5584 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

the HTSUS subheading and the CAS

registry number are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Antidumping Duty Order

On January 28, 2000, in accordance

with section 735(d) of the Act, the U.S.

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)

notified the Department that a U.S.

industry is ‘‘materially injured,’’ within

the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A) of

the Act, by reason of less-than-fair-value

imports of creatine monohydrate from

the PRC. Therefore, the Department will

direct the United States Customs

Service to assess, upon further advice by

the Department, antidumping duties

equal to the amount by which the

normal value of the subject merchandise

exceeds the export price of the subject

merchandise for all relevant entries of

creatine monohydrate from the PRC,

except for subject merchandise

imported from Tianjin Tiancheng

Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tiancheng’’)

and Nantong Medicines and Health

Products Import and Export Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Nantong’’), which both received a zero

final margin. Antidumping duties will

be assessed on all unliquidated entries

of creatine monohydrate from the

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)

(except entries from Tiancheng and

Nantong) entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

July 30, 1999, the date of publication of

the Department’s preliminary

determination in the Federal Register

(64 FR 41375). Furthermore, we will

instruct Customs to refund all cash

deposits, or bonds posted, for entries of

subject merchandise from Tiancheng

and Nantong.

The ITC further found that critical

circumstances do not exist with respect

to imports of the subject merchandise

from the PRC. As a result, the

Department will direct Customs officers

to refund any cash deposits made, or

bonds posted, pursuant to the

Department’s affirmative determination

of critical circumstances on

merchandise produced/exported by

Shanghai Freemen International Trading

Co., Ltd., Shanghai Greenmen

International Trading Co., Ltd. and by

any companies subject to the PRC-wide

rate which were entered on or after May

1, 1999 (which is 90 days prior to the

Department’s preliminary determination

publication date of July 30, 1999) and

before July 30, 1999.

On or after the date of publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

Customs officers must require, at the

same time as importers would normally

deposit estimated duties, cash deposits

for the subject merchandise equal to the

weighted-average antidumping duty

margins as noted below:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

percentage

Blue Science International

Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 58.10

Nantong Medicines and Health

Products Import and Export

Co., Ltd. ................................ 0.00

Shanghai Desano International

Trading Co., Ltd. ................... 24.84

Shanghai Freemen International Trading Co., Ltd.

and Shanghai Greenmen

International Trading Co.,

Ltd. ........................................ 44.43

Suzhou Sanjian Fine Chemical

Co., Ltd. ................................ 50.32

Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ................... 0.00

PRC-wide rate .......................... 153.70

This notice constitutes the

antidumping duty order with respect to

creatine monohydrate from the PRC,

pursuant to section 735(a) of the Act.

Interested parties may contact the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the Main Commerce Building for copies

of an updated list of antidumping duty

orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance

with sections 736(a) and 19 CFR

351.211.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2582 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–403–801]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic

Salmon From Norway

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review: Fresh and

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department‘‘) initiated a sunset review

of the antidumping duty order on fresh

and chilled Atlantic salmon from

Norway (64 FR 35588) 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 comments filed on

behalf of domestic interested parties,

and inadequate response (in this case,

no response) from respondent interested

parties, the Department determined to

conduct an expedited (120 day) review.

As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the levels indicated in the

Final Results of Review section of this

notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn B. McCormick 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, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–1930 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

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 in 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’’).

Scope

The product covered by this order is

the species Atlantic salmon (Salmon

Salar) marketed as specified herein; the

order excludes all other species of

salmon: Danube salmon, Chinook (also

called ‘‘king’’ or ‘‘quinnat’’), Coho

(‘‘silver’’), Sockeye (‘‘redfish’’ or

‘‘blueback’’), Humpback (‘‘pink’’) and

Chum (‘‘dog’’). Atlantic salmon is a

whole or nearly-whole fish, typically

(but not necessarily) marketed gutted,

and cleaned, with the head on. The

subject merchandise is typically packed

in fresh-water ice (‘‘chilled’’). Excluded

from the subject merchandise are fillets,

steaks and other cuts of Atlantic salmon.

Also excluded are frozen, canned,

smoked or otherwise processed Atlantic

salmon. Atlantic salmon was classifiable

under item number 110.2045 of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5585

1See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From

Norway; Final Results of Changed Circumstance

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR

9979 (March 1, 1999).

2See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From

Norway; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 58 FR 37912 (July 14, 1993),

and Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From

Norway; Amended Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 11070 (March

1, 1995).

3See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From

Norway; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 59 FR 12242 (March 16,

1994).

4See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From

Norway; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 65522 (December 13,

1996); and Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From

Norway; Amended Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 44255 (August

20, 1995).

5See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From

Norway; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 17616 (April 12,

1999).

6See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From

Norway; Final results of New Shipper Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 1430 (January

10, 1997).

7See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16,

1999).

