Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39349

1The preliminary determination for EPS from

Korea will be published in a separate Federal

Register notice.

the Act in which Boone had an interest

at the time of his conviction.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

I. Until February 26, 2009, David

Sheldon Boone, currently incarcerated

at: FCI Manchester, #43671–083, P.O.

Box 3000, Manchester, Kentucky 40962,

may not, directly or indirectly,

participate in any way in any

transaction involving any commodity,

software or technology (hereinafter

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’)

exported or to be exported from the

United States, that is subject to the

Regulations, or in any other activity

subject to the Regulations, including,

but not limited to:

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using

any license, License Exception, or

export control document;

B. Carrying on negotiations

concerning, or order, buying, receiving,

using, selling, delivering, storing,

disposing of, forwarding, transporting,

financing, or otherwise servicing in any

way, any transaction involving any item

exported or to be exported from the

Untied States that is subject to the

Regulations, or in any other activity

subject to the Regulations; or

C. Benefiting in any way from any

transaction involving any item exported

or to be exported from the United States

that is subject to the Regulations, or in

any other activity subject to the

Regulations.

II. No person may, directly or

indirectly, do any of the following:

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf

of the denied person any item subject to

the Regulations;

B. Take any action that facilitates the

acquisition or attempted acquisition by

the denied person of the ownership,

possession, or control of any item

subject to the Regulations that has been

or will be exported from the United

States, including financing or other

support activities related to a

transaction whereby the denied person

acquires or attempts to acquire such

ownership, possession or control;

C. Take any action to acquire from or

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted

acquisition from the denied person of

any item subject to the Regulations that

has been exported from the United

States;

D. Obtain from the denied person in

the United States any item subject to the

Regulations with knowledge or reason

to know that the item will be, or is

intended to be, exported from the

United States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to service

any item subject to the Regulations that

has been or will be exported from the

United States and which is owned,

possessed or controlled by the denied

person, or service any item, of whatever

origin, that is owned, possessed or

controlled by the denied person if such

service involves the use of any item

subject to the Regulations that has been

or will be exported from the United

States. For purposes of this paragraph,

servicing means installation,

maintenance, repair, modification or

testing.

III. After notice and opportunity for

comment as provided in Section 766.23

of the Regulations, any person, firm,

corporation, or business organization

related to Boone by affiliation,

ownership, control, or position of

responsibility in the conduct of trade or

related services may also be subject to

the provisions of this Order.

IV. This Order does not prohibit any

export, reexport, or other transaction

subject to the Regulations where the

only items involved that are subject to

the Regulations are the foreignproduced direct product of U.S.-origin

technology.

V. This Order is effective immediately

and shall remain in effect until February

26, 2009.

VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the

Regulations, Boonee may file an appeal

from this Order with the Under

Secretary for Export Administration.

The appeal must be filed within 45 days

from the date of this Order and must

comply with the provisions of Part 756

of the Regulations.

VII. A copy of this Order shall be

delivered to Boonee. This Order shall be

published in the Federal Register.

Dated: June 13, 2000.

Eileen M. Albanese,

Director, Office of Exporter Services.

[FR Doc. 00–15993 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–560–810]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Expandable Polystyrene Resins From

Indonesia

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle at (202) 482–0650 or

David Layton at (202) 482–0371, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain expandable polystyrene resins

from Indonesia are being sold, or are

likely to be sold, in the United States at

less than fair value (LTFV), as provided

in section 733 of the Act. The estimated

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in

the Suspension of Liquidation section of

this notice.

Case History

On November 22, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) received petitions on

certain expandable polystyrene resins

(EPS) from Indonesia and the Republic

of Korea (Korea) filed in proper form by

BASF Corporation, Huntsman

Expandable Polymers Company LC,

Nova Chemicals Inc., and Styrochem

U.S., Ltd., (collectively the petitioners).

On December 1 and 3, 1999, the

Department received amendments to the

petitions.1

On December 13, 1999, the

Department initiated antidumping

investigations of EPS from Indonesia

and Korea. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Expandable Polystyrene Resins

from Indonesia and the Republic of

Korea, 64 FR 71112 (December 20, 1999)

(Initiation Notice). Since the initiation

of this investigation, the following

events have occurred:

On January 7, 2000, the United States

International Trade Commission (the

ITC) preliminarily determined that there

is a reasonable indication that imports

of the subject merchandise are

materially injuring the U.S. industry.

