66402 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices

COP. Therefore, pursuant to sections

773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act,

the petitioners based NV for sales in

South Africa on constructed value (CV).

The petitioners calculated CV using the

same COM, SG&A, interest, and packing

expenses used to compute South

African home market COP. Consistent

with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, the

petitioners included in CV an amount

for profit. The petitioners relied upon

amounts reported in the same South

African ferrovanadium producer’s

public unconsolidated fiscal year 2000

financial statements to determine the

amount for profit.

Based upon the comparison of EP to

CV, the petitioners calculated an

estimated dumping margin of 116

percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigation

As noted above, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, the petitioners

provided information demonstrating

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales in the home market of South

Africa were made at prices below the

fully absorbed COP and, accordingly,

requested that the Department conduct

a country-wide sales-below-COP

investigation in connection with the

requested antidumping investigations

for this country. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), submitted

to the U.S. Congress in connection with

the interpretation and application of the

URAA, states that an allegation of sales

below COP need not be specific to

individual exporters or producers. SAA,

H. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d

Session, at 833(1994). The SAA, at 833,

states that ‘‘Commerce will consider

allegations of below-cost sales in the

aggregate for a foreign country, just as

Commerce currently considers

allegations of sales at less than fair value

on a country-wide basis for purposes of

initiating an antidumping

investigation.’’

Further, the SAA provides that ‘‘new

section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current

requirement that Commerce have

’reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’ that below cost sales have

occurred before initiating such an

investigation. ’Reasonable grounds’

* * * exist when an interested party

provides specific factual information on

costs and prices, observed or

constructed, indicating that sales in the

foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.’’ Id. Based upon the

comparison of the LMB low prices for

ferrovanadium to the COP for South

African producers, we find the existence

of ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that sales of foreign like

product in South Africa were made at

prices below their respective COPs

within the meaning of section

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

the Department is initiating the

requested country-wide cost

investigation.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of ferrovanadium from the

PRC and South Africa are being, or are

likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petitioners allege that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. Individually, the

volume of imports from the PRC and

South Africa, using the latest available

data, exceeded the statutory threshold of

seven percent for a negligibility

exclusion. Therefore, when cumulated,

the volumes for these two countries also

exceed the threshold. See section

771(24)(A)(ii) of the Act. Petitioners

contend that the industry’s injured

condition is evidenced in the declining

trends in operating profits, decreased

U.S. market share, and price

suppression and depression. The

allegations of injury and causation are

supported by relevant evidence

including U.S. Customs import data,

domestic consumption, and pricing

information. We have assessed the

allegations and supporting evidence

regarding material injury and causation,

and have determined that these

allegations are properly supported by

accurate and adequate evidence and

meet the statutory requirements for

initiation. See Initiation Checklist.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based on our examination of the

petition on ferrovanadium, and the

petitioners’ response to our

supplemental questionnaire clarifying

the petition, we find that the petition

meets the requirements of section 732 of

the Act. See Initiation Checklist.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of

ferrovanadium from the PRC and South

Africa are being, or are likely to be, sold

in the United States at less than fair

value. Unless this deadline is extended,

we will make our preliminary

determinations no later than 140 days

after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

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

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of the PRC and South

Africa. We will attempt to provide a

copy of the public version of the

petition to each exporter named in the

petition, as appropriate.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine, no later than

January 10, 2002 whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

ferrovanadium from the PRC and South

Africa are causing material injury, or

threatening to cause material injury, to

a U.S. industry. A negative ITC

determination for any country will

result in the investigation being

terminated with respect to that country;

otherwise, these investigations will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is issued and published

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: December 17, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–31643 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–825]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Final Results of Administrative

Antidumping Review: Oil Country

Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe,

From Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Lindsay or Thomas Gilgunn,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0780

and (202) 482–4236, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices 66403

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act) are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 351

(2000).

Background

On August 11, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on oil country

tubular goods, other than drill pipe,

(OCTG) from Korea (60 FR 41057). On

August 31, 2000, the Department

received a timely request from SeAH to

conduct an administrative review

pursuant to section 351.213(b)(2) of the

Department’s regulations. We published

a notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

on OCTG on October 2, 2000 (65 FR

58733).

The Department subsequently

determined it was not practicable to

complete the review within the standard

time frame, and extended the deadline

for completion of the preliminary

results for this antidumping duty

administrative review. See Oil Country

Tubular Goods from Korea: Extension of

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review, 66

FR 23232 (May 8, 2001). On September

10, 2001, the Department published the

preliminary results of this

administrative review. See Oil Country

Tubular Goods From Korea: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 66 FR 46999

(September 10, 2001).

Extension of Time Limits for Final

Results

Due to the need to analyze comments

on inland freight expenses and indirect

selling expenses, it is not practicable to

complete the review within the initial

time limits mandated by section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we

are extending the due date for the final

results of this review until March 9,

2002.

Dated: December 13, 2001.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–31642 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–828]

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Taiwan:

Notice of Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping duty administrative review

for the period September 1, 2000

through August 31, 2001.

SUMMARY: On October 26, 2001, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) initiated an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on Stainless Steel Wire Rod (SSWR)

from Taiwan for one manufacturer/

exporter of subject merchandise, Walsin

Lihwa Corporation (Walsin), for the

period September 1, 2000 through

August 31, 2001. The Department is

rescinding this review after receiving a

timely withdrawal from the party

requesting this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alexander Amdur or Karine Gziryan,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, Office

4, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–5346 or

(202) 482–4081, respectively; fax (202)

482–5105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions in effect as of January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Act by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR part

351 (2001).

Background

On September 25, 2001, the

Department received a timely request

from Walsin that we conduct an

administrative review of its sales for the

period September 1, 2000 through

August 31, 2001. On October 23, 2001,

the Department initiated an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on SSWR from

Taiwan for the period of review (POR),

September 1, 2000 through August 31,

2001, in order to determine whether

merchandise imported into the United

States is being sold at dumped prices.

On October 26, 2001, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of initiation of this administrative

review on SSWR from Taiwan for the

POR. See Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Request for Revocation in

Part, 66 FR 54195 (October 26, 2001).

On November 21, 2001, Walsin

withdrew its request for a review.

Rescission of 2000–2001 Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the

Department will rescind an

administrative review if a party that

requested the review withdraws the

request within 90 days of the date of

publication of the notice of initiation of

the requested review. Because Walsin

submitted its request for rescission

within the 90-day time limit and there

were no other requests for review from

an interested party, we are rescinding

this review. As such, we will issue

appropriate assessment instructions

directly to the U. S. Customs Service.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely

written notification of the return or

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is in accordance with

section 751 of the Act and section 19

CFR 351.213(d)(4) of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: December 17, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, Group II.

[FR Doc. 01–31641 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 121801E]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.