20792 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices

Period

Cylindrical Roller Bearings, A–475–801 .................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Japan:

Ball Bearings, A–588–804 ......................................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Cement, A–588–815 .................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/95–4/30/96

Cylindrical Roller Bearings, A–588–804 .................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Impression Fabric, A–588–066 ................................................................................................................................. 5/1/95–4/30/96

Spherical Plain Bearings, A–588–804 ....................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Romania: Ball Bearings, A–485–801 ............................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Russia: Pure Magnesium, A–821–805 ............................................................................................................................. 11/7/94–4/30/96

Singapore: Ball Bearings, A–559–801 ............................................................................................................................. 5/1/95–4/30/96

South Korea:

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, Other than Grooved, A–580–507 ....................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

DRAMs, A–580–812 .................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/95–4/30/96

Sweden:

Ball Bearings, A–401–801 ......................................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Cylindrical Roller Bearings, A–401–801 .................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Taiwan:

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tubes, A–583–008 .................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, Other Than Grooved, A–583–507 ...................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Thailand: Ball Bearings, A–549–801 ................................................................................................................................ 5/1/95–4/30/96

The People’s Republic of China:

Construction Castings, A–570–502 ........................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Pure Magnesium, A–570–832 ................................................................................................................................... 11/7/94–4/30/96

The Ukraine: Pure Magnesium, A–823–806 .................................................................................................................... 11/7/94–4/30/96

The United Kingdom:

Ball Bearings, A–412–801 ......................................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Cylindrical Roller Bearings, A–412–801 .................................................................................................................... 5/1/95–4/30/96

Turkey: Pipes and Tubes, A–489–501 ............................................................................................................................. 5/1/95–4/30/96

Countervailing Duties Proceedings:

Brazil: Certain Heavy Iron Construction Castings, C–351–504 ....................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

Singapore:

Ball Bearings, C–559–802 ......................................................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

Cylindrical Roller Bearings, C–559–802 ................................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

Needle Roller Bearings, C–559–802 ......................................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

Spherical Plane Bearings, C–559–802 ..................................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

Spherical Roller Bearings, C–559–802 ..................................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

Sweden: Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber, C–401–056 ......................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

Thailand: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof, C–549–802 ................................................................................................. 1/1/95–12/31/95

Venezuela: Ferrosilicon, C–307–808 ............................................................................................................................... 1/1/95–12/31/95

In accordance with sections 353.22(a)

and 355.22(a) of the regulations, an

interested party as defined by section

353.2(k) may request in writing that the

Secretary conduct an administrative

review. The Department has changed its

requirements for requesting reviews for

countervailing duty orders. Pursuant to

19 CFR 355.22(a) of the Department’s

Interim Regulations (60 FR 25137 (May

11, 1995)), an interested party must

specify the individual producers or

exporters covered by the order for

which they are requesting a review.

Therefore, for both antidumping and

countervailing duty reviews, the

interested party must specify for which

individual producers or exporters

covered by an antidumping finding or

an antidumping or countervailing duty

order it is requesting a review, and the

requesting party must state why it

desires the Secretary to review those

particular producers or exporters. If the

interested party intends for the

Secretary to review sales of merchandise

by an exporter (or a producer if that

producer also exports merchandise from

other suppliers) which were produced

in more than one country of origin, and

each country of origin is subject to a

separate order, then the interested party

must state specifically, on an order-byorder basis, which exporter(s) the

request is intended to cover.

Seven copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room B–099,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street & Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. The Department

also asks parties to serve a copy of their

requests to the Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Attention: Pamela Woods,

in room 3065 of the main Commerce

Building. Further, in accordance with

section 353.31(g) or 355.31(g) of the

regulations, a copy of each request must

be served on every party on the

Department’s service list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Antidumping (Countervailing) Duty

Administrative Review,’’ for requests

received by the last day of May 31,

1996. If the Department does not

receive, by the last day of May 31, 1996,

a request for review of entries covered

by an order or finding listed in this

notice and for the period identified

above, the Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

or countervailing duties on those entries

at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or

bond for) estimated antidumping or

countervailing duties required on those

entries at the time of entry, or

withdrawal from warehouse, for

consumption and to continue to collect

the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute,

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–11391 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices 20793

[A–351–820]

Ferrosilicon From Brazil; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

one manufacturer/exporter, Companhia

de Ferro Ligas da Bahia (Ferbasa), and

from AIMCOR, Elkem Metals Company

and SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc.