See Certain Expandable Polystyrene

Resins from Indonesia and Korea, 65 FR

2429 (January 14, 2000).

On January 13, 2000, the Department

selected PT Risjad Brasali Styrindo

(Brasali), the only known Indonesian

producer/exporter of the subject

39350 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

merchandise, as the mandatory

respondent in this investigation. See

Memorandum to Gary Taverman:

Selection of Respondents, dated January

13, 2000. On January 31, 2000, the

Department issued its antidumping

questionnaire to Brasali. On February

16, 2000, Brasali notified the

Department that it would not respond to

the Department’s questionnaire.

On April 13, 2000, the Department

published a Federal Register notice

postponing the deadline for the

preliminary determination until June

20, 2000. See Notice of Postponement of

Preliminary Antidumping Duty

Determinations: Certain Expandable

Polystyrene Resins from Indonesia and

the Republic of Korea, 65 FR 19872

(April 13, 2000).

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1998, through September 30,

1999. This period corresponds to the

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., December 1999).

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation

includes certain expandable polystyrene

resins in primary forms; namely, raw

material or resin manufactured in the

form of polystyrene beads, whether of

regular (shape) type or modified (block)

type, regardless of specification, having

a weighted-average molecular weight of

between 160,000 and 260,000,

containing from 3 to 7 percent blowing

agents, and having bead sizes ranging

from 0.4 mm to 3 mm.

Specifically excluded from the scope

of these investigations are off-grade, offspecification expandable polystyrene

resins.

The covered merchandise is found in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) subheading

3903.11.00.00. Although this HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written

description of the merchandise is

dispositive.

Facts Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that, if an interested party (A) withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department; (B) fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form or manner requested subject to

section 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C)

significantly impedes a proceeding

under the antidumping statute; or (D)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the

Department shall, subject to subsection

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise

available in reaching the applicable

determination. In this case, as stated

above, on February 16, 2000, Brasali

informed us that it would not answer

the Department’s antidumping

questionnaire. Because Brasali failed to

respond to our questionnaire, pursuant

to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we are

required to employ facts otherwise

available to determine the dumping

margin for Brasali. Because Brasali has

provided no information whatsoever,

sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not

applicable.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that the Department may use an

inference adverse to the interests of a

party that has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with the Department’s requests for

information. See also Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at

870 (1994) (SAA). The statute and the

SAA provide that such an adverse

inference may be based on secondary

information, including information

drawn from the petition. Brasali’s

refusal to respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire constitutes a

failure to act to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,

within the meaning of section 776(b) of

the Act. Accordingly, for purposes of

the preliminary determination, the

Department has determined that, in

selecting among the facts otherwise

available, an adverse inference is

warranted with respect to Brasali.

Consistent with the Department’s

practice in investigations where the

respondent refuses to participate by not

answering the Department’s

questionnaire, as adverse facts available,

we have determined to apply a margin

based on the highest margin alleged in

the petition. See, e.g., Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat Rolled Carbon Quality Steel

Products from Argentina, Japan and

Thailand, 64 FR 60410, 60414

(November 5, 1999); Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Wire Rod from Germany, 63 FR 10847

(March 5, 1998).

Section 776(c) of the Act provides

that, when the Department relies upon

‘‘secondary information’’ in using facts

otherwise available such as the petition

rates, it must, to the extent practicable,

corroborate that information from

independent sources that are reasonably

at the Department’s disposal. The SAA

clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that

the Department will satisfy itself that

the secondary information to be used

has probative value (see SAA at 870).

The SAA also states that independent

sources used to corroborate such

evidence may include, for example,

published price lists, official import

statistics and customs data, and

information obtained from interested

parties during the particular

investigation (see SAA at 870).

We reviewed the adequacy and

accuracy of the information in the

petition during our pre-initiation

analysis, to the extent appropriate

information was available for this

purpose. See Import Administration AD

Investigation Initiation Checklist, dated

December 13, 1999, for a discussion of

the margin calculations in the petition.

