Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices 25909

1Two of the original petitioners have undergone

a change of name: AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp.

is now Empire Specialty Steel Inc. and Republic

Engineered Steel, Inc. is now Republic

Technologies International. Talley Metals

Technology, Inc. also was a petitioner in these

cases; Talley was acquired by Carpenter Technology

Corp. and is now a part of Carpenter’s operations.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–825; A–533–810; A–588–833; A–

469–805]

Stainless Steel Bar From Brazil, India,

Japan, and Spain; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Expedited Sunset

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty expedited sunset

reviews: Stainless steel bar from Brazil,

India, Japan, and Spain.

SUMMARY: On December 30, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the notice of

initiation of sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on stainless

steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from Brazil, India,

Japan, and Spain. On the basis of

notices of intent to participate and

adequate substantive comments filed on

behalf of domestic interested parties and

inadequate response (in these cases, no

response) from respondent interested

parties, we determined to conduct

expedited reviews. As a result of these

reviews, we find that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the levels

listed below in the section entitled

‘‘Final Results of Reviews.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Young, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–6397.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

These reviews are being conducted

pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the

Act’’). The Department’s procedures for

the conduct of sunset reviews are set

forth in Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998)

(‘‘Sunset Regulations’’) and 19 CFR part

351 (1999) in general. Guidance on

methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department’s conduct of

sunset reviews is set forth in the

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98:3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Background

On December 30, 1999, the

Department published the notice of

initiation of the sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on SSB from

Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain (64 FR

73510). The Department received

Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf

of Empire Specialty Steel Inc. (formerly

AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp.),

Carpenter Technology Corp., Republic

Technologies International (formerly

Republic Engineered Steels, Inc.),

Crucible Specialty Metals Division of

Crucible Materials Corp., Electralloy

Corp., Slater Steels Corporation, and the

United Steelworkers of America, AFL–

CIO/CLC (collectively ‘‘domestic

interested parties’’), within the deadline

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of

the Sunset Regulations. The domestic

interested parties claimed interested

party status under section 771(9)(C) and

(D) of the Act, as U.S. manufacturers of

SSB and a certified union. We received

complete substantive responses, in the

Brazilian, Indian, Japanese, and Spanish

reviews, from the domestic interested

parties on January 28, 2000, within the

30-day deadline specified in the Sunset

Regulations under section

351.218(d)(3)(i). In their substantive

responses, the domestic interested

parties stated that they were the

petitioners in the original investigations

of SSB from Brazil, India, Japan, and

Spain. Furthermore, the domestic

interested parties stated that they have

been involved in these proceedings

since their inception.1 We did not

receive a substantive response from any

respondent interested party to these

proceedings. As a result, pursuant to

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Department’s

Regulations, the Department determined

to conduct expedited, 120-day, reviews

of these orders.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by these reviews are

shipments of SSB, specifically articles

of stainless steel in straight lengths that

have been either hot-rolled, forged,

turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or

otherwise cold-finished, or ground,

having a uniform solid cross section

along their whole length in the shape of

circles, segments of circles, ovals,

rectangles (including squares), triangles,

hexagons, octagons, or other convex

polygons. SSB includes cold-finished

SSB that are turned or ground in straight

lengths, whether produced from hotrolled bar or from straightened and cut

rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that

have indentations, ribs, grooves, or

other deformations produced during the

rolling process. Except as specified

above, the term does not include

stainless steel semi-finished products,

cut length flat-rolled products (i.e., cut

length rolled products which if less than

4.75 mm in thickness have a width

measuring at least 10 times the

thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness having a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections. The SSB subject to

these reviews are currently classifiable

under subheadings 7222.10.0005,

7222.10.0050, 7222.20.0005,

7222.20.0045, 7222.20.0075, and

7222.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

With respect to the order on the

subject imports from Japan the

Department has made two scope rulings.

The following product was determined

to be within the scope of the order:

The following product was

determined to be outside the scope of

the order:

25910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices

Product within scope Company Citation

Keystone 2000 ................................................... Keystone Stainless Inc .................................... 63 FR 6722 (February 10, 1998).

Product within scope Company Citation

M35FL steel bar ................................................. Tohoku Steel Co .............................................. 64 FR 50273 (September 16, 1999).

These reviews cover all imports from

all manufacturers and exporters of SSB

from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in these cases by

parties to these sunset reviews are

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision Memo’’)

from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of

Policy, Import Administration, to Troy

H. Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated April 28,

2000, which is hereby adopted by this

notice. The issues discussed in the

Decision Memo include the likelihood

of continuation or recurrence of

dumping and the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail were the orders

revoked. Parties can find a complete

discussion of all issues raised in these

reviews and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum, which is on file in room

B–099 of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn/. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Reviews

We determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on SSB from

Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the following

percentage weighted-average margins:

Margin

(percent)

Brazilian Manufacturers/Exporters:

Acos Villares, S.A ..................... 19.43

All Others .................................. 19.43

Indian Manufacturers/Exporters:

Grand Foundry Limited ............. 3.87

Mukand, Limited ........................ 21.02

All Others .................................. 12.45

Japanese Manufacturers/Exporters:

Aichi Steel Works, Ltd .............. 61.47

Daido Steel Co., Ltd ................. 61.47

Sanyo Special Steel Co., Ltd .... 61.47

All Others .................................. 61.47

Spanish Manufacturers/Exporters:

Acensor, S.A. (And all successor companies including

Digeco, S.A. and Clorimax,

SRL) ...................................... 62.85

Roldan, S.A ............................... 7.72

All Others .................................. 25.77

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility

concerning the return or destruction of

proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR

351.305 of the Department’s regulations.

Timely notification of the return or

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and terms of an

APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these

results and notice in accordance with

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the

Act.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11170 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–815]

Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium

From Canada: Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting administrative reviews of

the countervailing duty orders on pure

magnesium and alloy magnesium from

Canada for the period January 1, 1998

through December 31, 1998. We have

preliminarily determined that certain

producers/exporters have received net

subsidies during the period of review. If

the final results remain the same as

these preliminary results, we will

instruct the Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as detailed in the

Preliminary Results of Reviews section

of this notice. Interested Parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results (see the Public

Comment section of this notice).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Annika O’Hara or Craig Matney, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group I, Office 1,

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3798 or

(202) 482–1778, respectively.

Case History

On August 31, 1992, the Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published in the Federal Register the

countervailing duty orders on pure

magnesium and alloy magnesium from

Canada (57 FR 39392). On August 11,

1999, the Department published a notice

of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ of these

countervailing duty orders (64 FR

43649). We received timely requests for

review from Norsk Hydro Canada Inc.

(‘‘NHCI’’), the Government of Que ́bec

(‘‘GOQ’’), and the petitioner. We

initiated these reviews, covering

calendar year 1998, on October 1, 1999

(64 FR 53318). In accordance with 19

CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover

NHCI, the only producer or exporter of

the subject merchandise for which a

review was specifically requested.

These reviews cover 16 subsidy

programs.

On November 30, 1999, we issued

countervailing duty questionnaires to

NHCI, the GOQ, and the Government of

Canada (‘‘GOC’’). We received

questionnaire responses from the GOC

on January 12, 2000, and from NHCI and

the GOQ on January 14, 2000.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’), effective January 1, 1995

(‘‘the Act’’). Unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Scope of the Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews are shipments of pure and alloy

magnesium from Canada. Pure

magnesium contains at least 99.8

percent magnesium by weight and is