41432 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices

1See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Five-Year Reviews, 65 FR 18058 (April 6, 2000).

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 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of

the Act.

Dated: June 28, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16955 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–831]

Fresh Garlic 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: fresh garlic

from the People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On December 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the notice of

initiation of sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic

from the People’s Republic of China

(‘‘PRC’’) (64 FR 67247), 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 responses 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: July 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun

W. Cho or James 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)

482–1698 or (202) 482–3330,

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’s 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 December 1, 1999, the Department

published the notice of initiation of

sunset review of the antidumping duty

order on fresh garlic 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 substantive responses from

respondent interested parties, we

determined to conduct an expedited

sunset review. The Department is

conducting this sunset review in

accordance with sections 751 and 752 of

the Act.

In accordance with section

751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the

Department may treat a review as

extraordinarily complicated if it is a

review of a transition order (i.e., an

order in effect on January 1, 1995). This

review concerns a transition order

within the meaning of section

751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, on

April 6, 2000, the Department

determined that the sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic

from the PRC is extraordinarily

complicated and extended the time

limit for completion of the final results

of this review until not later than June

28, 2000, in accordance with section

751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.1

Scope of Review

The products subject to this

antidumping duty order are all grades of

garlic, whole or separated into

constituent cloves, whether or not

peeled, fresh, chilled, frozen,

provisionally preserved, or packed in

water or other neutral substance, but not

prepared or preserved by the addition of

other ingredients or heat processing.

The differences between grades are

based on color, size, sheathing, and

level of decay. The scope of this order

does not include the following: (a)

Garlic that has been mechanically

harvested and that is primarily, but not

exclusively, destined for non-fresh use;

or (b) garlic that has been specially

prepared and cultivated prior to

planting and then harvested and

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The

subject merchandise is used principally

as a food product and for seasoning. The

subject garlic is currently classifiable

under subheadings 0703.20.0000,

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750,

0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9500 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).

In order to be excluded from the

antidumping duty order, garlic entered

under the HTSUS subheadings listed

above that is (1) mechanically harvested

and primarily, but not exclusively,

destined for non-fresh use or (2)

specially prepared and cultivated prior

to planting and then harvested and

otherwise prepared for use as seed must

be accompanied by declarations to the

Customs Service to that effect.

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 March 30, 2000, which is hereby

adopted by this notice. The issues

discussed in the 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

B–099, the Central Records Unit, of the

main Commerce building.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41433

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at ia.doc.gov/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 margins:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

PRC-wide .................................. 376.67

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 28, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16954 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–811; A–588–831]

Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From

Italy and Japan; Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Reviews of

Antidumping Duty Orders

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

expedited sunset reviews: grain-oriented

electrical steel from Italy and Japan.

SUMMARY: On December 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on grainoriented electrical steel (‘‘GOES’’) from

Italy and Japan (64 FR 67247) pursuant

to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the

basis of notices of intent to participate

and adequate substantive responses

filed on behalf of domestic interested

parties and inadequate response from

respondent interested parties (in these

cases, no response), the Department

determined to conduct expedited

reviews. As a result of these reviews, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would likely

lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the levels indicated in the

Final Results of Reviews section of this

notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn B. McCormick or James

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) 482–1930 or (202) 482–

3330, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

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’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 of Reviews

The scope of these reviews includes

GOES, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel

product containing by weight at least

0.6 percent of silicon, not more than

0.08 percent of carbon, not more than

1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other

element in an amount that would give

the steel the characteristics of another

alloy steel, of a thickness of no more

than 0.56 millimeters, in coils of any

width, or in straight lengths which are

of a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness, as currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTS’’) under item

numbers 7225.10.0030, 7226.10.1030,

7226.10.5015, and 7226.10.5056.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written descriptions of

the scope of these proceedings are

dispositive.

Background

On December 1, 1999, the Department

initiated the sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on GOES from

Italy and Japan (64 FR 67247), pursuant

to section 751(c) of the Act. The

Department received a notice of intent

to participate in these cases on behalf of

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation

(‘‘Allegheny Ludlum’’), AK Steel

Corporation (‘‘AK Steel’’), Butler Armco

Independent Union, the United

Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO/CLC,

and the Zanesville Armco Independent

Union (collectively, ‘‘domestic

interested parties’’), within the

applicable deadline (December 16,

1999) specified in 19 CFR

351.218(d)(1)(i). Additionally, on

December 16, 1999, Acciai Speciali

Terni S.p.A. and Acciai Speciali Terni

USA Inc. (together, ‘‘AST’’) submitted

an entry of appearance in the Italian

proceeding and, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.305(b), an application for access to

business proprietary information under

administrative protect order.

Allegheny Ludlum and AK Steel

claimed interested-party status under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S.

producers of a domestic like product.

The unions listed above are interested

parties, pursuant to 771(9)(D), because

they are certified or recognized unions

or groups of workers representative of

the industry engaged in the

manufacture, production, or wholesale

in the United States of the domestic like

product.

Domestic interested parties state that

Allegheney Ludlum, Armco Inc.

(‘‘Armco’’), United Steel Workers of

America, Butler Armco Independent

Union, and Zanesville Armco

Independent Union were the petitioners

in the initial investigation of GOES from

Italy and participated in the only

completed administrative review of the

Italian order (see January 3, 2000,

substantive response of domestic

interested parties at 5). Armco was not

a petitioner in the case concerning

GOES from Japan because Armco had

certain technical relationships with a

Japanese producer of GOES at the time

that it wanted to preserve. However, the

relationship terminated prior to AK

Steel’s acquisition of Armco, on

September 30, 1999, when it assumed

control of Armco’s production of GOES.

Id. Accordingly, AK Steel, as the

successor of Armco, has replaced Armco

as a domestic interested party for

purposes of these sunset reviews and all

other administrative reviews. Id.