Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21159

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section 735(c) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to continue to suspend

liquidation of all entries of Clad Plate

Steel from Japan that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption, on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond equal to the estimated amount by

which the normal value exceeds the

export price as shown below. The

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

The dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/Manufacturer

Margin

Percentage

The Japan Steel Company ........... 118.53

All Others ...................................... 118.53

The all others rate applies to all

entries of subject merchandise.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will within 45 days determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that such

injury does exist, the Department will

issue an antidumping duty order

directing 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withdrawn from warehouse, for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 published

pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act

and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4).

Paul L. Joffe

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: May 2, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–11629 Filed 5–08–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–549–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes From Thailand: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and

Tubes From Thailand.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation,

Sawhill Tubular Division of Armco,

Inc., American Tube Company, Inc.,

Laclede Steel Company, Sharon Tube

Company, Wheatland Tube Company,

and Eagle Pipe Company, petitioners,

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipe and tube from

Thailand. This review covers the

following manufacturers/exporters of

the subject merchandise to the United

States: Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company,

Ltd., SAF Steel Pipe Export Company,

and Pacific Pipe Company. The period

of review (POR) is March 1, 1994

through February 28, 1995.

We have preliminarily determined

that respondents sold subject

merchandise at less than normal value

(NV) during the POR. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct U.S.

Customs to assess antidumping duties

equal to the differences between the

export price and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding should also submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issue,

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Rice or Jean Kemp, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1374 or (202) 482–

4037, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: 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 Rounds

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations, as amended by

the interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 11, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on welded

carbon steel pipes and tubes from

Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 7,

1995, the Department published a notice

of opportunity to request an

administrative review of this order

covering the period March 1, 1994

through February 28, 1995 (60 FR

12540).

In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(1) (1995), petitioners

requested that we conduct a review of

Saha Thai and Pacific Pipe Co. In

addition, Saha Thai Steel Pipe

Company, Ltd. and SAF Corporation

requested an administrative review of

its sales. We published a notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on April 14, 1995

(60 FR 19017). On November 7, 1995,

the Department published in the

Federal Register its notice extending the

deadline in this review (60 FR 56142).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this

administrative review are certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Thailand. The subject merchandise

has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches

or more, but not exceeding 16 inches.

These products, which are commonly

referred to in the industry as ‘‘standard

pipe’’ or ‘‘structural tubing,’’ are

hereinafter designated as ‘‘pipe and

tube.’’ The merchandise is classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 7306.30.1000,

7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032,

7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055,

7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of the order is dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Tariff Act, we verified information

provided by Saha Thai and SAF,

respondents, by using standard

verification procedures, including

onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities, the examination of relevant

sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification

reports.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

produced by the respondent, covered by

the description in the Scope of the

Review section, above, and sold in the

home market during the POR, to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product
21160 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the

most similar foreign like product on the

basis of the characteristics listed in the

Department’s June 21, 1995

antidumping questionnaire and

additional specifications listed in our

January 11, 1996 supplemental

questionnaire. In making the product

comparisons, we matched foreign like

products based on the physical

characteristics reported by the

respondents and verified by the

Department.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of pipe

and tube by respondents to the United

States were made at less than fair value,

we compared the EP to the normal value

(NV), as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this

notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly

weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Export Price

We used EP, in accordance with

subsections 772 (a) and (c) of the Act,

because the subject merchandise was

sold through an affiliated export

company (SAF), to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and CEP was not otherwise

warranted based on the facts of record.

Respondents claimed that most U.S.

sales should be considered constructed

export price (CEP) because they were

first sold in the U.S. to affiliated

distributors. However, although the

Department has preliminarily

determined that Saha Thai and SAT are

affiliated, we disagree that Saha Thai/

SAT is affiliated with the U.S.

distributors. For further information on

this decision, please see the

memorandum from Edward C. Yang to

Roland L. MacDonald dated April 29,

1996.

We calculated EP based on packed

prices to unaffiliated customers in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

for foreign inland freight, foreign

brokerage and handling, and

international freight. We added duty

drawback to the starting price.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared the

combined volume of Saha Thai and SAT

home market sales of the foreign like

product to the combined volume of their

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act. Since respondents’ aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market

was viable. Therefore, we have based

NV on home market sales.

We based NV on sales to unaffiliated

customers in the home market. Where

appropriate, we deducted discounts,

inland freight, and home market

packing. We added U.S. packing in

accordance with section 773(a)(6).

We made adjustments, where

appropriate, for physical differences in

the merchandise in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In

accordance with the Department’s

practice, where the difference in

merchandise adjustment for any product

comparison exceeded 20 percent, we

based normal value on CV.