Tariff Schedules of the United States

Annotated (‘‘TSUSA’’). Prior to January

1, 1990, Atlantic salmon was provided

for under item numbers 0302.0060.8

and 0302.12.0065.3 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’) (56 FR 7678, February 25,

1991). Currently, it is provided for

under HTSUS item number

0302.12.00.02.09. The subheadings

above are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

There have been no scope rulings for

the subject order. There was one

changed circumstances determination in

which the Department affirmed that

Kinn Salmon AS was the successor-ininterest to Skaarfish Group A/S.1

History of the Order

In the February 25, 1991, final

determination in the antidumping duty

investigation, covering the period

September 1, 1989, through February

28, 1990, the Department determined

the following weighted-average

dumping margins for respondent

companies (56 FR 7661):

Salmonor A/S ................................... 18.39

Sea Star International A/S ................ 24.61

Skaarfish Mowi A/S .......................... 15.65

Fremstad Group A/S ........................ 21.51

Domstein and Co. ............................. 31.81

Saga A/S .......................................... 26.55

Chr. Bjelland Seafoods A/S .............. 19.96

Hallvard Leroy A/S ........................... 31.81

All others ........................................... 23.80

Since the April 12, 1991, issuance of

the antidumping duty order, the

Department has completed four

administrative reviews on imports of the

subject merchandise from Norway (56

FR 14920). In the first administrative

review, covering the period October 3,

1990, through March 31, 1992, Skaarfish

A/S (‘‘Skaarfish’’) and ‘‘all others’’ were

assigned margins of 2.15 percent and

23.80 percent, respectively.2

The second administrative review,

conducted at the request of the Coalition

for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade, covered

85 exporters during the period April 1,

1992, through March 31, 1993, and the

Department found that 31 of the 85

reviewed firms did not ship subject

merchandise during the period of

review (‘‘POR’’). Of those 31 firms, 28

had not been previously reviewed, and

the Department assigned to them the

original ‘‘all others’’ rate of 23.80

percent. The Department assigned the

remaining three non-shipper

respondents—Domstein Salmon A/S,

Hallvard Leroy A/S and Saga A/S—their

rates from the original investigation.

The 52 respondent companies that

failed to respond were assigned a

margin of 31.91 percent.3

In the third administrative review,

covering the period April 1, 1993,

through March 31, 1994, where the

Department reviewed 24 exporters, the

dumping margin changed for two

exporters, Skaarfish and Norwegian

Salmon A/S (‘‘Norwegian Salmon’’), to

2.28 percent and 13.88 percent,

respectively.4

In the fourth administrative review,

covering the period April 1, 1997,

through March 31, 1998, the Department

reviewed one exporter, Nornir Group A/

S, to which it assigned a margin of 31.81

percent.5

Additionally, the Department

completed one new shipper review,

covering Nordic Group A/L (‘‘Nordic’’),

from May 1, 1995, through October 31,

1995.6

Background

On July 1, 1999, the Department

initiated a sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh and

chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway

(64 FR 35588), pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act. The Department

received a Notice of Intent to Participate

on behalf of domestic interested parties

within the deadline (July 15, 1999)

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of

the Sunset Regulations. Subsequently,

we received a complete substantive

response to the notice of initiation on

August 2, 1999, on behalf of the

Coalition for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade

(‘‘FAST’’) and the following individual

members of FAST: Atlantic Salmon of

Maine, Connors Aquaculture, Inc., DE

Salmon, Inc., Island Aquaculture Corp.,

Maine Aqua Foods, Inc., Maine Coast

Nordic, Inc., Treats Island Fisheries, and

Trumpet Island Salmon Farm, Inc.

(collectively, ‘‘domestic interested

parties’’). As U.S. producers of the

subject merchandise and a business

association whose members are U.S.

producers of the subject merchandise,

the domestic interested parties claim

interested-party status under sections

771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. Without a

substantive response from respondent

interested parties, the Department,

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C),

determined to conduct an expedited,

120-day review of this order.

In accordance with 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).

On October 18, 1999, the Department

determined that the sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh and

chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway is

extraordinarily complicated, and,

therefore, we extended the time limit for

completion of the final results of this

review until not later than January 27,

2000, in accordance with section

751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.7

Although the deadline for this

determination was originally January

27, 2000, due to the Federal

Government shutdown on January 25

and 26, 2000, resulting from inclement

weather, the timeframe for issuing this

determination has been extended by one

day.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1)

of the Act, the Department conducted

the review to determine whether

revocation of the antidumping duty

order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping.

Section 752(c) of the Act provides that,

in making this determination, the

Department shall consider the weightedaverage dumping margins determined in

the investigation and subsequent

administrative reviews, and the volume

of imports of the subject merchandise

for the period before and the period

after the issuance of the antidumping

duty order, and shall provide to the

Commission the magnitude of the

margin of dumping likely to prevail if

the order is revoked.

