11564 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices

4See Final Results and accompanying Decision

Memo at Comments 18–21.

1 Due to a clerical error, this FR notice failed to

portray accurately all the companies participating

in the review. An updated company list was

reflected in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

See Amended Notice of Initiation and Rescission in

Part for the 1999–2000 Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 48968 (August 10,

2000).

Accordingly, we are revoking the order

with respect to merchandise produced

and exported by Wafangdian.

Analysis of Comments Received

We have addressed all of the

comments regarding the ministerial

error allegations in the Memorandum to

Susan Kuhbach, ‘‘Ministerial Error

Allegations for Final Results of Review’’

(February 12, 2001). As explained in

that memorandum, correction of the

ministerial errors for Wafangdian

resulted in a zero margin for

Wafangdian (see Memorandum to File,

‘‘Calculations for Amended Final

Results for Wafangdian’’ (February 12,

2001) for the calculation changes made

to the final results). Accordingly, as

noted above, we have determined to

revoke the antidumping duty order with

respect to Wafangdian.

In the Final Results, we did not

address certain comments regarding

revocation raised in the briefs and

rebuttal briefs of interested parties,

noting that those issues were moot

because we found the respondents

ineligible for revocation (either based on

the fact that they did not make sales

above normal value in the instant

review or that they did not make sales

in commercial quantities during the

three-year period being analyzed).4

Since, in light of Wafangdian’s amended

zero margin, these issues are no longer

moot, we have addressed parties’

comments regarding revocation in a

separate memorandum. See

Memorandum from Richard W.

Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration, to Bernard T.

Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and

Decision Memorandum for Amended

Final Results’’ (February 14, 2001).

Parties can find a complete discussion

of all issues raised in these amended

final results and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum, which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the

main Department building. In addition,

a complete version of this memorandum

can be accessed directly on the Web at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/

list.htm. The paper copy and electronic

version of this memorandum are

identical in content.

Amended Final Results

Based on our review of comments

received regarding ministerial errors, we

have made the following change to the

Final Results. We have incorporated

into our calculation of Wafangdian’s

weighted average margin the revisions

to certain packing material and labor

figures, as detailed in exhibits 6 and 7

of Wafangdian’s March 14, 2000

submission.

We have also corrected a

typographical error in the PRC-wide

cash deposit rate in the final results.

The correct PRC-wide (country-wide)

cash deposit rate is 33.18 percent.

Based on these revisions, we

determine that the following dumping

margins exist for the period June 1, 1998

through May 31, 1999:

Manufacturer/exporter

Revised

margin

(percent)

Wafangdian ................................... 0.00

Wanxiang ...................................... 0.00

CMC .............................................. 0.82

ZMC .............................................. 7.37

Liaoning ........................................ 0.00

Hailin ............................................. 0.00

Weihai ........................................... 0.00

Luoyang ........................................ 4.37

Premier ......................................... 7.36

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections section 751(a)(1) and

771(i) of the Act.

Dated: February 16, 2001.

Timothy J. Hauser,

Acting Under Secretary for International

Trade.

Appendix—List of Comments and

Issues in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: The Department Should Grant

Revocations

Comment 2: Limiting Revocation to Certain

Trading Companies

Comment 3: Limiting Revocation to

Particular Models

[FR Doc. 01–4657 Filed 2–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–601]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From the People’s Republic of China;

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

1999–2000 Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limit.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is extending the time limit for the

preliminary results of the thirteenth

review of the antidumping duty order

on tapered roller bearings and parts

thereof, finished and unfinished, from

the People’s Republic of China. The

period of review is June 1, 1999 through

May 31, 2000. This extension is made

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jarrod Goldfeder or Melani Miller,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0189 or

(202) 482–0116, 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 Round

Agreements Act and all citations to the

regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351

(2000).

Statutory Time Limits

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act

requires the Department to issue the

preliminary results of an administrative

review within 245 days after the last day

of the anniversary month of an order for

which a review is requested and a final

determination within 120 days after the

date on which the preliminary results

are published. However, if it is not

practicable to complete the review

within the time period, section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the

Department to extend these deadlines to

a maximum of 365 days and 180 days,

respectively.

Background

On July 31, 2000, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings from the People’s

Republic of China, covering the period

June 1, 1999, through May 31, 2000 (65

FR 46687).1 The preliminary results for

the antidumping duty administrative

review of tapered roller bearings from

the People’s Republic of China are

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 38 / Monday, February 26, 2001 / Notices 11565

currently due no later than March 2,

2001.

Extension of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results

Due to the number of companies and

complexity of the issues, it is not

practicable to complete this review

within the originally anticipated time

limit (i.e., March 2, 2001). See

Memorandum from Team to Richard W.

Moreland, ‘‘Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results,’’ dated, February

20, 2001. Therefore, the Department of

Commerce is extending the time limit

for completion of the preliminary

results to not later than June 29, 2001,

in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A)

of the Act.

