3660 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

likelihood of continuation or recurrence

of dumping. A deposit rate above a de

minimis level continues in effect for

exports of the subject merchandise by at

least one Chinese manufacturer/

exporter. Therefore, given that dumping

has continued over the life of the order,

the Department preliminarily

determines that dumping is likely to

continue if the orders were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that it normally will

provide to the Commission the margin

that was determined in the final

determination in the original

investigation. Further, for companies

not specifically investigated or for

companies that did not begin shipping

until after the order was issued, the

Department normally will provide a

margin based on the ‘‘all others’’ rate

from the investigation. (See section

II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)

Exceptions to this policy include the

use of a more recently calculated

margin, where appropriate, and

consideration of duty absorption

determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and

3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) We note

that, to date, the Department has not

issued any duty absorption findings in

either of these cases.

In their substantive responses, the

domestic interested parties recommend

that the Department deviate from its

normal practice of forwarding margins

from the original investigation and

instead recommend using margins from

more recent administrative reviews. In

the case of bars/wedges, the domestic

interested parties recommend

forwarding to the Commission a margin

of 36.76 percent for Fujian Machinery &

Equipment Import & Export Corp. and

38.30 percent for Shandong Machinery

Import & Export Corp., as calculated in

the second administrative review; 31.76

percent for Tianjin Machinery Import &

Export Corp. and Liaoning Machinery

Import & Export Corp., as calculated in

the original investigation; and 34

percent for Shandong Huarong General

Group Corp., as calculated in the sixth

administrative review. The domestic

interested parties argue that since the

imposition of the order, the dumping

margins have increased for three

companies as well as for the PRC as a

whole. They argue further that because

import volumes of bars/wedges have

declined since the imposition of the

order, the Department should use a

more recently calculated rate for several

PRC companies.

For hammers/sledges, the domestic

interested parties recommend

forwarding to the Commission the

margin of 45.42 percent calculated in

the original investigation.

The respondents argue that the

dumping margin likely to prevail if the

order were revoked would be zero, but

no higher than the average margin for

the latest reviews. They base this

argument on the fact that recent reviews

conducted by the Department confirm

that different surrogate steel values than

were used in the original investigation

significantly reduce the dumping

margin ( see July 30, 1999, substantive

response of respondents at 3).

As noted in the Sunset Regulations

and Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department may provide to the

Commission a more recently calculated

margin for a particular company where

dumping margins increased after the

issuance of the order where that

particular company increased dumping

to maintain or increase market share. In

this case, the domestic interested parties

did not provide any company-specific

argument or evidence that any Chinese

companies have increased dumping in

order to gain or maintain market share

or increase import volumes. Moreover,

while it is true that the dumping

margins have increased for some

Chinese companies, we have no

company-specific information

demonstrating that imports of the

subject merchandise have not increased

substantially over the life of the order.

Since we have no company-specific

information correlating an increase in

exports for one company with an

increase in the dumping margin for that

particular company, we cannot

conclude that use of more recently

calculated margins is warranted in this

case.

Additionally, the Department

disagrees with the respondents’

argument that a dumping margin of zero

percent is likely to prevail were the

order to be revoked. Specifically, as

noted in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department will consider forwarding to

the Commission more recently

calculated margins where dumping

margins have declined over the life of

the order and imports have remained

steady or increased or where a company

increases dumping in order to maintain

or increase market share. The

respondent’s argument concerning

changes in methodology (e.g., different

surrogate steel values) does not fit either

criteria. Therefore, consistent with the

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department

preliminarily finds that the margins

calculated in the original investigation

are probative of the behavior of Chinese

producers/exporters if the order were to

be revoked as they are the only margins

which reflect their behavior absent the

discipline of the order. As such, the

Department will report to the

Commission the PRC-wide rates from

the original investigation as contained

in the Preliminary Results of Reviews

section of this notice.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

As a result of these reviews, the

Department preliminarily finds that

revocation of the antidumping order

would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the margins

listed below:

PRC-wide Margin

(percent)

Bars/Wedges ............................ 31.76

Hammers/Sledges .................... 45.42

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication of

this notice in accordance with19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held on March 15, 2000.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

no later than March 7, 2000, in

accordance with 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

March 13, 2000. The Department will

issue a notice of final results of this

sunset review, which will include the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such comments, no later than June

26, 2000.

