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shipper review rescinded on July 28,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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Notices 35611

1, 1998 through May 31, 1999

antidumping duty administrative review

of tapered roller bearings and parts

thereof, finished and unfinished, from

Hungary.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi

Blum at (202) 482–0197, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise stated, all citations

to the statute are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

are to 19 CFR part 351 (1998).

Scope of the Review

This antidumping review covers

tapered roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished and unfinished (TRBs), from

the Republic of Hungary. The

merchandise under review is currently

classified under subheadings

8482.20.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.15,

8482.99.45, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,

8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, and

8483.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

scope of this review is dispositive.

Recission of 1998–99 Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

On July 29, 1999, in response to a

request by Daewoo-MGM Rt., the

Department published a Notice of

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Administrative Reviews

(64 FR 41075). Daewoo-MGM Rt. was

the only party which requested a

review. On March 20, 2000, DaewooMGM Rt. withdrew its request for

review. We are therefore rescinding this

review in its entirety in accordance with

19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) of the Act and

§ 351.213(d)(1) of our regulations.

The recission of this review does not

affect the reclassification of the

Republic of Hungary to market economy

status for antidumping purposes (see

Decision Memorandum from Joseph A.

Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa on Market

vs. Non-Market Economy Analysis of the

Republic of Hungary, dated February 23,

2000). This notice is published in

accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1677(f) and

§ 351.213(d)(4) of our regulations.

Dated: May 26, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14021 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Coastal Zone Management: Federal

Consistency Appeal by Mobil Oil

Exploration and Producing Southeast,

Inc.; Consistency Appeal of Objections

by the State of North Carolina

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

On September 2, 1994, the Secretary

of Commerce (Secretary) declined to

override two objections by the State of

North Carolina to the proposed drilling

discharges (PDD) and overall Plan of

Exploration (POE) by Mobil Oil

Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc.

(Mobil) at a site about 38 miles offshore

North Carolina. The Secretary made

these decisions pursuant to section

307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone

Management Act (CZMA). Mobil

challenged the Secretary’s decisions in

U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia claiming they were made in

violation of the Administrative

Procedure Act. On March 11, 1996, the

court ordered a stay of the litigation and

remanded the matter to the Secretary for

a determination whether the

administrative record should be

reopened to receive two recently

produced studies, one on the impacts of

Mobil’s propsoed actions on benthic

resources and one on their impacts on

socio-economic resources. Mobil, et al.

v. Brown, et al., 920 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C.

1996).

The Secretary’s decision was held in

abeyance pending settlement

discussions and the outcome of related

litigation.

On December 8, 1999, the Secretary

issued a decision declining to reopen

the record to admit the two studies at

issue in Mobil v. Brown, for two reasons.

First, both this Department and parties

to appeals under the CZMA have an

interest in the finality of Secretarial

decisions and the administrative

process. Once the administrative record

is closed, a decision should be made,

and new materials should not be

submitted or considered without a

showing of good cause. No good cause

was shown in this case. Second, the two

studies do not address all of the

information gaps identified by the

Secretary’s 1994 decisions. The

Secretary’s decision has been submitted

to the District Court in response to the

court’s order in Mobil v. Brown. Copies

of the decision may be obtained from:

Karl Gleaves, Assistant General

Counsel for Ocean Services, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), U.S.

Department of Commerce, 1305 EastWest Highway, Room 6111, Silver

Spring, MD 20910, (301) 713–2967.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog No.

11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program

Assistance)

Dated: May 26, 2000.

James A. Dorskind,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–13971 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark

Office

Request for Comments on Issues

Related to Policies and Agenda for the

National Intellectual Property Law

Enforcement Coordination Council

AGENCIES: U.S. Department of Justice

and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,

as Co-Chairs, National Intellectual

Property Law Enforcement Coordination

Council.

ACTION: Notice of request for public

comments.

SUMMARY: The Members of the National

Intellectual Property Law Enforcement

Coordination Council (the Council) seek

public comment on issues associated

with the Council’s mission. Interested

members of the public are invited to

present written comments on any of the

topics outlined in the Supplementary

Information section of this Notice.

DATES: All comments are due by June

20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to offer

written comments should address those

comments to Under Secretary of

Commerce for Intellectual Property and

Director of the United States Patent and

Trademark Office, Box 4, Washington,

D.C. 20231, marked to the attention of

Elizabeth Shaw. Comments may also be

submitted by facsimile transmission to

(703) 305–8885, or by electronic mail

through the Internet to

elizabeth.shaw@uspto.gov. All

comments will be maintained for public

inspection in Room 902 , Crystal Park II,

2121 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Shaw by telephone at (703)