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

3662 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Notices

1Al Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals

Division, Crucible Materials Corp., Electroalloy

Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels

Corp., Talley Metals Technology, Inc. and the

United Steelworkers of America (AFL–CIO/CLC).

correctly found that dumping would

likely continue or recur if the

antidumping duty order were revoked.

The domestic interested parties base

their conclusion on the fact that

dumping has continued over the life of

the order as well as the fact that import

volumes have declined significantly

over the life of the order. In addition,

the domestic interested parties argue

that the Department correctly rejected

Prayon’s argument that future exchange

rates would eliminate Prayon’s dumping

margin.

Department: The Department agrees

with the domestic interested parties. For

reasons provided in greater detail in our

Preliminary Results, we find that

dumping has continued over the life of

the order and is likely to continue if the

order were revoked.

Comment 2: The domestic interested

parties argue that the Department

correctly chose the margin of dumping

found in the original less than fair value

(‘‘LTFV’’) determination as the margin

to report to the International Trade

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’). The

domestic interested parties maintain

that the Department was correct in

selecting the margins from the original

investigation to forward to the

Commission because these margins are

the only calculated rates which reflect

the behavior of producers/exporters

without the discipline of the order in

place.

Department: The Department agrees

with the domestic interested parties.

Again, for reasons provided in detail in

our Preliminary Results, we find that the

margins likely to prevail were the order

revoked would be 14.67 percent for

Prayon and 14.67 percent for ‘‘all

others’’.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the

Department preliminarily finds that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order would likely lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping at the margins

listed below:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Prayon ...................................... 14.67

All Others .................................. 14.67

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

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

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

notice 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. 00–1659 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–810]

Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty New

Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty new shipper review

of stainless steel bar from India.

SUMMARY: On August 25, 1999, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the new shipper

review of the antidumping duty order

on stainless steel bar from India. We

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the preliminary results.

Based on our analysis of the comments

received, we have made certain changes

for the final results.

This review covers three producers/

exporters of stainless steel bar to the

United States during the period

February 1, 1998, through July 31, 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Breeden or Melani Miller, Import

Administration, AD/CVD Enforcement

Group I, Office 1, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–1174 or 482–0116,

respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘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,

all references to the Department of

Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’s’’)

regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April

1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 25, 1999, the Department

published the preliminary results of the

new shipper review of the antidumping

duty order on stainless steel bar from

India (64 FR 46350) (‘‘Preliminary

Results’’). The manufacturers/exporters

in this new shipper review are Jyoti

Steel Industries (‘‘Jyoti’’), Parekh Bright

Bars Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Parekh’’), and Shah

Alloys Ltd. (‘‘Shah’’). We verified

information provided by Jyoti as

discussed in the Verification section,

below. We received a case brief from the

petitioners 1 on December 22, 1999. We

received rebuttal briefs from Jyoti and

Shah on January 7, 2000.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’).

SSB means articles of stainless steel in

straight lengths that have been either

hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn,

cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished,

or ground, having a uniform solid cross

section along their whole length in the

shape of circles, segments of circles,

ovals, rectangles (including squares),

triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other

convex polygons. SSB includes coldfinished SSBs that are turned or ground

in straight lengths, whether produced

from hot-rolled bar or from straightened

and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars

that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or

other deformations produced during the

rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled

products (i.e., cut length rolled products

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness

have a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness having a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to this review is

currently classifiable under subheadings

7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050,

7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for