To corroborate the rate that we are

applying as adverse facts available for

purposes of the preliminary

determination, we examined the basis of

the rates contained in the petition. The

petitioners based export price (EP) on

the average unit value (AUV) of the

merchandise as derived from the U.S.

government’s IM–145 data, which we

were able to corroborate with the

statistical source. Normal value (NV)

was based upon prices for products

which are identical to the products used

as the basis for the EP. We corroborated

the data used by petitioners to calculate

NV in a telephone conference with the

market research firm responsible for

gathering the data. See Memorandum to

the File, Telephone Conversation with

Market Research Firm Regarding the

Petition for the Imposition of

Antidumping Duties, dated December 3,

1999. Our review of the EP and NV

calculations indicated that the

information in the petitions has

probative value, given that certain

information included in the margin

calculations in the petition is from

public sources concurrent, for the most

part, with the POI (e.g., average unit

values for U.S. sales). We did not

receive any other information from the

petitioners or other interested parties

with regard to EP and NV and are aware

of no other independent sources that

would enable us to further corroborate

the margin calculation in the petition.

Accordingly, we find, for purposes of

this preliminary determination, that this

information is corroborated to the extent

practicable, pursuant to section 776(c)

of the Act.

All Others Rate

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act

provides that, where the estimated

weighted-averaged dumping margins

established for all exporters and

producers individually investigated are

zero or de minimis or are determined

entirely under section 776 of the Act,

the Department may use any reasonable

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39351

1A petition was also filed at the same time on

EPS from Indonesia.

method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers

not individually investigated. Our

recent practice under these

circumstances has been to assign, as the

‘‘all others’’ rate, the simple average of

the margins in the petition. We have

done so in this case. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in

Coil from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March

31, 1999); see also Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil

from Italy, 64 FR 15458, 15459 (March

21, 1999).

Suspension of Liquidation

For entries of EPS from Indonesia, we

are directing the U.S. Customs Service

to suspend liquidation of those entries

that are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. We are also

instructing the Customs Service to

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the dumping margin, as

indicated in the chart below. These

instructions suspending liquidation will

remain in effect until further notice.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

PT Risjad Brasali Styrindo ......... 96.65

All Others .................................... 95.79

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final antidumping

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

The deadline for that ITC determination

would be the later of 120 days after the

date of this preliminary determination

or 45 days after the date of our final

determination.

Public Comment

Case briefs must be submitted no later

than 30 days after the publication of this

notice in the Federal Register. Rebuttal

briefs must be filed within five business

days after the deadline for submission of

case briefs. A list of authorities used, a

table of contents, and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Executive summaries should be limited

to five pages total, including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 75 days

after the date of this preliminary

determination.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1)

of the Act.

Dated: June 20, 2000.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16106 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–843]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Expandable Polystyrene

Resins From the Republic of Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie Ellis at (202) 482–2336 or

Charles Riggle at (202) 482–0650, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to Department of

Commerce (Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain expandable polystyrene resins

(EPS) from the Republic of Korea

(Korea) are being sold, or are likely to

be sold, in the United States at less than

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section

733 of the Act.

Case History

On November 22, 1999, the

Department received a petition on

certain EPS from Korea filed, in proper

form by BASF Corporation, Huntsman

Expandable Polymers Company LC,

Nova Chemicals Inc., and Styrochem

U.S., Ltd., (collectively, the

petitioners).1 On December 1 and 3,

1999, the Department received

amendments to the petition.

On December 13, 1999, the

Department initiated an antidumping

investigation of EPS from Korea. See

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Certain Expandable

Polystyrene Resins from Indonesia and

the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 71112

(December 20, 1999) (Initiation Notice).

Since the initiation of the investigation,

the following events have occurred:

On January 7, 2000, the United States

International Trade Commission (ITC)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of the

subject merchandise are materially

injuring the U.S. industry. See Certain

Expandable Polystyrene Resins from

Indonesia and Korea, 65 FR 2429

(January 14, 2000).

On January 31, 2000, the Department

issued antidumping questionnaires to

Cheil Industries, Inc. (Cheil) and Shinho

Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (Shinho). See

Selection of Respondents section of this

notice. The respondents submitted their

initial responses to the questionnaire in

March and April 2000. After analyzing

these responses, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to the

respondents. We received timely

responses to these supplemental

questionnaires.

On April 13, 2000, the Department

published a Federal Register notice

postponing until June 20, 2000, the

deadline for the preliminary

determination in this and in the

companion investigation involving

Indonesia. See Notice of Postponement

of Preliminary Antidumping Duty