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and 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: April 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9835 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–803]

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or

Unfinished, With or Without Handles,

From the People’s Republic of China;

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: In response to a request by a

U.S. importer, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on heavy

forged hand tools, finished or

unfinished, with or without handles

(HFHTs), from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). The reviews cover two

exporters of subject merchandise to the

United States and the period February 1,

1992, through January 31, 1993. The

reviews indicate the existence of

dumping margins during the period of

review.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

foreign market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in or

final results of administrative reviews,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between United States price

(U.S. price) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karin Price or Maureen Flannery, 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) 482–4733

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 19, 1991, the Department

published in the Federal Register (56

FR 6622) the antidumping duty orders

on HFHTs from the PRC. On February

17, 1993, the Department published in