[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34440-34441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-823-805]


Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Silicomanganese From 
Ukraine

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: 
silicomanganese from Ukraine.

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

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the suspended antidumping 
investigation on silicomanganese from Ukraine pursuant to section 
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the 
basis of a notice of intent to participate filed on behalf of the 
domestic parties and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of 
both domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department is 
conducting a full sunset review. As a result of this review, the 
Department preliminarily finds that termination of the suspended 
antidumping investigation would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary 
Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit, Office of Policy for 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 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

[[Page 34441]]

Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Department of Commerce's (``the Department's'') 
regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999). 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 Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 
1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Background

    On November 2, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the suspended antidumping investigation on silicomanganese from Ukraine 
(64 FR 59160), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On November 17, 
1999 we received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Eramet 
Marietta Inc. (``Eramet''), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 
351.218(d)(1)(i). Eramet claimed interested party status under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of silicomanganese.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Eramet asserts that on June 30, 1999, Elkem Metals Company 
(``Elkem''), the original petitioner, sold its silicomanganese 
operations to Eramet SA. As a result, Eramet, a subsidiary of Eramet 
SA, now owns these operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received a complete substantive response to the notice of 
initiation on December 2, 1999, on behalf of Eramet, within the 30-day 
deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under 19 CFR 
351.218(d)(3)(i). In its substantive response, Eramet indicated that 
Elkem, now Eramet, was the petitioner in the original investigation and 
actively participated in the suspended antidumping investigation. We 
received a substantive response to the notice of initiation on December 
13, 1999, on behalf of Ronly Holdings LTD. (``Ronly''), Nikopol 
Ferroalloys Plant (``Nikopol''), Zaporozhye Ferroalloys Plant 
(``Zaporozhye''), and the Ministry of Industrial Policy of the 
Government of Ukraine (``GOU'') (collectively the ``respondent 
interested parties'').\2\ Ronly, Zaporozhye, and Nikopol claimed 
interested party statues within the meaning of 771(9)(A) of the Act as 
foreign manufacturers and/or exporters of silicomanganese from Ukraine. 
Zaporozhye and Nikopol assert that they participated in the original 
antidumping investigation that led to the suspension agreement. On 
December 20, 1999, we received rebuttal comments from Eramet.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On December 2, 1999, the Department received a request for 
an extension of the deadline for filing a substantive response from 
the respondent interested parties. On December 7, 1999, the 
Department granted the respondent interested parties an extension, 
and required them to file both their substantive response and 
rebuttal comments by December 13, 1999. See December 7, 1999, letter 
from Jeffrey A. May, Director of Office of Policy, to Kieran Sharpe, 
of Aitken, Irvin, Lewin, Berlin, Vrooman, & Cohn, LLP.
    \3\ Because the respondent interested parties filed a joint 
substantive response and rebuttal comments on December 13, 1999, 
supra, the Department granted Eramet an extended deadline for filing 
rebuttal comments until December 20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). The review at issue concerns a transition order within the 
meaning of section 751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the 
Department determined that the sunset review of the suspension 
agreement on silicomanganese from Ukraine is extraordinarily 
complicated and extended the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results of this review until not later than May 22, 2000, 
in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.

Scope

    The merchandise covered by this sunset review is silicomanganese. 
Silicomanganese, which is sometimes called ferrosilicon manganese, is a 
ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, silicon, and iron, and 
normally containing much smaller proportions of minor elements, such as 
carbon, phosphorous, and sulfur. Silicomanganese generally contains by 
weight not less than four percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, 
more than eight percent silicon, and not more than three percent 
phosphorous. All compositions, forms, and sizes of silicomanganese are 
included within the scope of this review, including silicomanganese 
slag, fines, and briquettes. Silicomanganese is used primarily in steel 
production as a source of both silicon and manganese. This sunset 
review covers all silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff 
classification. Most silicomanganese is currently classifiable under 
subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS''). Some silicomanganese may also currently be 
classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the subject merchandise remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this case by parties to this sunset review 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 May 22, 2000, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues 
discussed in the Decision Memo include adequacy, the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margin 
likely to prevail were the suspension agreement terminated. Parties can 
find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on 
file in room B-099 of the 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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that if the suspended 
antidumping investigation is terminated, it is likely that dumping will 
continue or recur at the levels indicated below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters......................       163.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held on July 17, 2000. Interested 
parties may submit case briefs no later than July 10, 2000, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than July 14, 2000. The Department will issue a notice of final results 
of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments, no later than September 27, 
2000.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 22, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-13463 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P