[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59569-59573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29633]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Preliminary Results of 
New Shipper Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of new shipper reviews of tapered 
roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to requests from Peer Bearing Company--Changshan 
and Yantai Timken Company Limited, the Department of Commerce is 
conducting new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered 
roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China. These reviews cover these companies' 
entries of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and 
unfinished, to the United States during the period June 1, 2000 through 
November 30, 2000 for Yantai Timken Company Limited and June 1, 2000 
through January 31, 2001 for Peer Bearing Company--Changshan.
    We have preliminarily found that, during the periods of review, 
Peer Bearing Company--Changshan and Yantai Timken Company Limited have 
made sales below normal value. The preliminary results are listed below 
in the Preliminary Results of the Reviews section. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the Customs 
Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between 
the constructed export price and normal value. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jarrod Goldfeder or Anthony Grasso, 
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) 482-3853, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective 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 references to the Department of 
Commerce's (``the Department'') regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 
(2000).

Background

    On December 28, 2000, Peer Bearing Company--Changshan (``CPZ'') 
requested that we conduct a new shipper review. On December 29, 2000, a 
similar request was made by Yantai Timken Company Limited (``Yantai 
Timken''). We published the notice of initiation for these new shipper 
reviews on January 31, 2001 (66 FR 8385) with a period of review 
(``POR'') covering June 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000 for Yantai 
Timken and CPZ . On May 9, 2001, the Department expanded CPZ's POR 
through January 31, 2001. See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach: ``Expansion 
of the Period of Review,'' dated May 9, 2001, on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), in room B-099 of the main 
Commerce building.
    On January 26, 2001, we sent out antidumping questionnaires to both 
Yantai Timken and CPZ. We received responses to these questionnaires 
from both companies in February and March 2001. We issued and received 
responses to supplemental questionnaires in April and May 2001.

Continuation of New Shipper Review

    In a letter dated October 26, 2001, the petitioner submitted 
comments urging the Department to discontinue the new shipper review of 
CPZ. Due to the proprietary nature of these comments, we are unable to 
restate them here.
    We have analyzed the petitioner's comments. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.214(f), the Department may rescind a new shipper review if: (1) 
There has not been an entry and sale to an unaffiliated customer in the 
U.S. of subject merchandise, or (2) if a party withdraws its request 
for review not later than 60 days after the date of publication of 
notice of initiation of the requested review. CPZ does not meet either 
of these criteria for discontinuing a new shipper review. Therefore, 
the Department is not rescinding the new shipper review of CPZ.

Scope of the Order

    Merchandise covered by this order includes tapered roller bearings 
(``TRBs'') and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''); flange, take up cartridge, and 
hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller 
housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or 
without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise 
is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 
8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 
8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of the order and this review is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by CPZ and Yantai Timken, using standard verification 
procedures, including onsite inspection of manufacturers' 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

[[Page 59570]]

versions of the verification reports that are available in the 
Department's CRU. For the verification report of Yantai Timken, see 
Memorandum to John Brinkmann: ``Yantai Timken Company Limited 
Verification Report,'' dated September 26, 2001. For the report of CPZ, 
see Memorandum to John Brinkmann: ``Peer Bearing Company--Changshan 
Verification Report,'' dated October 3, 2001.

Separate Rates Determination

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') 
country in all previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME shall remain in effect until revoked by the Department. None of 
the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this 
review. Moreover, parties to this proceeding have not argued that the 
PRC TRB industry is a market-oriented industry. Therefore, we are 
treating the PRC as an NME country within the meaning of section 773(c) 
of the Act.
    We allow companies in NME countries to receive separate antidumping 
duty rates for purposes of assessment and cash deposits when those 
companies can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to export activities. To establish whether a 
company operating in an NME country is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon 
Carbide''). As shown below, CPZ and Yantai Timken meet both the de jure 
and de facto criteria and are entitled, therefore, to a separate rate. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to apply a rate separate from 
the PRC rate to CPZ and Yantai Timken.

