Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2001 / Notices 12759

Period to be reviewed

Countervailing Duty Proceedings

None.

Suspension Agreements

None.

1 Inadvertently omitted from previous initiation notice.

During any administrative review

covering all or part of a period falling

between the first and second or third

and fourth anniversary of the

publication of an antidumping duty

order under section 351.211 or a

determination under section

351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or

suspended investigation (after sunset

review), the Secretary, if requested by a

domestic interested party within 30

days of the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the review, will

determine whether antidumping duties

have been absorbed by an exporter or

producer subject to the review if the

subject merchandise is sold in the

United States through an importer that

is affiliated with such exporter or

producer. The request must include the

name(s) of the exporter or producer for

which the inquiry is requested.

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.

These initiations and this notice are

in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR

351.221(c)(1)(i).

Dated: February 26, 2001.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II

for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–5005 Filed 2–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration A–

428–825

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils

From Germany; 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

limits for the preliminary results of the

1999–2000 administrative review of the

antidumping duty order (A–428–825) on

stainless steel sheet and strip in coils

from Germany. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States,

Krupp Thyssen Nirosta GmbH (KTN),

and the period January 4, 1999 through

June 30, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin Odenyo at (202) 482–5254 or

Robert James at (202) 482–0649,

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement Group III, Office Eight,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it

is not practicable to complete these

reviews within the normal statutory

time limit, the Department is extending

the time limits for completion of the

preliminary results until July 31, 2001

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

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

See Memorandum from Richard O.

Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini, on file in

Room B–099 of the main Commerce

building. The deadline for the final

results of this review will continue to be

120 days after publication of the

preliminary results.

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) (2000)).

Dated: February 20, 2001.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–4896 Filed 2–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–819, A–570–859, A–557–810]

Notice of Final Determinations of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire

Rope From India and the People’s

Republic of China; Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Not Less

Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope From

Malaysia

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 2001.

ACTION: Notice of final determinations of

sales at less than fair value and notice

of sales at not less than fair value.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keir

Whitson or Gabriel Adler, at (202) 482–

1777 or (202) 482–3813, respectively;

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 5, Group

II, Import Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to Department of

Commerce (Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 2000).

Final Determinations

We determine that steel wire rope

from India and the People’s Republic of

China (PRC) is being sold, or is likely to

be sold, in the United States at less than

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section

735 of the Act. We also determine that

steel wire rope from Malaysia is not

being sold in the United States at LTFV.

The estimated margins of sales at LTFV

are shown in the Continuation of

12760 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioner in these investigations is the

Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope and

Specialty Cable Manufacturers.

2There was no allegation of critical

circumstances in the Malaysia case.

Suspension of Liquidation section of

this notice.

Case History

The preliminary determinations in

these investigations were issued on

September 25, 2000. See Notice of

Preliminary Determinations of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope

from India and the People’s Republic of

China; Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Not Less Than

Fair Value: Steel Wire Rope from

Malaysia, 65 FR 58736 (October 2, 2000)

(Steel Wire Rope Preliminary

Determinations).

In the India investigation, we

conducted verification of the cost and

sales information submitted by

respondent Usha Martin Industries, Ltd.

(Usha) from October 16 through October

20, 2000, and from November 6 through

November 10, 2000, respectively. In

addition, we conducted a verification of

Usha’s constructed export price (CEP)

information on December 13 and 14,

2000. The petitioner 1 requested a

hearing in this case on October 30, 2000,

and withdrew this request on January

17, 2000. No other interested party

requested a hearing. Usha and the

petitioner submitted case briefs on

January 10, 2001. The petitioner

submitted a rebuttal brief on January 16,

2001; Usha did not submit a rebuttal

brief.

In the PRC investigation, we

conducted verification of the sales and

factors of production information

submitted by respondents Nantong

Zhongde (Nantong), and Fasten Group

Import and Export Co., Ltd. (Fasten)

from October 9 through October 13,

2000, and October 16 through October,

20, 2000, respectively. In addition, we

conducted a verification of Fasten

USA’s CEP information on October 23

and October 24, 2000. Counsel to

Nantong and the petitioner requested a

hearing on October 27 and October 30,

2000, respectively. Nantong, Fasten,

Dragon Trading, Inc. (an interested

party), and the petitioner submitted case

briefs on December 15, 2000. On

December 21, 2000, Fasten submitted to

the Department an allegation that

certain portions of the petitioner’s case

brief contained new factual information.

