41436 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices

1On August 4, 1999, the Government of Quebec

(‘‘GOQ’’) entered an appearance in this sunset

review as an interested party in accordance with 19

CFR 351.102(b). The GOQ also submitted

application for access to business proprietary

information under an administrative protection

order and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(b), the

appropriate certification. However, the GOQ did not

file any written comments.

2On April 10, 2000, NHCI submitted its case brief

in response to the Department’s preliminary

determination. However, because NHCI’s case brief

contained new factual information, the Department

removed NHCI’s case brief from the record. The

Department granted NHCI until close of business

day (‘‘COB’’), Wednesday, April 19, 2000, to amend

and re-file its case brief. Therefore, the new date for

the filing of rebuttal briefs was COB, Thursday,

April 20, 2000.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–814]

Pure Magnesium From Canada; Final

Results of Full Sunset Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Full

Sunset Review: Pure Magnesium from

Canada.

SUMMARY: On August 2, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from Canada (64 FR 41915)

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 filed on behalf of domestic

interested parties and adequate

substantive comments filed on behalf of

domestic and respondent interested

parties, the Department determined to

conduct a full 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit or James P. Maeder,

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) 482–5050 or (202) 482–

3330, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

This review is being conducted

pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of

the Act. The Department’s procedures

for the conduct of sunset reviews are set

forth in Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998)

(‘‘Sunset Regulations’’) and 19 CFR Part

351 (1999) in general. 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 February 29, 2000, the Department

published the preliminary results of the

sunset review of the antidumping duty

order on pure magnesium from Canada

(65 FR 10768 ). In the preliminary

results, the Department determined that

it is likely that dumping of the subject

merchandise would continue or recur if

the order were revoked because imports

of the subject merchandise decreased by

more than 97 percent in the year

following the issuance of the order. In

addition, imports of pure magnesium

from Canada have consistently

remained at less than 10 percent of their

pre-order levels. Therefore, consistent

with section II.A.3 of the Department’s

Sunset Policy Bulletin, and with the

Statement of Administrative Action at

889–90, and the House Report at 63

(H.R. Rep. No. 103–826, pt.1 (1994), at

63)), we preliminarily determined that

although dumping was eliminated by

Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. (‘‘NHCI’’)(the

only respondent participating in this

sunset review) export volumes by NHCI

have declined significantly since the

issuance of the order.1 As a result, we

determined that Canadian imports of

pure magnesium would likely continue

or recur if the order were revoked at the

weighted-average dumping margin

assessed in the original investigation.

On April 19, 2000, we received a case

brief on behalf of NHCI.2 On April 20,

2000, we received rebuttal comments

from Magnesium Corporation of

America (‘‘Magcorp’’) in response to

NHCI’s case brief.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

antidumping duty order is pure

magnesium from Canada. Pure

magnesium is currently classifiable

under item number 8104.11.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Pure

unwrought magnesium contains at least

99.8 percent magnesium by weight and

is sold in various slab and ingot forms

and sizes. Granular and secondary

magnesium are excluded from the scope

of this review. Although the HTSUS

subheading is 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 June 27, 2000, which is hereby

adopted and incorporated by reference

into 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/, under the

heading ‘‘Canada.’’ The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

We determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from Canada would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the following

weighted-average margins:

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

Norsk Hydro Canada Inc. ............. 21.00

Timminco Limited ......................... (1)

All Others ...................................... 21.00

1Excluded.

