Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Notices 35609

1See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Expedited Five-Year Reviews, 65 FR 11761 (March

6, 2000).

(‘‘Globe’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic

interested parties’’), within the

applicable deadline (November 15,

1999) specified in 19 CFR

351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic interested

parties claimed interested-party status

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as

U.S. producers of a domestic like

product.

On December 1, 1999, we received a

complete substantive response from

domestic interested parties, within the

30-day deadline specified in the Sunset

Regulations under 19 CFR

351.218(d)(3)(i). Domestic interested

parties claim that, in 1990, Elkem,

Globe, and four other domestic

producers filed the petition that resulted

in the issuance of the antidumping duty

order on silicon metal from Argentina

(see December 1, 1999, Substantive

Response of domestic interested parties

at 2). Domestic interested parties also

claim that at least one of them has

actively participated in each of the

administrative reviews conducted by

the Department, as well as in a number

of related appeals and remand

proceedings. Id. at 3. Without a

substantive response from respondent

interested parties, the Department,

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C),

determined to conduct an expedited,

120-day review of this order.

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). This

review concerns a transition order

within the meaning of section

751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly,

on February 29, 2000, the Department

determined that the sunset review of

silicon metal from Argentina is

extraordinarily complicated, and

extended the time limit for completion

of the final results of this review until

not later than May 30, 2000, in

accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of

the Act.1

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by sunset

review is silicon metal containing at

least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99

percent of silicon by weight. Also

covered by this review is silicon metal

from Argentina containing between

89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by

weight but which contains a higher

aluminum content than the silicon

metal containing at least 96.00 percent

but less than 99.99 percent silicon by

weight (65 FR 5311, February 3, 2000).

Silicon metal is currently provided for

under subheadings 2804.69.10 and

2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) as a chemical

product, but is commonly referred to as

a metal. Semiconductor-grade silicon

(silicon metal containing by weight not

less than 99.99 percent of silicon and

provided for in subheading 2804.61.00

of the HTS) is not subject to this review.

Although the HTS numbers are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description

remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs 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 30, 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 order revoked. Parties

can find a complete discussion of all

issues raised in this review and the

corresponding recommendations in the

Decision Memo, which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, 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/

importladmin/records/frn. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

We determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Argentina would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the following percentage

weighted-average margins:

Manufacturer/exporters Margin

(percent)

Electrometalurgica Andina,

S.A.I.C. (‘‘Andina’’) ................ 17.87

All Others .................................. 17.87

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. 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.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are published in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: May 17, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14027 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–806]

Silicon Metal From the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review of

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

expedited sunset review of silicon metal

from the People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on

silicon metal from the People’s Republic

of China (‘‘PRC’’) (64 FR 59160)

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 and an adequate substantive

response filed on behalf of domestic

interested parties and inadequate

response (in this case, no response) from

respondent interested parties, the

Department determined to conduct an

expedited review. As a result of this

review, the Department finds that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order would likely lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping at the levels

indicated in the Final Results of Review

section of this notice.

ADDRESSES: June 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn B. McCormick or Carole A.

Showers, Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, United States

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–1930 or (202) 482–3217,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

35610 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Notices

1See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Expedited Five-Year Reviews, 65 FR 11761 (March

6, 2000).

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

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department 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 Fiveyear (‘‘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

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from the PRC (64 FR 59160),

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).

The Department received a notice of

intent to participate on behalf of

American Silicon Technologies

(‘‘AST’’), Elkem Metals Company

(‘‘Elkem’’), and Globe Metallurgical Inc.

(‘‘Globe’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic

interested parties’’), within the

applicable deadline (November 15,

1999) specified in 19 CFR

351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic interested

parties claimed interested-party status

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as

U.S. producers of a domestic like

product.

On December 1, 1999, we received a

complete substantive response from

domestic interested parties, within the

30-day deadline specified in the Sunset

Regulations under 19 CFR

351.218(d)(3)(i). Domestic interested

parties claim that, in 1990, Elkem,

Globe, and four other domestic

producers filed the petition that resulted

in the issuance of the antidumping duty

order on silicon metal from the PRC (see

December 1, 1999, Substantive

Response of domestic interested parties

at 2). Domestic interested parties also

claim that at least one of them has

actively participated in each of the

administrative reviews conducted by

the Department, as well as in the new

shipper review rescinded on July 28,

1999. Id. at 3. Without a substantive

response from respondent interested

parties, the Department, pursuant to 19

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), determined to

conduct an expedited, 120-day review

of this order.

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). This

review concerns a transition order

within the meaning of section

751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly,

on February 29, 2000, the Department

determined that the sunset review of

silicon metal from the PRC is

extraordinarily complicated, and

extended the time limit for completion

of the final results of this review until

not later than May 30, 2000, in

accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of

the Act.1

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is silicon metal containing at

least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99

percent of silicon by weight. Also

covered by this review is silicon metal

containing between 89.00 and 96.00

percent silicon by weight but which

contains a higher aluminum content

than the silicon metal containing at least

96.00 percent but less than 99.99

percent silicon by weight (58 FR 27542,

May 10, 1993). Silicon metal is

currently provided for under

subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(‘‘HTS’’) as a chemical product, but is

commonly referred to as a metal.

Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon

metal containing by weight not less than

99.99 percent of silicon and provided

for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the

HTS) is not subject to this order.

Although the HTS numbers are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description

remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs 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 30, 2000, which is hereby

adopted by this notice. The issues

discussed in the attached Decision

Memo include the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and the magnitude of the margin likely

to prevail were the order revoked.

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 the Central Records Unit, 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 Review

We determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from the PRC would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the following percentage

weighted-average margin:

Manufacturer/exporters Margin

(percent)

All Chinese producers/exporters ......................................... 139.49

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. 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.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: May 30, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14028 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–437–601]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,

From Hungary: Recission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of recission of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is rescinding the June