Dragon Trading, Inc. submitted a

rebuttal brief on December 22; Nantong,

Fasten, and the petitioner submitted

rebuttal briefs on December 27, 2000.

On January 5, 2001, the Department

held a public hearing in the PRC

investigation. On January 9, 2001, the

Department rejected certain pages in the

petitioner’s case brief containing new

factual information. See Memorandum

to the File (January 9, 2001).

In the Malaysia investigation, we

conducted verification of the cost and

sales information submitted by

respondent Kiswire SDN.BHD (Kiswire)

from October 23 through October 26,

2000, and October 30 through November

2, 2000, respectively. In addition, we

conducted a verification of Kiswire’s

CEP information on November 14, 2000.

Kiswire and the petitioner requested a

hearing in this case on October 24, 2000,

and October 30, 2000, respectively. Both

parties submitted case briefs on

December 21, 2000, and rebuttal briefs

on January 4, 2001. Kiswire and the

petitioner withdrew their requests for a

hearing on January 9 and January 10,

2001, respectively.

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

the product covered is steel wire rope.

Steel wire rope encompasses ropes,

cables, and cordage of iron or carbon or

stainless steel, other than stranded wire,

not fitted with fittings or made up into

articles, and not made up of brass-plated

wire. Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under

subheadings: 7312.10.6030,

7312.10.6060, 7312.10.9030,

7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs Service

purposes, the written description of the

scope of these investigations is

dispositive.

Period of Investigations

The period of the investigations (POI)

is January 1, 1999, through December

31, 1999, for India and Malaysia, and

July 1, 1999, through December 31,

1999, for the PRC.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to these

antidumping proceedings are listed in

the Appendix to this notice and

addressed in the Decision Memorandum

for each of the instant investigations,

dated February 14, 2001, which are

hereby adopted by this notice. The

Decision Memorandum for each case is

on file in room B–099 of the main

Department of Commerce building. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum for each

investigation can be accessed directly

on the World Wide Web at

www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/

records/frn. The paper and electronic

versions of each Decision Memorandum

are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary

Determinations

Based on our findings at verification,

and analysis of comments received, we

have made adjustments to the

preliminary determination calculation

methodologies in calculating the final

dumping margins in these proceedings.

These adjustments are discussed in the

case-specific Decision Memorandum for

each of the instant investigations.

Critical Circumstances

Section 735(a)(3) of the Act provides

that the Department will determine that

critical circumstances exist if: (A)(i)

there is a history of dumping and

material injury by reason of dumped

imports in the United States or

elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose

account, the merchandise was imported

knew or should have known that the

exporter was selling the subject

merchandise at less than its fair value

and that there would be material injury

by reason of such sales, and (B) there

have been massive imports of the

subject merchandise over a relatively

short period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of

the Department’s regulations provides

that, in determining whether imports of

the subject merchandise have been

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally

will examine: (i) The volume and value

of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and

(iii) the share of domestic consumption

accounted for by the imports. In

addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the

Department’s regulations provides that

an increase in imports of 15 percent or

more during the ‘‘relatively short

period’’ of time may be considered

‘‘massive.’’

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s

regulations defines ‘‘relatively short

period’’ as normally being the period

beginning on the date the proceeding

begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed)

and ending at least three months later.

The regulations also provide, however,

that if the Department finds that

importers, exporters, or producers, had

reason to believe, at some time prior to

the beginning of the proceeding, that a

proceeding was likely, the Department

may consider a period of not less than

three months from that earlier time.

On August 25, 2000, the petitioner

made allegations that critical

circumstances exist with respect to

imports of steel wire rope from India

and the PRC.2 In the Steel Wire Rope

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2001 / Notices 12761

3The ‘‘all others’’ category in a non-market

economy proceeding, unlike the ‘‘all others’’

category in a market-economy investigation, only

includes companies that demonstrated entitlement

to separate rates and expressed a willingness to

participate in the proceeding, but whose responses

were not examined due to limited Department

resources.

We note that the ‘‘all others’’ rate for this final

determination is the rate assigned to Nantong, the

only investigated respondent with a rate above de

minimis. This is consistent with our methodology

of setting the ‘‘all others’’ rate in NME cases on the

weighted average of calculated margins, excluding

rates that are de minimis, based entirely on facts

available, or calculated for voluntary respondents.

See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice

Concentrate from the People’s Republic of China.

65 FR 19873 (April 13, 2000).

Preliminary Determinations, we found

preliminarily that critical circumstances

existed with respect to both countries.