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

notice are in accordance with sections

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

This notice serves as the only reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41437

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16946 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–841]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Structural

Steel Beams From South Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) determines that

structural steel beams from South Korea

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes to our analysis. Therefore, this

final determination differs from the

preliminary determination. The final

weighted-average dumping margins are

listed below in the section entitled

‘‘Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita (Kangwon), Brandon

Farlander (Inchon) or Rick Johnson,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4243, (202) 482–

0182, or 482–3818, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930

(‘‘the Act’’) as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR Part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On February 11, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register (65

FR 6984) the Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Structural Steel Beams

from South Korea (‘‘Preliminary

Determination’’). We invited parties to

comment on our preliminary

determination. We verified Inchon’s

sales and cost questionnaire responses

from March 6–18, 2000. We verified

Kangwon’s sales and cost questionnaire

responses from March 6–10, 2000, and

March 13–17, 2000, respectively. We

verified Hyundai U.S.A., the U.S.

affiliate of Inchon, on April 12–13,

2000. On May 4, 2000, we solicited

further information from Inchon

regarding the merger between Inchon

and Kangwon. On May 17, 2000, we

received case briefs from interested

parties, and on May 22, 2000, we

received rebuttal briefs. On June 1 and

2, 2000, we verified Inchon’s

information concerning the merger. On

June 6, we issued our successorship

verification report. On June 9, 2000, we

received case briefs on successorship

from Inchon and petitioners and, on

June 14, 2000, we received rebuttal

briefs on successorship from Inchon and

petitioners. At the request of petitioners,

we held a public hearing on June 16,

2000.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are doubly-symmetric

shapes, whether hot- or cold-rolled,

drawn, extruded, formed or finished,

having at least one dimension of at least

80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of

carbon or alloy (other than stainless)

steel, and whether or not drilled,

punched, notched, painted, coated or

clad. These products include, but are

not limited to, wide-flange beams (‘‘W’’

shapes), bearing piles (‘‘HP’’ shapes),

standard beams (‘‘S’’ or ‘‘I’’ shapes), and

M-shapes.

All products that meet the physical

and metallurgical descriptions provided

above are within the scope of this

investigation unless otherwise

excluded. The following products, are

outside and/or specifically excluded

from the scope of this investigation:

structural steel beams greater than 400

pounds per linear foot or with a web or

section height (also known as depth)

over 40 inches.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) at

subheadings: 7216.32.0000,

7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060,

7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000,

7216.61,0000, 7216.69.0000,

7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000,

7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and Customs purposes,

the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Use of Facts Available

For a discussion of our application of

facts available, see the ‘‘Facts Available’’

section of the Issues and Decision

Memorandum for the Investigation of

Structural Steel Beams from South

Korea from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration (‘‘Decision Memo’’),

dated June 26, 2000, which is on file in

the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of

the main Department building, and on

the Web at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of beams

from South Korea to the United States

were made at less than fair value, we

compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) and

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to

comparison market prices or CV, as

described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’

‘‘Constructed Export Price,’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below. Our

calculations followed the methodologies

described in the Preliminary

Determination, except as noted below

and in the company-specific calculation

memoranda dated June 26, 2000, which

have been placed in the file in Room B–

099. For detailed discussions relating to

the issues described below, see Decision

Memo.

Export Price

For Kangwon’s sales to all U.S.

customers, and Inchon’s direct sales and

sales through Hyundai Corporation

(Channels 2 and 3) to U.S. customers,

we used EP as defined in section 772 of

the Act. We calculated EP based on the

same methodology described in the

Preliminary Determination, with the

following exceptions:

Inchon

a. Based on verification findings, we

deducted bank charges and negotiation

fees as a direct selling expense for all

U.S. sales. See Decision Memo,

Comment 31.

b. We disregarded all of Inchon’s U.S.

Channel 3 sales to a particular customer.

See Decision Memo, Comment 11.

c. We applied additional expenses for

all Inchon’s U.S. sales to account for

various additional movement fees,

excluding U.S. marine insurance,

incurred on certain U.S. sales. See

Decision Memo, Comment 13.

d. We adjusted Hyundai Corporation’s

indirect selling expenses for U.S. sales.

See Decision Memo, Comment 14.

e. We adjusted Inchon’s reported

packing expenses for all U.S. sales. See

Decision Memo, Comment 19.