Price to CV Comparisons

Where we compared CV to EP, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

home market direct selling expenses

and added the weighted-average U.S.

product-specific indirect selling

expenses.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on the fact that the Department

had disregarded sales in the previous

review because they were made below

the cost of production (COP), the

Department found reasonable grounds

in this review, in accordance with

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, to

believe or suspect that respondents

made sales in the home market at prices

below the cost of producing the

merchandise. As a result, the

Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether the respondents

made home market sales during the POR

at prices below their COP within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

Before making any fair value

comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of respondents’ cost of materials

and fabrication for the foreign like

product, plus amounts for home market

selling, general, and administrative

expenses (SG&A) and packing costs in

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the

Act. We verified the respondents’

reported COP values.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We used the respondents’ weightedaverage COP for the POR. We compared

the weighted-average COP figures to

home market sales of the foreign like

product as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

below-cost prices within an extended

period of time in substantial quantities,

and whether they were at prices which

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

the home market prices, less any

applicable movement charges, rebates,

and direct selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of

respondents’ sales of a given product

were sold at prices less than the COP,

we did not disregard any below-cost

sales of that product because we

determined that the below-cost sales

were not made in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more

of a respondent’s sales of a given

product during the POR were sold at

prices less than the COP, we

disregarded the below-cost sales

because we determined that the belowcost sales were made within an

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and

because we determined that the belowcost sales of the product were at prices

which would not permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time

where an individual sale price was

below the weighted-average COP of the

product, as defined in section

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where all sales

of a specific product were at prices

below the COP, we disregarded all sales

of that product, and calculated NV

based on CV, in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of respondents’ cost of materials,

fabrication, selling, general, and

administrative expenses, U.S. packing

costs, interest expenses and home

market profit as reported in the sales

databases. In accordance with sections

773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit

on the amounts incurred and realized by

the respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country.

For four models sold in the United

States, we were unable to access values
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21161

for home market indirect selling

expenses and profit in the data base. For

these missing values, we assigned

values of the average of home market

selling expenses and profit reported for

other home market products. Otherwise,

we relied on the respondents’ reported

CV amounts, as verified by the

Department. For selling expenses, we

used the weighted-average home market

direct and indirect selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, in accordance with section

773(A)(a), we made currency

conversions based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank of New York. Section

773A(a) directs the Department to use a

daily exchange rate in order to convert

foreign currencies into U.S. dollars.

Non-Shipper

Pacific Pipe stated that it did not have

shipments during the POR, and we

confirmed this with the United States

Customs Service. Therefore, we are

treating Pacific Pipe as a non-shipper for

this review.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of USP

and NV, we preliminarily determine

that the following weighted-average

dumping margin exists:

Manufacturer/Exporter

Period Margin

Saha Thai 3/1/94- 2/28/95 1.07%

Pacific Pipe

Co. ......... 3/1/94–2/28/95 (1)

(1) No sales during review period.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five 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 date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs

and/or other written comments from

interested parties may be submitted not

later than 30 days after the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in those comments, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The

Department will publish the 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. Individual differences between

export price and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon the

publication of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Thailand entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies will be that established in

the final results of this review; (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 this review, or the

original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 15.67

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the LTFV investigation.

These 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 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.

These preliminary results of review

are published pursuant to section

751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11634 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 050296A]

Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit 1001 (P606)

and receipt of a notification of

withdrawal of a request for a permit

(P45V).

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

NMFS has issued a permit that

authorizes a take of an Endangered

Species Act-listed species for the

purpose of scientific research/

monitoring, subject to certain conditions

set forth therein, to the Contra Costa

Water District at Concord, CA (CCWD)

and has received a notification of

withdrawal of a request for a scientific

research/enhancement permit from the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at

Sacramento, CA (FWS).

ADDRESSES: The applications and

related documents are available for

review in the following offices, by

appointment:

Office of Protected Resources, F/PR8,

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910–3226 (301-713-1401);

and

Environmental and Technical

Services Division, 525 NE Oregon

Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232–

4169 (503–230–5400).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

permit was issued under the authority

of section 10 of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531–

1543) and the NMFS regulations

governing ESA-listed fish and wildlife

permits (50 CFR parts 217–222).

Notice was published on February 23,

1996 (61 FR 6975) that an application

had been filed by CCWD (P606) for a

scientific research/monitoring permit.

Permit 1001 was issued to CCWD on

April 26, 1996. Permit 1001 authorizes

CCWD a take of juvenile, endangered,

Sacramento River winter-run chinook

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

associated with monitoring the Mallard

Slough pumping facility for the

presence of ESA-listed species in

compliance with the California ESA

requirements provided by the California

Department of Fish and Game. The

monitoring results will indicate the

relative abundance of sensitive fish

species and allow CCWD to modify the

operation of the Mallard Slough facility

as necessary to minimize potential

entrainment losses. Permit 1001 expires

on July 31, 2001.