De Jure Analysis

    The Department considers three factors which support, though do not 
require, a finding of de jure absence of governmental control. These 
factors include: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any 
other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of 
companies.
    During the PORs, both Yantai Timken and CPZ were joint ventures 
formed under the laws of the PRC and controlled by a board of 
directors. Yantai Timken was a joint venture majority owned by The 
Timken Company, with a minority interest held by Yantai Bearing 
Factory. Yantai Bearing Factory is a state-owned company administered 
by the Yantai Machinery Bureau, which is under the Yantai municipal 
government. CPZ is also a joint venture with majority interest held by 
a U.S. company and minority interest held by a PRC company (that is not 
a state-owned enterprise).
    Information submitted during this review indicates that Yantai 
Bearing Factory is owned ``by all of the people.'' In Silicon Carbide 
(at 22586), we found that the PRC central government had devolved 
control of state-owned enterprises, i.e., enterprises owned ``by all of 
the people.'' As a result, we determined that companies owned ``by all 
of the people'' were eligible for individual rates if they met the 
criteria developed in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, as described 
above.
    Yantai Timken and CPZ have placed documents on the record that they 
claim demonstrate the absence of de jure governmental control. 
Additionally, in prior TRB cases, the Department has analyzed similar 
PRC laws and regulations, and found that they establish an absence of 
de jure control.
    Yantai Timken's and CPZ's separation from the government is 
explicitly shown under the provisions of Article 3 of the Sino-Foreign 
Joint Venture Law of the People's Republic of China which grants 
companies ``the right to do business and conduct business management 
activities independently.'' The business licenses issued to Yantai 
Timken and CPZ authorize these companies to make domestic and export 
sales of tapered roller bearings as outlined in their respective 
business scopes.
    Other laws placed on the record in this case--the ``Law of the 
People's Republic of China on Foreign-Capital Enterprises,'' effective 
April 12, 1986 (``1986 Law''); ``Regulations of the PRC for Controlling 
the Registration of Enterprises as Legal Persons,'' adopted on May 13, 
1988 (``1988 Regulations''); and ``Company Law of the PRC,'' effective 
July 1, 1994 (``1994 Law'')--also demonstrate a lack of de jure 
governmental control. The 1986 Law states that the government will not 
nationalize or requisition any enterprise with foreign capital allowing 
companies to facilitate their own business within the laws of the PRC. 
Chapter X of the 1988 Regulations discusses supervision and control, 
and allows companies to conduct business operations as legal persons in 
line with the items of registration and in accordance with company 
articles of association and contracts. The 1994 Law places 
responsibility for profits and losses with each company, further 
demonstrating lack of de jure control.
    There is no indication from the company responses that the subject 
merchandise is listed on any governmental list of export provisions or 
export licensing. In addition, there are no reported export quotas 
regarding the subject merchandise. Consistent with Silicon Carbide, we 
preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure 
governmental control over Yantai Timken and CPZ's export pricing and 
marketing decisions.

De Facto Analysis

    The Department uses four factors to determine de facto absence of 
government control: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export 
prices independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds 
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management (see Silicon Carbide, 
59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589).
    The following record evidence, which is contained in CPZ's and 
Yantai Timken's questionnaire responses and the Department's company-
specific verification reports, demonstrates a lack of de facto 
government control over the export activities of both companies.
    Both Yantai Timken and CPZ have asserted that they establish their 
own export prices. However, in order to pass the subject merchandise 
through PRC Customs, both companies are required to have a stamp of 
approval from their local Chamber of Commerce confirming that the 
company-established price is above a minimum. The authority of any PRC 
Chamber of Commerce to review prices for minimum values derives from 
the ``Interim Provisions on Implementing Seal upon Price Preview 
Process for Export Price Control on Certain Key Merchandise.'' During 
verification, each company stated that it was never prevented from 
exporting subject merchandise due to the level of its selling price. 
Additionally, according

[[Page 59571]]

to their responses, neither company coordinated or consulted with other 
exporters regarding its pricing.
    The board of directors of Yantai Timken controls the company and 
chooses the general manager. Other high-level officials are nominated 
by the general manager and approved by the board. The general manager 
and the vice-managers of CPZ are appointed by the company's board of 
directors. Outside of board approval, the general manager may appoint 
mid-level management and make daily routine manufacturing and 
merchandise decisions. Although both companies report the board members 
and the appointed managers to the PRC government, there is no evidence 
that any government authority controls the selection process or has 
rejected senior managers selected.
    CPZ's and Yantai Timken's sources of funds are their own respective 
revenues or bank loans. They have sole control over, and access to, 
their bank accounts, which are held in CPZ's and Yantai Timken's own 
names. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on the use of the 
respondents' revenues or profits, including export earnings.
    The general managers of both companies have the right to negotiate 
and enter into contracts, and may delegate this authority to other 
employees within the companies. There is no evidence that this 
authority is subject to any level of governmental approval.
    This information supports a preliminary finding that there is an 
absence of de facto governmental control of the export functions of 
Yantai Timken and CPZ. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that 
Yantai Timken and CPZ have met the criteria for the application of 
separate rates.