(petitioners), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) has

conducted an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

ferrosilicon from Brazil. This notice of

preliminary results covers one

manufacturer/exporter, Ferbasa, for the

period August 16, 1993 through

February 28, 1995. The review indicates

that there were no dumping margins

during this period.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in the final results of our

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping

duties equal to the difference between

the United States price (USP) and the

NV. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita, or Thomas F. Futtner,

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) 482–5253

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statue 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’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, (60 FR

25130).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon

from Brazil on March 14, 1994 (59 FR

11769). The Department published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1993

through 1995 period on March 7, 1995

(60 FR 12540). On March 21, 1995, we

received a request for review from

Companhia de Ferro Ligas da Bahia

(Ferbasa) covering the period August 16,

1993 through February 28, 1995. On

March 31, 1995, petitioners requested a

review for Companhia Brasilerira

Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC), Companhia

Ferroligas Minas Gera ̈s (Minasligas),

Italmagnesio S.A. Industria e Comercio

(Italmagnesio) and Ferbasa for the same

period. Petitioners withdrew their

request for review for Itralmagnesio on

April 11, 1995. We initiated an

administrative review on CBCC and

Ferbasa on April 14, 1995 (60 FR 19017)

and on Minasligas on May 15, 1995 (60

FR 25886). Petitioners subsequently

withdrew their request for review of

Minasligas and CBCC on July 15, 1995

and the Department published in the

Federal Register a Termination in Part

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review for those companies (60 FR

52366). Consequently, this review

covers only one manufacturer/exporter,

Ferbasa.

The Department extended the time

limits for the deadlines for the

preliminary and final results of review

because of the additional time required

for the development of a new

questionnaire in accordance with the

adoption of the URAA. See

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; Time Limits, 60 FR 56141

(November 7, 1995). Deadlines were

further extended as a result of the 28-

day shutdown of the federal

government.

The Department is now conducting

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act.

On October 5, 1995, petitioners

requested that the Department conduct

an investigation to determine if Ferbasa

made sales at prices below its cost of

production (COP) during the 1993–1995

review period. On February 9, 1996,

based on petitioners’ allegation and the

totality of evidence on the record, the

Department determined that there were

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that Ferbasa made sales at prices below

its COP, in accordance with section 773

(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, and initiated a

COP investigation for Ferbasa, pursuant

to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See the

Department’s memorandum to the file,

Ferrosilicon from Brazil—Home Market

Sales Below Cost Allegation for

Companhia de Ferro Ligas da Bahia,

February 9, 1996.

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to this

review is ferrosilicon, a ferroalloy

generally containing, by weight, not less

than four percent iron, more than eight

percent but not more than 96 percent

silicon, not more than 10 percent

chromium, not more than 30 percent

manganese, not more than three percent

phosphorous, less than 2.75 percent

magnesium, and not more than 10

percent calcium or any other element.

Ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy produced

by combining silicon and iron through

smelting in a submerged-arc furnace.

Ferrosilicon is used primarily as an

alloying agent in the production of steel

and cast iron. It is also used in the steel

industry as a deoxidizer and a reducing

agent, and by cast iron producers as an

inoculant.

Ferrosilicon is differentiated by size

and by grade. The sizes express the

maximum and minimum dimensions of

the lumps of ferrosilicon found in a

given shipment. Ferrosilicon grades are

defined by the percentages by weight of

contained silicon and other minor

elements. Ferrosilicon is most

commonly sold to the iron and steel

industries in standard grades of 75

percent and 50 percent ferrosilicon.

Calcium silicon, ferrocalcium silicon,

and magnesium ferrosilicon are

specifically excluded from the scope of

this review.

Calcium silicon is an alloy containing,

by weight, not more than five percent

iron, 60 to 65 percent silicon, and 28 to

32 percent calcium. Ferrocalcium

silicon is a ferroalloy containing, by

weight, not less than four percent iron,

60 to 65 percent silicon, and more than

10 percent calcium. Magnesium

ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy containing, by

weight, not less than four percent iron,

not more than 55 percent silicon, and

not less than 2.75 percent magnesium.

Ferrosilicon is currently classifiable

under the following subheadings of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS): 7202.21.1000,

7202.21.5000, 7202.21.7500,

7202.21.9000, 7202.29.0010, and

7202.29.0050. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Ferrosilicon in the form of slag is

included within the scope of this review
20794 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices

if it meets, in general, the chemical

content definition stated above and is

capable of being used as ferrosilicon.

Parties that believe their importations of

slag do not meet these definitions

should contact the Department and

request a scope determination.

Level of Trade

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, at 829–831, see H.R.

Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 829–

831(1994), to the extent practicable, the

Department will calculate NV based on

sales at the same level of trade as the

U.S. sale. The SAA makes clear that

there cannot be two different levels of

trade where the selling functions are the

same. When the Department is unable to

find sale(s) in the comparison market at

the same level of trade as the U.S.

sale(s), the Department may compare

sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at

a different level of trade.

Ferbasa made only one U.S. sale

during the period of review, which was

to an unaffiliated reseller in the U.S.

market. It made sales to unaffiliated

resellers and to steel producers in the

home market. The selling functions for

the U.S. sale and for all home market

sales are identical. The selling functions

include invoicing, order

acknowledgment, order processing,

quality control, marketing, and price

negotiation. Therefore, we conclude that

home market and U.S. sales were all

made at the same level of trade.

United States Price (USP)

In calculating USP for Ferbasa, we

used export price, as defined in section

772(a) of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold to unaffiliated

U.S. purchasers prior to the date of

importation and because no other

circumstances indicated that

constructed export price (CEP) was

appropriate. Ferbasa reported that

export price was based on the

unpacked, FOB price to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made deductions for brokerage and

handling charges, and inland freight

from the plant to the port, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act,

because these expenses were incident to

bringing the subject merchandise from

the original place of shipment in the

exporting country to the place of

delivery in the United States.

