[Federal Register: May 12, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 25335-25339]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12my03-32]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-485-805]
Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line
and Pressure Pipe from Romania: 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 a request by S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub), a
producer/exporter of subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy
seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Romania.
The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.
We preliminarily find that sales have not been made below normal
value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) to assess no antidumping duties on
the subject merchandise that was exported by Silcotub and entered
during the POR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Claessens or Monica Gallardo,
Group II, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5451 or (202) 482-3147, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 10, 2000, the Department published an antidumping duty
order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard,
line and pressure pipe from Romania. See Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line
and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000) (Amended
Final Determination). On August 29, 2002, Silcotub requested an
administrative review. On August 30, 2002, United States Steel
Corporation (U.S. Steel), a domestic producer of seamless pipe and an
interested party to this proceeding, also requested an administrative
review. On September 20, 2002, the Department initiated the current
administrative review. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in
Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 67 FR 60210 (September 25,
2002). Since the initiation of this administrative review, the
following events have occurred:
On October 21, 2002, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to
Silcotub. We received questionnaire responses from Silcotub on November
22 and December 13, 2002. We issued a supplemental questionnaire on
January 22, 2003, to which we received responses on February 25 and
February 28, 2003. On April 4, 2003, U.S. Steel requested that the
Department extend the deadline for the preliminary results. The
deadline was not extended.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are seamless carbon and alloy
(other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and
redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106,
ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API
5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below,
regardless of application. The scope of the order also includes all
products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and
meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of
specification. Specifically included within the scope of the order are
seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches
(114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness,
manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain
end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or
surface finish.
The seamless pipes subject to the order are currently classifiable
under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00,
7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24,
7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60,
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and
7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS).
Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes
are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals,
chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in
industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated
pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of
external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-
106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees
Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to
ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels
exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in
the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53
specification and generally are not intended for high temperature
service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure
conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and
gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units,
automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes
(depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures
but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally
low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may
be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.
[[Page 25336]]
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and
natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are
produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe
for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of
water.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-
106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid
maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories,
manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by
meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required
tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors
sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a
single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or
quadruple certified pipes is use in pressure piping systems by
refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other
applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or
nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as
for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor
application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution
lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the
majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-
106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or ``hollow profiles'' of
carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/
hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold
under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM
A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.
The scope of the order includes all seamless pipe meeting the
physical parameters described above and produced to one of the
specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the
exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or
not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and
pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining
characteristics of the scope of the order. Therefore, seamless pipes
meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-
53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-
795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard,
line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific
exclusions discussed below.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe
which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be
used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include
ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523,
ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard,
line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific
exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of
the order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the order is boiler tubing
and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53,
ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795,
and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or
pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG
are excluded from the scope of the order, if covered by the scope of
another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by
such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this
scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.
With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department
will not instruct BCBP to require end-use certification until such time
as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being used
in a covered application. If such information is provided, we will
require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or
specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are
being used in covered applications as described above. For example, if,
based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to
the A-161 specification is being used in a standard, line or pressure
application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that
specification. Normally we will require only the importer of record to
certify to the end use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves
necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers
who export such products to the United States to provide such
certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
BCBP purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to
this scope is dispositive.
Duty Absorption
On October 25, 2002, U.S. Steel requested that the Department
determine whether or not antidumping duties had been absorbed during
the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the
Act) provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an
administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication
of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a
foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the
United States through an affiliated importer. In this case, Silcotub
sold to the United States through an importer that is affiliated with
Silcotub within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act.