Constructed Export Price

    For all sales made by CPZ and Yantai Timken to the United States, 
we used constructed export price (``CEP'') in accordance with section 
772(b) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price 
at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States 
before or after the date of importation, by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted 
under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse prices from 
CPZ's and Yantai Timken's U.S. subsidiaries to unaffiliated customers. 
We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for CEP 
for international freight, foreign brokerage and handling, foreign 
inland freight, marine insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage, U.S. 
warehousing, and U.S. inland freight. In accordance with 772(d)(1) of 
the Act, we made further deductions from the starting price for CEP for 
the following selling expenses that related to economic activity in the 
United States: commissions, credit expenses, further manufacturing, 
repacking costs, and indirect selling expenses (including inventory 
carrying costs). For CPZ, we adjusted upwards its reported indirect 
selling expenses. For more information, see Preliminary Results 
Calculation Memorandum for CPZ (November 20, 2001). In accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we have deducted from the starting price 
an amount for profit. For information on how profit was calculated, see 
``Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit'' in the ``Normal Value'' section 
below.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine normal value (``NV'') using a factors-of-production (``FOP'') 
methodology if: (1) the subject merchandise is exported from an NME 
country, and (2) the Department finds that the available information 
does not permit the calculation of NV under section 773(a) of the Act. 
We have no basis to determine that the available information would 
permit the calculation of NV using PRC prices or costs. Therefore, we 
calculated NV based on factors data in accordance with sections 
773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    Under the FOP methodology, we are required to value, to the extent 
possible, the NME producer's inputs in a market economy country that is 
at a comparable level of economic development and that is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. We chose India as the surrogate on 
the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR 351.408(b). For further 
discussion of our surrogate selection see Memorandum to John Brinkmann 
from Jeff May, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of TRBs and Parts, 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from the PRC: Nonmarket Economy Status 
and Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated January 29, 2001; and 
Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, ``Selection of a Surrogate Country and 
Steel Value Sources'' dated November 20, 2001 (``Steel Values Memo'').
    We used publicly available information on Indian imports and 
exports to India to value the various factors. Pursuant to the 
Department's FOP methodology, we valued the respondents' reported FOP 
by multiplying them by the values described below. For a complete 
description of the factor values used, see the Memorandum to Susan 
Kuhbach: ``Factors of Production Values Used for the Preliminary 
Results'' (``FOP Memo''), dated November 20, 2001, which is on file in 
the Department's CRU.
    1. Steel Inputs. For hot-rolled alloy steel bars used in the 
production of cups, consistent with Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 
Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 
(November 15, 2001) (``TRBs XIII''), we used an adjusted weighted-
average of Japanese export values to India from the Japanese Harmonized 
Schedule (``HS'') category 7228.30.900 obtained from Official Japan 
Ministry of Finance statistics. For a further discussion of selection 
of steel value sources, see the Steel Values Memo.
    As in previous administrative reviews in this proceeding, we 
eliminated from our calculation steel imports from NME countries and 
imports from market economy countries that were made in small 
quantities. We made adjustments to include freight costs incurred using 
the shorter of the reported distances from either the closest PRC port 
to the TRBs factory or the domestic supplier to the TRBs factory. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Collated Roofing Nails From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 51410 
(October 1, 1997), and Sigma Corporation v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    CPZ states that it manufactured the subject merchandise under 
review using steel purchased from a market economy producer. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we generally value steel inputs 
using the actual price reported for directly imported inputs from a 
market economy. However, in TRBs XIII, we found a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that certain market economy steel inputs purchased 
by PRC TRB manufacturers and used to manufacture TRBs were subsidized. 
Consistent with our treatment of subsidized inputs in TRBs XIII, we 
have not used the actual prices paid by CPZ for steel which we have 
continuing reason to believe or suspect is subsidized. Instead, we 
relied on surrogate values. (See individual company calculation 
memoranda for a more detailed company-specific discussion of this 
issue.)