Ferbasa reported inventory carrying

costs and indirect selling expenses

which were attributed to sales in the

U.S. market. We did not make

adjustments for these expenses since

these are indirect selling expenses

which do not fall within the

adjustments applicable to export price

under section 772(c) of the Act.

No other adjustments to USP were

claimed or allowed.

Normal Value (NV)

A. Viability

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

Ferbasa’s volume of home market sales

of the foreign like product to the volume

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)

of the Act. Because Ferbasa’s 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

provides a viable basis for calculating

NV for Ferbasa.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

As stated above in the Background

section, the Department initiated a ‘‘cost

of production’’ investigation for Ferbasa.

The term ‘‘cost of production’’ is

defined in 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 COP based on the sum

of the costs of materials and fabrication

employed in producing the foreign like

product, plus selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A), and

the cost of all expenses incidental to

placing the foreign like product in

condition packed ready for shipment to

the United States, in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. In making

our calculations, we relied on the home

market sales and COP information for

the six-month period surrounding

Ferbasa’s sale to the United States.

b. Test of Home Market Prices

In accordance with section 773(b)(1)

of the Act, in order to determine

whether to disregard home market sales

made at prices below the COP, we

examined whether such sales were

made in substantial quantities within an

extended period of time, and whether

such sales were made at prices which

permit the recovery of all costs within

a reasonable period of time.

We used the respondent’s weightedaverage COP for the six-month period

for which home market sales were

reported. We compared the weightedaverage COP figures to home market

sales of the foreign like product as

required under section 773(b) of the Act.

We compared the COP to the home

market prices, less any applicable price

adjustments for quantity changes.

c. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the

Act, where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales were 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 six-month period

were 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,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act.

C. Model Match

We have determined that all the

products covered by this review

constitute a single category of like

merchandise. All sales in the home

market are considered to be identical to

the sales in the United States. Therefore,

we made no adjustments for similar

characteristics and uses pursuant to

section 771(10) of the Act.

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons

We based NV on the price at which

the foreign like product was first sold

for consumption in the exporting

country, in the usual commercial

quantities and in the ordinary course of

trade, and at the same level of trade as

the export price, as defined by section

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We reduced

NV for home market credit in

accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii), due to differences in

circumstances of sale. We also reduced

NV by packing costs incurred in the

home market, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(B)(i). In addition, we

increased NV for U.S. packing costs, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A).

We made further adjustments to account

for commissions, bank fees and U.S.

credit in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

No other adjustments to NV were

claimed or allowed.

Currency Conversion

The Department’s preferred source for

daily exchange rates is the Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Notices 20795

Reserve Bank. However, the Federal

Reserve Bank does not track or publish

exchange rates for Brazilian currency.

Therefore, we made currency

conversions based on the daily

exchange rates from the Dow Jones

Business Information Service, as

published in the Wall Street Journal.

Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars, ignoring any

‘‘fluctuations.’’ We determine that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

rate by 2.25 percent or more. The

benchmark rate is defined as the rolling

average of the rates for the past 40

business days. When we determined

that a fluctuation existed, we

substituted the benchmark rate for the

daily rate. For a complete discussion of

the Department’s exchange rate

methodology, See, ‘‘Change in Policy

Regarding Currency Conversions’’ (61

FR 9434, March 8, 1996).

Preliminary Results

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists for the period August 16,

1993 through February 28, 1995:

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Companhia de Ferro Ligas da

Bahia ..................................... 0.00

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the

publication of this notice and 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 working day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

the administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at the hearing, within 180

days from the issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between USP and

NV may vary from the percentages

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

Customs. The final results of this review

shall be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping dumping duties on entries

of merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of ferrosilicon from Brazil 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 rate for Ferbasa will be the rate

established in the final results of

administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in these

reviews but covered in the original

LTFV investigation or a previous

review, the cash deposit will continue

to be the most recent rate published in

the final determination or final results

for which the manufacturer or exporter

received a company-specific rate; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in

these reviews, or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of these

reviews, or the LTFV investigation; and

(4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in these

or any previous reviews, the cash

deposit rate will be 35.95 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the

antidumping duty order (59 FR 11769,

March 14, 1994).

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26(b) 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)).

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11491 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–821–803]

Titanium Sponge From the Russian

Federation; Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limits.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit of the preliminary results of the

third administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on titanium

sponge from the Russian Federation.

The review covers one manufacturer/

exporter and two resellers of the subject

merchandise, covering the period

August 1, 1994 through July 31, 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy S. Wei or Zev Primor, 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) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it

is not practicable to complete this

review within the time limits mandated

by Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act of

1994, the Department is extending the

time limit for completion of the

preliminary results until September 3,

1996. See Memo to Susan G. Esserman

from Joseph A. Spetrini regarding

Extension of Time Limit for the

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Review, April 25, 1996. We will issue

our final results for this review by

January 2, 1997.

This extension is in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(3)(A)).

Dated: May 1, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–11390 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P