Because this review was initiated two years after the publication
of the antidumping duty order, we will make a duty absorption
determination in this segment of the proceeding. Because we
preliminarily find an absence of dumping in this review, there is no
basis under the statute for a finding that any antidumping duties have
been absorbed by Silcotub or its affiliated U.S. importer.\1\ If these
results remain unchanged in the final results of this review, we will
continue to find that no duties were absorbed by Silcotub or its
affiliated U.S. importer during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof,
Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 51375 (October 9,
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
Romania's designation as a NME country remained in effect until
January 1, 2003.\2\ We are therefore treating
[[Page 25337]]
Romania as an NME country for purposes of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 12672, 12673 (March
17, 2003), the Department reviewed the non-market economy status of
Romania and determined to reclassify Romania as a market economy for
purposes of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings,
pursuant to section 771(18)(A) of the Act, effective January 1,
2003. See Memorandum from Lawrence Norton, Import Policy Analyst, to
Joseph Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure
Pipe from Romania--Non-Market Economy Status Review (March 10,
2003), placed on the record of this administrative review. The March
10, 2003 decision with respect to Romania's NME status provided
that:
This finding will apply to all future administrative proceedings
covering periods of investigation or review that fall after January
1, 2003. Where a proceeding's period of investigation or review
begins before January 1, 2003, but ends after that date, the
Department will use the standard market economy methodology if it
determines that a sufficient period of time has passed so that
adequate market economy data is available. In addition, the U.S.
countervailing duty law will apply now to Romania where the
proceeding at issue involves an adequate period of investigation
after this effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
subject merchandise subject to review in a non-market economy (NME)
country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria 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 in 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). Under this test, exporters in NME countries
are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can
demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law
(de jure) and in fact (de facto).
Absence of De Jure Control
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 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. See Sparklers,
56 FR at 20589.
Absence of De Facto Control
A de facto analysis of absence of government control over exports
is based on four factors -- whether the respondent: 1) sets its own
export prices independently of the government and other exporters; 2)
retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; and 4) has autonomy from the government regarding the
selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
We have determined, according to the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, that evidence on the record demonstrates
an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect
to exports by Silcotub. Silcotub is a private joint stock commercial
company organized under the Romanian Commercial Companies Law, Law No.
31/1990, as amended. Silcotub is limited only by its articles of
incorporation and bylaws. Specifically, the information on the record
shows that Silcotub is autonomous in selecting its management,
negotiating and signing contracts, setting its own export prices and
retaining its own profits. For a complete discussion of the
Department's analysis regarding Silcotub's entitlement to a separate
rate, see the May 5, 2003 memorandum, Assignment of Separate Rates for
S.C. Silcotub S.A., which is on file in the Central Record Unit (CRU),
Room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Constructed Export Price
For all sales made by Silcotub to the United States, we used
constructed export price (CEP) in accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after
importation of the merchandise into the United States. We calculated
CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse or delivered prices from
Silcotub's U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated customers. In accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, from
the starting price for CEP for foreign inland freight, foreign
brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, BCBP
duties, U.S. brokerage and handling, and other U.S. transportation
expenses such as wharfage, stevedoring, and surveying. For the
deductions of foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and
handling, we used Egyptian surrogate values because these services were
provided by Romanian companies and paid for in Romanian lei. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made further
deductions for the following selling expenses that related to economic
activity in the United States: credit expenses, direct selling expenses
(i.e., bank charges), and indirect selling expenses (including
inventory carrying costs). In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act, we have deducted from the starting price an amount for profit.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) the
merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value (CV) under section 773(a) of the
Act.
As noted above, the Department is treating Romania as an NME
country for purposes of this review. Furthermore, information available
on the record of this review does not permit the calculation of NV
using home market prices, third country prices, or CV under section
773(a) of the Act. Thus, the Department calculated NV in this review by
valuing the factors of production in a surrogate country.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME, and (2) are significant
producers of comparable merchandise. We chose Egypt as the surrogate
country on the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR 351.408(b). For
a further discussion of our surrogate selection, see the May 5, 2003,
memorandum Selection of Surrogate Country. (This memorandum is on file
in the Department's CRU.)
Factors of Production
We used publicly available information from Egypt to value the
various factors of production. Because some of the Egyptian data were
not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the data, expressed in
U.S. dollars, to the POR using the U.S. producer price index published
by the International Monetary Fund.