We are issuing and publishing this

notice in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: February 20, 2001.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD

Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 01–4660 Filed 2–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

[CPSC Docket No. 01–C0005]

The West Bend Company, a Subsidiary

of Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Provisional

Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement

and Order

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: It is the policy of the

Commission to publish settlements

which it provisionally accepts under the

Consumer Product Safety Act in the

Federal Register in accordance with the

terms of 16 CFR 1118.20. Published

below is a provisionally-accepted

Settlement Agreement with The West

Bend Company, A Subsidiary of Illinois

Tool Works, Inc., containing a civil

penalty of $225,000.

DATES: Any interested person may ask

the Commission not to accept this

agreement or otherwise comment on its

contents by filing a written request with

the Office of the Secretary by March 13,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to

comment on this Settlement Agreement

should send written comments to the

Comment 01–C0005, Office of the

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jimmie L. Williams, Trial Attorney,

Office of Compliance and Enforcement,

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone

(301) 504–0626, 1376.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

the Agreement and Order appears

below.

Dated: February 20, 2001.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

Settlement Agreement and Order

1. The West Bend Company (‘‘West

Bend’’), a Subsidiary of Illinois Tool

Works, Inc. enters into this Settlement

Agreement and Order with the staff

(‘‘the staff’’) of the U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission (‘‘the

Commission’’) in accordance with 16

CFR Part 1118, section 20 of the

Commission’s Procedures for

Investigations, Inspections, and

Inquiries under the Consumer Product

Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’).

I. The Parties

2. The Commission is an independent

federal regulatory agency responsible for

the enforcement of the Consumer

Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051–

2084.

3. West Bend is a subsidiary of Illinois

Tool Works, a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the State

of Delaware. West Bend’s principal

offices are located at 400 Washington

Street, West Bend, Wisconsin 53095.

II. Staff Allegations

4. Between May, 1997 and December,

1998, West Bend manufactured and sold

approximately 16,004 120 volt model

10120 water distillers. These units were

manufactured for sale to several

companies, who sold the product under

their private labels, and to distributors

both inside and outside of the United

States. These water distillers were then

sold to consumers throughout the U.S.

for use in or around households or

residences. Therefore, West Bend is a

‘‘manufacturer’’ of a ‘‘consumer

product’’ ‘‘distributed in commerce’’

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4) and

(11).

5. The water distiller consists of three

pieces: a main housing, a boiling

chamber and a depository tank. The

boiling chamber is filled with water,

and the consumer pushes a button to

turn the product on. The main housing

then heats up the water, and directs the

residual steam through condensing

coils. A motor, which sits on top of the

distiller, activates and operates a

cooling fan that blows over the

condensing coils. The water then

condenses and drips into the depository

tank. The total time for distilling one

gallon of water is four hours.

6. A defect within the water distiller’s

motor made the unit susceptible to

voltage surges. When subjected to these

surges, the motor produced electrical

arcs and would catch on fire. The

resultant motor fire would destroy the

water distiller, and presented a fire

hazard to the consumer.

7. In November, 1998, West Bend

learned from its regional distributor that

two (2) of its water distillers failed in

Taiwan. The consumers reported

hearing explosive and popping sounds,

and observed flames and smoke coming

out of the top of the product. The fires

then spread to surrounding

combustibles, and damaged the

consumers’ homes. The regional

distributor informed West Bend that he

suspected that the motor burned and

was the source of the fires.

8. In December, 1998, West Bend

contracted with an outside consultant to

help it determine the cause of their

failures, and received the failed Taiwan

unit in Wisconsin. In the interim, West

Bend elected to place a fuse in line with

the motor circuit, and made the housing

material more flame retardant. Upon its

initial examination of the failed Taiwan

units, West Bend preliminarily opined

that voltage surges were causing the

product’s motor to fail.

9. In January, 1999, West Bend

learned of a third water distiller failure

in Taiwan in which the unit was

reported to have melted. The following

day West Bend’s General Counsel sent

a letter to the Hong Kong counsel of the

motor manufacturer, and notified him of

West Bend’s intent to seek

indemnification for the above incidents.

10. On February 1, 1999, the West

Bend consultant arranged for the first

tests to be conducted on sample water

distiller motors. These voltage surge

tests were run on February 11, 1999,

and reproduced the failure scenario. On

February 22, 1999, West Bend’s

consultant inquired about the ‘‘need to

determine whether a recall is required.’’

IN April, 1999, West Bend elected to

recall the water distillers sold in

Taiwan. On April 30, 1999, West Bend’s

consultant reported that the motors

were susceptible to voltage surges, and

could fail in castastrophic fashion.

Between April, 1999 and August, 1999,

six (6) similar water distiller failures

occurred in the United States. Again,

the fires spead outside of the product,

and damaged the consumers’ homes.

The above information reasonably

supported the conclusion that the

product contained a defect that could

create a substantial product hazard.