Since the preliminary determinations,

we have received comments on the

issue of critical circumstances from

Usha, Fasten, Nantong, Dragon Trading

Inc., and the petitioner. After

consideration of these comments, which

are discussed in detail in the respective

Decision Memorandum for each case,

we find that critical circumstances exist

in the India case for both Usha and all

other Indian producer/exporters of

subject merchandise. We also find that

critical circumstances exist in the PRC

case for Nantong, the six companies

which received an ‘‘all others’’ 3 rate,

and all non-responsive companies,

which are included in the ‘‘PRC-wide’’

category. Finally, we find that critical

circumstances do not exist for Fasten

because Fasten’s final dumping margin

is de minimis. These determinations are

discussed in detail in the Decision

Memorandum for each case.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing

the Customs Service to continue to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

steel wire rope exported from India and

the PRC, with the exception of

merchandise produced by Fasten Co.,

Ltd. and exported by Fasten Group

Import and Export Co., Ltd., that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after July 4, 2000,

(90 days prior to the date of publication

of the preliminary determinations in the

Federal Register). The Customs Service

shall continue to require a cash deposit

or the posting of a bond based on the

estimated weighted-average dumping

margins shown below. Because we have

determined that steel wire rope

produced by Fasten Co., Ltd. and

exported by Fasten Group Import and

Export Co., Ltd., in the PRC is not being

sold at LTFV, we are not directing the

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

of this merchandise. The suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice.

Because we have determined that

steel wire rope from Malaysia is not

being sold at LTFV, we are not directing

the Customs Service to suspend

liquidation of steel wire rope exported

from Malaysia.

We determine that the following

weighted-average dumping margins for

India, the PRC, and Malaysia exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

India:

Usha Martin Industries, Ltd ... 38.63

All Others .............................. 38.63

People’s Republic of China:

Fasten Group Import and Export Co., Ltd ...................... 2 0.02

Haicheng Greatx Industry

Co. Ltd.1 ............................ 42.23

Henan Baoi Wire Rope Factory 1 .................................. 42.23

Jiangsu COFCO 1 ................. 42.23

Jiangsu Guo Tai 1 ................. 42.23

Liaoning Metals & Minerals

Import & Export Corp.1 ...... 42.23

Nantong Wire Rope Company 1 ................................. 42.23

Nantong Zhongde ................. 42.23

PRC–Wide Rate .................... 58.00

Malaysia:

Kiswire SDN.BHD ................. 2 0.26

All Others .............................. 2 0.26

1All others.

2 De minimis.

The PRC-wide rate applies to all

entries of the subject merchandise

except for entries from exporters/

factories that are identified individually

above.

International Trade Commission

Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (ITC) of

our determinations. As our final

determinations are affirmative for India

and the PRC, the ITC will determine,

within 45 days, whether imports of

subject merchandise from India and the

PRC are causing material injury, or

threaten material injury, to an industry

in the United States. If the ITC

determines that material injury or threat

of injury does not exist, the proceedings

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue

antidumping orders directing Customs

Service 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.

These determinations are issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: February 14, 2001.

Timothy J. Hauser,

Acting Under Secretary for International

Trade.

Appendix

Issues Covered in Decision Memorandum for

India

1. Facts Available

2. Major Input Rule

3. Financial Expense Ratio

4. Duty Drawback

5. Home Market Credit Expense

6. Home Market Warehousing Expense

7. Critical Circumstances

8. Treatment of Negative Margins

9. Ministerial Errors

Issues Covered in Decision Memorandum for

the PRC

1. Surrogate Value for Wire Rod

2. Surrogate Value for Fiber Cores

3. Surrogate Value for Wood Pallets

4. Surrogate Value for Sulphuric Acid

5. Surrogate Value for Nuts and Bolts

6. Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid

7. Surrogate Value for Lead

8. Surrogate Value for Electricity

9. Surrogate Value for Zinc Nitrate

10. Use of a Market Economy Rate for Ocean

Freight

11. Critical Circumstances

12. Correction of Ministerial Error for

Valuing International Freight

13. Correction of Ministerial Error for the

Conversion Factor of Wood Reels

Issues Covered in Decision Memorandum for

Malaysia

1. Mandatory Respondents and ‘‘All Others’’

Rate

2. Cost Reporting for Grade and Lay of Rope

3. Model Match Hierarchy

4. Adjustments to Home Market and U.S.

Market Short-Term Borrowing Rates

5. Treatment of Negative Margins

6. General and Administrative Expense

7. Financial Expense Ratio

[FR Doc. 01–4895 Filed 2–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–604]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Japan; Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.