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

36406 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices

1See Notice of Scope Rulings, 62 FR 62288

(November 21, 1997).

expedited sunset review. The

Department is conducting this sunset

review in accordance with sections 751

and 752 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this order is

glycine, which is a free-flowing

crystalline material, like salt or sugar.

Glycine is produced at varying levels of

purity and is used as a sweetener/taste

enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical

intermediate, and a metal complexing

agent. Glycine is currently classified

under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the

Harmonized Tariff schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The scope

of this order includes glycine of all

purity levels. In a separate scope

ruling, the Department determined that

D(-)Phenylglycine Ethyl Dane Salt is

outside the scope of the order.1

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in substantive

responses 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 June 2, 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 room B–099, the Central Records

Unit, 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 would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the following percentage

weighted-average margin:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

PRC-wide .................................. 155.59

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 this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections section 751(c), 752, and

777(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14500 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–506]

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty New Shipper Review: Oil Country

Tubular Goods From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty new shipper review.

SUMMARY: On November 30, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on oil country

tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from Canada.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Atlas Tube, Inc. (‘‘Atlas’’), and

the period June 1, 1998 through

November 30, 1998.

We received comments by petitioners,

Lone Star Steel Company and Maverick

Tube Corporation, (collectively ‘‘the

petitioners’’), and rebuttal comments

from Atlas. Based on our analysis of

comments received and corrections

from verification, we have made

changes in the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margin for

the reviewed firm is listed below, in the

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Manning or Nithya Nagarajan, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group II, Office IV,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3936 or

(202) 482–5253, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, 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 Rounds Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations at 19 CFR part 351

(1998).

Background

On November 30, 1999, the

Department published the preliminary

results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on OCTG from

Canada (64 FR 66886). The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter. The

period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June 1, 1998

through November 30, 1998. We invited

parties to comment on our preliminary

results of review. None of the interested

parties requested a public hearing;

therefore, none was held. The

Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include shipments of OCTG from

Canada. This includes American

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’)

specification OCTG and all other pipe

with the following characteristics except

entries which the Department

determined through its end-use

certification procedure were not used in

OCTG applications: Length of at least 16

feet; outside diameter of standard sizes

published in the API or proprietary

specifications for OCTG with tolerances

of plus 1⁄8 inch for diameters less than

or equal to 85⁄8 inches and plus 1⁄4 inch

for diameters greater than 85⁄8 inches,

minimum wall thickness as identified

for a given outer diameter as published

in the API or proprietary specifications

for OCTG; a minimum of 40,000 PSI

yield strength and a minimum 60,000

PSI tensile strength; and if with seams,

must be electric resistance welded.