Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Notices 58509

bandage facility of Aso Corporation

located in Sarasota County, Florida,

(FTZ Docket 24–98, filed 5–05–98);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment has been given in the Federal

Register (63 FR 26776, 5/14/98 and 65

FR 49536, 8/14/00); and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and the

Board’s regulations would be satisfied,

and that approval of the application

would be in the public interest if

approval were subject to a time limit;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

grants authority for subzone status at the

adhesive bandage facility of Aso

Corporation, located in Sarasota County,

Florida, (Subzone 169A), at the location

described in the application, for an

initial period of four years (of

activation), subject to extension upon

review, and subject to the FTZ Act and

the Board’s regulations, including

§ 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of

September 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25085 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 55–2000]

Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone—

Edinburg, Texas; Application and

Public Hearing

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board

(the Board) by the City of Edinburg,

Texas, to establish a general-purpose

foreign-trade zone in Edinburg, Texas,

adjacent to the Hidalgo/Pharr Customs

port of entry. The application was

submitted pursuant to the provisions of

the FTZ Act, as amended (19 U.S.C.

81a–81u), and the regulations of the

Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally

filed on September 22, 2000. The

applicant is authorized to make the

proposal under Senate Bill 691 of the

70th Legislature of the State of Texas

(Regular Session, 1987), codified as Tex

Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 1446.01.

The proposed zone would be the

second general-purpose zone in the

Hidalgo/Pharr Customs port of entry

area. The existing zone is FTZ 12 in

McAllen, Texas (Grantee: McAllen

Economic Development Corporation,

Board Order 84, 35 FR 16962, 11/3/70).

The proposed new zone would

involve a site (552 acres) located at the

Edinburg International Airport complex,

400 East Hargill Road, 11 miles north of

the City of Edinburg. The site is about

25 miles north of the Pharr/Reynosa

International Bridge, one of the two

bridges connecting the U.S. to Reynosa,

Mexico. The applicant owns the site.

The application indicates a need for

foreign-trade zone services in the

Edinburg area. Several firms have

indicated an interest in using zone

procedures for warehousing/distribution

of such items as precision instruments,

apparel, electronics and medical

supplies. Specific manufacturing

approvals are not being sought at this

time. Requests would be made to the

Board on a case-by-case basis.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

As part of the investigation, the

Commerce examiner will hold a public

hearing on November 1, 2000, at 9 a.m.,

University of Texas—Pan American

Campus, International Trade and

Technology Building, corner of Dr.

Miguel Nevarez and 107, Room 1.102,

Edinburg, Texas 78539.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is November 28, 2000. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to December 13, 2000).

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

during this time for public inspection at

the following locations:

The University of Texas—Pan American

Campus, International Trade and

Technology Building, Room 1.102,

Corner of Dr. Miguel Nevarez and 107,

Edinburg, Texas 78539,

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room

4008, U.S. Department of Commerce

14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: September 22, 2000.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25084 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–826]

Canned Pineapple Fruit From Thailand;

Preliminary Results of Sunset Review

of Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

full sunset review: Canned pineapple

fruit from Thailand.

SUMMARY: On June 5, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on

canned pineapple fruit (‘‘CPF’’) from

Thailand (65 FR 35604) 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 and respondent

interested parties, the Department

determined to conduct a full 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 levels indicated in the

Preliminary Results of Review section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 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

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 in 19 CFR

part 351 (2000) 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’’).

58510 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Notices

Background

On June 5, 2000, the Department

initiated a sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on CPF from

Thailand (65 FR 35604), pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act. The

Department received a notice of intent

to participate on behalf of Maui

Pineapple Co., Ltd. (‘‘Maui’’) and the

International Longshoremen’s and

Warehousemen’s Union (the ‘‘Union’’)

(collectively, ‘‘domestic interested

parties’’), within the applicable deadline

(June 16, 1999) specified in section

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. Domestic interested parties

claimed interested-party status under

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

producers of a domestic like product.

On July 5, 2000, we received

substantive responses on behalf of

domestic interested parties and Dole.

Dole is an interested party pursuant to

section 771(9)(A) of the Act as a foreign

producer and exporter of subject

merchandise. Domestic interested

parties claim that they have participated

in every segment of this proceeding,

including the original investigation and

the four administrative reviews initiated

to date, pursuant to section 751(a) of the

Act (see July 5, 2000, Substantive

Response of domestic interested parties

at 3).

On July 10, 2000, we received rebuttal

comments on behalf of domestic

interested parties in response to Dole’s

substantive response. On July 14 and

July 27, 2000, we accepted additional

comments.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

CPF from Thailand. CPF is defined as

pineapple processed and/or prepared

into various product forms, including

rings, pieces, chunks, tidbits, and

crushed pineapple, that is packed and

cooked in metal cans with either

pineapple juice or sugar syrup added.

CPF is currently classifiable under

subheadings 2008.20.0010 and

2008.20.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). HTSUS 2008.20.0010

covers CPF packed in a sugar-based

syrup; HTSUS 2008.20.0090 covers CPF

packed without added sugar (i.e., juicepacked). Although these HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and for customs purposes,

our written description of the scope is

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 September 23, 2000, which is

hereby adopted by 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 http://ia.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn, under the

heading ‘‘Thailand.’’ The paper copy

and electronic version of the Decision

Memo are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

We determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on CPF from

Thailand would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the following percentage weightedaverage margins:

Manufacturer/exporters Margin

(percent)

Dole .......................................... 1.73

TIPCO ....................................... 38.68

SAICO ....................................... 51.16

Malee ........................................ 41.74

All Others .................................. 24.64

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication of

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held on November 15, 2000, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d).

Interested parties may submit case briefs

no later than November 8, 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

November 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 briefs, no later than January

27, 2001.

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

notice are in accordance with sections

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

Dated: September 25, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–25082 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–423–602]

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On June 26, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

industrial phosphoric acid from

Belgium. See Notice of Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Industrial

Phosphoric Acid From Belgium, 65 FR

39355 (June 26, 2000) (‘‘Preliminary

Results’’). The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise to the United States,

Societe Chimique Prayon-Rupel S.A.

(‘‘Prayon’’). The period of review is

August 1, 1998, through July 31, 1999.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

Preliminary Results of review but

received no comments. Therefore, the

final results do not differ from the

Preliminary Results of review, in which

we found the dumping margin for

Prayon to be 0.60 percent.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Thomson or Howard Smith, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group II, Office IV,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4793,

and 482–5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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 Rounds

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR part 351 (1999).