36404 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices

Office of Procurement and Property

Management

Title: Progress Reporting Clause.

OMB Control Number: 0505–0016.

Summary of Collection: In order to

obtain goods or services, the United

States Department of Agriculture

(USDA), like other Federal agencies, has

established agency contracting offices to

enter into Federal contracts. These

offices employ contracting officers, who

request bids or offers for work from

businesses in the private sector using

solicitations. In order to administer

contracts for research and development

services (R&D), or for advisory and

assistance services (AAS), contracting

officers need information about

contractor progress in performing the

contracts. The Agriculture Acquisition

Regulation (AGAR) (48 CFR ch.4) (48

CFR 437.270(a)) and (48 CFR 452.237–

76) prescribe the Progress Reporting

Clause to collect information about

contractor progress. Contracting officers

include the Progress Reporting Clause in

R&D and AAS contracts to obtain

information from the contractors about

their performance.

Need and Use of the Information: The

Office of Procurement and Property

Management (OPPM) will collect

information to compare actual progress

and expenditures to anticipated

performance and contractor

representations on which the award was

based. The information alerts the agency

of technical problems; to the need for

additional staff resources or finding; and

to the probability of timely completion

within the contract cost or price. If the

contracting officers could not obtain

progress report information, they would

have to physically monitor the

contractor’s operation on a day to day

basis throughout the performance

period.

Description of Respondents: Business

or other for-profit; non-for-profit

institutions; State, Local, or Tribal

Government.

Number of Repondents: 200.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting:

Quarterly; monthly.

Total Burden Hours: 3,600.

Rural Housing Service

Title: 7 CFR 1940–G, Enviromental

Program.

OMB Control Number: 0575–0094.

Summary of Collection: The National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requires Federal agencies, prior to the

approval of proposed actions, to

consider the potential environmental

impacts of these actions. Consequently,

for the Agencies to comply with NEPA,

it is necessary that they have

information on the types of

environmental resources on site or in

the vicinity that might be impacted by

the proposed action, as well as

information on the nature of the project

selected by the applicant (the activities

to be carried out at the site; any air,

liquid and solid wastes produced by

these activities, etc.). The agency will

collect environmental data using form

RD 1940–20.

Need and Use of the Information: The

agency will collect information on the

proposed project site and the activities

to be conducted there. This will enable

the Agency official to determine the

magnitude of the potential

environmental impacts and whether the

project is controversial for

environmental reasons.

Description of Respondents: Farms;

individuals or households; Business or

other for-profit; not-for-profit

institutions; State, Local or Tribal

Government.

Number of Respondents: 3,050.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting:

On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 15,320.

Barbara Lacour,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–14412 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–01–M

CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights.

DATE AND TIME: Friday, June 16, 2000, 8

a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,

624 Ninth Street, N.W., Room 540,

Washington, DC 20425.

STATUS: 

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Approval of Minutes of May 12, 2000

Meeting

III. Announcements

IV. Staff Director’s Report

V. Police Practices and Civil Rights in

New York City Report

VI. Future Agenda Items

9 a.m. Briefing on National Police

Practices and Civil Rights

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION: David Aronson, Press and

Communications (202) 376–8312.

Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–14597 Filed 6–6–00; 12:38 am]

BILLING CODE 6335–00–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–815, A–533–807, C–533–806]

Continuation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Sulfanilic Acid From People’s

Republic of China and India; and

Continuation of Countervailing Duty

Order: Sulfanilic Acid From India

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notices of continuation of

antidumping duty orders: Sulfanilic

acid from People’s Republic of China

and India; and countervailing duty

order, sulfanilic acid from India.