These five-year (‘‘sunset’’) reviews

and notices are in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–1660 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–820]

Final Results of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’)

Review and Revocation of

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain

Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks

Fittings and Glands From the People’s

Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices 3661

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on

certain compact ductile iron waterworks

fittings and glands (‘‘CDIW’’) from the

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).

Because no domestic party responded to

the sunset review notice of initiation by

the applicable deadline, the Department

is revoking this order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G.

Skinner, Office of Policy, 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–

1560, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 7, 1993, the

Department issued the antidumping

duty order on CDIW from the PRC (58

FR 47117). Pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the

Act’’), the Department initiated a sunset

review of this order by publishing

notice of the initiation in the Federal

Register, November 2, 1999 (64 FR

59160). In addition, as a courtesy to

interested parties, the Department sent

letters, via certified and registered mail,

to each party listed on the Department’s

most current service list for this

proceeding to inform them of the

automatic initiation of the sunset review

on this order.

No domestic interested party in the

sunset review on this order responded

to the notice of initiation by the

November 17, 1999 deadline (see

§ 351.218(d)(1)(i) of Procedures for

Conducting Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’)

Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR

13520 (March 20, 1998) (‘‘Sunset

Regulations’’)).

Determination To Revoke

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the

Act and § 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3) of the

Sunset Regulations, if no domestic

interested party responds to the notice

of initiation, the Department shall issue

a final determination, within 90 days

after the initiation of the review,

revoking the finding or order. Because

no domestic interested party responded

to the notice of initiation by the

applicable deadline, November 17,

1999, we are revoking this antidumping

duty order.

Effective Date of Revocation and

Termination

Pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of

the Act, the Department will instruct the

United States Customs Service to

terminate the suspension of liquidation

of the merchandise subject to this order

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

on or after January 1, 2000. Entries of

subject merchandise prior to the

effective date of revocation will

continue to be subject to suspension of

liquidation and antidumping duty

deposit requirements. The Department

will complete any pending

administrative reviews of this order and

will conduct administrative reviews of

subject merchandise entered prior to the

effective date of revocation in response

to appropriately filed requests for

review.

Dated: January 14, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–1658 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–602]

Final Results of Full Sunset Review:

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Belgium

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Full

Sunset Review: Industrial Phosphoric

Acid from Belgium.

SUMMARY: On September 23, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published a notice of

preliminary results of the full sunset

review of the antidumping duty order

on industrial phosphoric acid from

Belgium (64 FR 51511) pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). We provided

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results. We

received comments from the domestic

interested parties. The Department did

not receive a request for a public

hearing, and, therefore, no hearing was

held. 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: January 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner,

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) 482–3207 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

This review was 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 Five-year

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR

13516 (March 20, 1998) (‘‘Sunset

Regulations’’) and 19 CFR Part 351

(1998) 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’’).

Scope

The merchandise subject to this

antidumping duty order is industrial

phosphoric acid (‘‘IPA’’) from Belgium.

IPA is currently classifiable under item

number 2809.20.00 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description remains dispositive.

Background

On September 23, 1999, the

Department issued its Preliminary

Results of Full Sunset Review: Industrial

Phosphoric Acid from Belgium (64 FR

51511) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). In our

Preliminary Results, we found that

revocation of the order would likely

result in continuation or recurrence of

dumping. In addition, we preliminarily

determined that the magnitude of the

margin of dumping likely to prevail

were the order revoked was 14.67

percent for Societe Chimique PrayonRupel, S.A. (‘‘Prayon’’) as well as for

‘‘all other’’ producers and/or exporters.

On November 8, 1999, within the

deadline specified in 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i), we received comments

on behalf of Albright and Wilson

Americas, Inc., FMC Corporation, and

Solutia Inc. (collectively, the ‘‘domestic

interested parties’’). We have addressed

the comments received below.

Comments

Comment 1: The domestic interested

parties maintain that the Department