[[Page 59572]]

    We valued scrap recovered from the production of cups, using Indian 
import statistics from Indian HS category 7204.2909.
    Because this information is contemporaneous with the current PORs, 
we made no further adjustments to the steel input data.
    2. Labor. 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-
based wage rate. We have used the regression-based wage rate available 
on Import Administration's internet website at www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages.
    3. Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit. For factory overhead, we 
used information obtained from the fiscal year 1999-2000 annual reports 
of five Indian bearing producers. We calculated factory overhead and 
selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses as percentages 
of direct inputs and applied these ratios to each producer's direct 
input costs. These expenses were calculated exclusive of labor and 
electricity, but included employer provident funds and welfare expenses 
not reflected in the Department's regressed wage rate. This is 
consistent with the methodology we utilized in TRBs XIII. For profit, 
we totaled the reported profit before taxes for the five Indian bearing 
producers and divided it by the total calculated cost of production 
(``COP'') of goods sold. This percentage was applied to each 
respondent's total COP to derive a company-specific profit value.
    4. Packing. We calculated surrogate values for packing materials 
reported by each company (e.g., wooden pallet, plastic bag, steel 
strip) using import statistics reported in Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India, Vol. II--Imports by Commodity (April 2000 
through January 2001). We multiplied these surrogate values by the 
usage factor reported by each company to calculate packing costs.
    5. Electricity. Consistent with Manganese Metal from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 15076 (March 15, 2001), we calculated our surrogate value 
for electricity based on a simple average of the 1998/1999 rates for 
the ``industrial'' category listed for 19 Indian states or electricity 
boards. The source of this data was the Energy Data Directory and 
Yearbook published by Tata Energy Research Institute. We adjusted the 
electricity value to the PORs using the Reserve Bank of India 
electricity-specific price index.
    6. Foreign Inland Freight. We valued truck freight using an average 
of November 1999 truck freight rate quotes collected from Indian 
trucking companies by the Department and used in the Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bulk 
Aspirin from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 116 (January 3, 
2000) (``Bulk Aspirin from the PRC''). We valued rail freight using two 
November 1999 rate quotes for domestic bearing quality steel shipments 
within India that were also used in Bulk Aspirin from the PRC. Because 
this information is not contemporaneous with the current PORs, we 
adjusted the freight rate to the PORs using the Indian wholesale price 
index (``WPI'').
    7. Ocean Freight. We calculated a value for ocean freight based on 
May 2000 rate quotes from Maersk Inc. Because this information is 
contemporaneous with the current PORs, no further calculations were 
necessary.
    8. Marine Insurance. We calculated a value for marine insurance 
based on the CIF value of shipped TRBs. This rate was obtained for 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1998-1999 
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination 
Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) through 
queries made directly to an international marine insurance provider. We 
adjusted the marine insurance rate to the PORs using the U.S. purchase 
price index.
    9. Brokerage and Handling. We used the public version of a U.S. 
sales listing reported in the questionnaire response submitted by 
Meltroll Engineering for Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965 (August 10, 
2000). Because this information is not contemporaneous with the current 
PORs, we adjusted the brokerage and handling rate to the PORs using the 
Indian WPI.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period June 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000 for Yantai Timken 
and June 1, 2000 through January 1, 2001 for CPZ:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPZ........................................................         1.76
Yantai Timken..............................................         3.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the 
final results of these new shipper reviews for all shipments of TRBs 
from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of 
the Act.

Public Comment

    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the date 
of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs 
(see below). Interested parties may submit written arguments in case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed 
no later than five days after the date of filing the case briefs. 
Parties who submit briefs in these proceedings should provide a summary 
of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case briefs and rebuttal briefs 
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f)(3).
    The Department will issue the final results of these new shipper 
reviews within 90 days from the issuance of these preliminary results. 
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
    For CEP sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the 
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for 
each importer/customer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of new shipper reviews, we will direct the Customs 
Service to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered 
customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's/
customer's entries during the review period.
    Effective upon publication of the final results of these new 
shipper reviews for all shipments by the PRC companies named above of 
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates will be the 
rates for these firms established in the final results of these 
reviews, except that, for exporters with de minimis rates, i.e., less 
than 0.50 percent, no deposit will be required; (2) for previously-
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most 
recent period during which they were reviewed; (3) for all other PRC 
exporters, the rate will be the PRC

[[Page 59573]]

country-wide rate, which is 33.18 percent; and (4) for all other non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    These new shipper reviews and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 20, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-29633 Filed 11-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P