SUMMARY: On February 8, 2000 and on

April 6, 2000 (as amended, with respect

to the countervailing duty order), the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’), pursuant to sections

751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), determined

that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on sulfanilic acid from the

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) and

India, and the countervailing duty order

on sulfanilic acid from India, would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping or a

countervailable subsidy (65 FR 6156, 65

FR 6171 (as amended, 65 FR18070),

respectively). On May 26, 2000, the

International Trade Commission (‘‘the

Commission’’), pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act, determined that

revocation of these antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on sulfanilic

acid would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time (65 FR 34232). Therefore, pursuant

to 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4), the Department

is publishing notice of the continuation

of antidumping duty orders on

sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India,

and the countervailing duty order on

sulfanilic acid from India.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun

W. Cho or James Maeder, Office of

Policy for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–1698 or (202) 482–3330,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 1, 1999, the Department

initiated, and the Commission

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices 36405

1See Sulfanilic Acid From India and The

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 6156 (February

8, 2000).

2See Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review:

Sulfanilic Acid From India, 65 FR 6171 (February

8, 2000), as amended, Notice of Correction to Final

Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Sulfanilic

Acid From India, 65 FR 18070 (April 6, 2000).

instituted, sunset reviews (64 FR 53320

and 64 FR 53412, respectively) of the

antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic

acid from the PRC and India, and the

countervailing duty order on sulfanilic

acid from India, pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act. As a result of its

reviews, the Department found that

revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would likely lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping and notified

the Commission of the magnitude of the

margins likely to prevail were the orders

to be revoked.1 In addition, the

Department determined that revocation

of the countervailing duty order would

likely lead to continuation or recurrence

of countervailable subsidies and

notified the Commission of the net

countervailable subsidies likely to

prevail were the order revoked.2

On May 26, 2000, the Commission

determined, pursuant to section 751(c)

of the Act, that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic

acid from the PRC and India, and the

countervailing duty order on sulfanilic

acid from India, would be likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time (see Sulfanilic Acid from China

and India, 65 FR 34232 (May 26, 2000)

and USITC Publication 3301,

Investigations Nos. 701–TA–318

(Review), and 731–TA–538 and 561

(Review) (May 2000)).

Scope of the Orders

The products covered by these orders

are all grades of sulfanilic acid from the

PRC and India, which include technical

(or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or

purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt

of sulfanilic acid (sodium sulfanilate).

The principal differences between the

grades are the undesirable quantities of

residual aniline and alkali insoluble

materials present in the sulfanilic acid.

All grades are available as dry free

flowing powders. Technical sulfanilic

acid contains 96 percent minimum

sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum

aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali

insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic

acid contains 98 percent minimum

sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum

aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum

alkali insoluble materials. Sodium salt

of sulfanilic acid (sodium sulfanilate) is

a granular or crystalline material

containing 75 percent minimum

sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum

aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum

alkali insoluble materials based on the

equivalent sulfanilic acid content. The

merchandise is classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings

2921.42.22 and 2921. 42.24.20.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of these orders are dispositive.

Determination

As a result of the determinations by

the Department and the Commission

that revocation of these antidumping

and countervailing duty orders would

be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping or a

countervailable subsidy and material

injury to an industry in the United

States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of

the Act, the Department hereby orders

the continuation of the antidumping

duty orders on sulfanilic acid from the

PRC and India, and the countervailing

duty order on sulfanilic acid from India.

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to continue to collect

antidumping and countervailing duty

deposits at the rates in effect at the time

of entry for all imports of subject

merchandise. The effective date of

continuation of these orders will be the

date of publication in the Federal

Register of this Notice of Continuation.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) and

751(c)(6) of the Act, the Department

intends to initiate the next five-year

review of these orders not later than

May 2005.

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14499 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–836]

Glycine 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: Glycine from

the People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On February 3, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the notice of

initiation of sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on glycine from

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)

(65 FR 5308), 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 adequate

substantive response filed on behalf of

domestic interested parties and

inadequate response (in this case, no

response) from respondent interested

parties, we determined to conduct an

expedited sunset review. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

find that revocation of the antidumping

duty order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the levels listed below in the section

entitled Final Results of the Review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun

W. Cho or Carole Showers, Office of

Policy for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–1698 or (202) 482–3217,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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 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 February 3, 2000, the Department

published the notice of initiation of

sunset review of the antidumping duty

order on glycine from the PRC (64 FR

67247). We invited parties to comment.

On the basis of a notice of intent to

participate and 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