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we valued Silcotub's
reported factors of production by multiplying them by publicly
available Egyptian values. In selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.
As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices.
We added to Egyptian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using
the reported distance from each supplier to the factory because this
distance was shorter than the distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We valued material inputs and packing material (i.e., where
applicable, plastic caps, lacquer, and ink) by
[[Page 25338]]
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number, using imports statistics from
the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics,
National Information Center. Where a material input was purchased in a
market economy currency from a market economy supplier (i.e., billet,
strap, clips, and tags), we valued the input at the actual purchase
price in accordance with section 351.408(c)(1) of the Department's
regulations. We note that, although billets were purchased from both a
market-economy supplier and non-market-economy supplier, we are valuing
all billets based on the price for the market-economy purchase. This
methodology is consistent with section 351.408(c)(1) of the
Department's regulations in that the Department will normally value the
factor using the price paid to the market economy supplier, where a
portion of a factor is purchased from a market economy and the
remainder is purchased from an NME supplier.
For the cold-drawn products, we have adjusted the amount of billet
inputs toaccount more accurately for combined yield loss of the
producer. We have adjusted the scrap offset accordingly.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum From Martin Claessens to the File, Analysis
Memorandum for Preliminary Results (May 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)
of the Department's regulations. For a complete analysis of surrogate
values, see the May 5, 2003, memorandum, Factors of Production
Valuation for Preliminary Results (Valuation Memorandum), on file in
the CRU.
To value electricity, we used the 2001 electricity rates for Egypt
reported on the website of the International Trade Administration under
``Trade Information Center.'' See www.web.ita.doc.gov/ticwebsite/neweb.nsf/.
We based the value of natural gas in Egypt on a published
article that shows the price at which the Government of Egypt purchased
natural gas, also used in the final results of the previous
administrative review and placed on the record of this review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless
Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 68 FR 12672 (March 17, 2003) and
corresponding Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 3. See also
Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We based our calculation of factory overhead and selling, general
and administrative (SG&A) expenses, as well as profit, on 1998/99
financial statements of El-Naser Steel Pipes & Fittings Co., an
Egyptian producer of comparable merchandise.
To value truck freight rates, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for
inflation) provided by a trucking company located in Egypt. For rail
transportation, we valued rail rates in Egypt using information used in
Titanium Sponge from the Republic of Kazakhstan: Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 66169
(November 24, 1999), which were initially obtained from a 1999 letter
from the Egyptian International House, and have been placed on the
record of this review.
For brokerage and handling, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for
inflation) provided by a trucking and shipping company located in
Alexandria, Egypt. For further details, see Valuation Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with Section 773(A)(a)
of the Act. For currency conversions involving the Egyptian pound, we
used exchange rates published by the International Monetary Fund in
International Financial Statistics. For all other conversions, we used
daily exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists
for the period August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silcotub............................................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, the Department will disclose its
calculations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held approximately 42 days after the publication of this
notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in hearings will
be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested
parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Rebuttal
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this
notice, or the first workday thereafter. Parties who submit case briefs
or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Parties are also requested to submit such arguments, and
public versions thereof, with an electronic version on a diskette.
Assessment
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will
determine, and the BCBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate
for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions to the BCBP within 15 days of
publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary
results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct the
BCBP to assess no antidumping duties on the merchandise subject to
review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For the final results, if any
importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct
BCBP to assess duties accordingly. This rate will be assessed uniformly
on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of seamless pipe from Romania entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) For subject
merchandise exported by Silcotub, which has a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be zero if Silcotub's rate in the final results of
review continues to be less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de
minimis; (2) for merchandise exported by companies not covered in this
review but covered in
[[Page 25339]]
the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, the cash
deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final
determination for which the exporter received a company-specific rate;
and (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the
LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 13.06 percent, the
``Romania-Wide'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice
of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy
Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 65 FR 48963
(August 10, 2000). These cash 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 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 issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 5, 2003.
Joseph Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-11746 Filed 5-9-02; 8:45 am]