The Department discusses below its

determinations concerning continuation

or recurrence of dumping and the

magnitude of the margin likely to

prevail were the antidumping duty

5586 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

order revoked. In addition, the domestic

interested parties’ comments on each of

these issues are addressed within the

respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of

Dumping

Drawing on the guidance provided in

the legislative history accompanying the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’), specifically the Statement of

Administrative Action (‘‘the SAA’’),

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1 (1994), the

House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103–826,

pt. 1 (1994), and the Senate Report, S.

Rep. No. 103–412 (1994), the

Department issued its Sunset Policy

Bulletin providing guidance on

methodological and analytical issues,

including the bases for likelihood

determinations. In its Sunset Policy

Bulletin, the Department indicated that

determinations of likelihood will be

made on an order-wide basis (see

section II.A.2 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin). In addition, the Department

indicated that normally it will

determine that revocation of an

antidumping duty order is likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of

dumping where (a) dumping continued

at any level above de minimis after the

issuance of the order, (b) imports of the

subject merchandise ceased after the

issuance of the order, or (c) dumping

was eliminated after the issuance of the

order and import volumes for the

subject merchandise declined

significantly (see section II.A.3 of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin).

In addition to consideration of the

guidance on likelihood cited above,

section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine that

revocation of an order is likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of

dumping where a respondent interested

party waives its participation in the

sunset review. In the instant review, the

Department did not receive a response

from any respondent interested party.

Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of

the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes

a waiver of participation.

The domestic interested parties argue

that revocation of the antidumping duty

order would result in continued

dumping by Norwegian producers/

exporters and material injury to the U.S.

industry (see August 2, 1999,

Substantive Response of domestic

interested parties at 16). With respect to

declining import volumes, the domestic

interested parties assert that the

imposition of antidumping duties has

significantly reduced the volume of U.S.

imports of subject merchandise from

Norway. Id. at 18. Citing U.S. Census

Bureau statistics, they note that the

average import volume from Norway in

the three years following the imposition

of the order was 95.7 percent lower than

average import volumes in the three

years prior to the order. Id.

As discussed in section II.A.3 of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890,

and the House Report at 63–64, if

companies continue dumping with the

discipline of an order in place, the

Department may reasonably infer that

dumping would continue if the

discipline were removed. With the

exception of Nordic, which received a

0.00 percent margin in a new shipper

review (62 FR 1430; January 10, 1997),

dumping margins above de minimis

have existed throughout the life of the

order, and continue to exist, for

shipments of subject merchandise from

all other Norwegian producers/exporters

investigated by the Department.

Consistent with section 752(c) of the

Act, the Department also considered the

volume of imports before and after

issuance of the 1991 order. By

examining U.S. Census Bureau IM146

reports, the Department finds that,

consistent with import statistics

provided by domestic interested parties,

imports of the subject merchandise from

Norway declined significantly following

the issuance of the antidumping duty

order, and continue to remain at very

low levels.

Based on this analysis, the

Department finds that the existence of

dumping margins after the issuance of

the order is highly probative of the

likelihood of continuation or recurrence

of dumping. Given that dumping has

continued at levels above de minimis

after the issuance of the order, import

volumes for subject merchandise have

significantly declined, respondent

interested parties have waived their

right to participate in this review before

the Department, and absent argument

and evidence to the contrary, the

Department determines that dumping is

likely to continue if the order were

revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that it will normally

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).

The domestic interested parties assert

that the Department should provide to

the Commission the margins from the

original investigation for Skaarfish

Mowi A/S (now Kinn Salmon A/S),

Domstein, Saga, Hallvard Leroy A/S as

the rates likely to prevail if the order

were revoked (see August 2, 1999,

Substantive Response of domestic

interested parties at 23). Further,

domestic interested parties identify Sea

Star International, Fremstad Group, Chr.

Bjelland, Salmonor A/S and Nornir

Group A/S as companies from the

original investigation that have chosen

to increase dumping. Domestic

interested parties recommend that the

Department assign to these companies a

margin of 31.81 percent from the 1992/

93 review because these companies

would be likely to dump at least to the

same degree without the discipline of

the order. Id. at 24. For Norwegian

producers/exporters that were not

parties to the original investigation, but

were assigned margins in the

Department’s second and third

administrative reviews, the domestic

interested parties assert that the

Department should assign to these

companies the margins from those

reviews. Id. at 25.

According to the Sunset Policy

Bulletin, a company may choose to

increase dumping in order to maintain

or increase market share. As a result,

increasing margins may be more

representative of a company’s behavior

in the absence of an order (see section

II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). The

Sunset Policy Bulletin notes that the

Department will normally consider

market share; however, absent

information on relative market share,

and absent argument to the contrary, we

have looked at import volumes in the

present case.

As discussed in the Sunset Policy

Bulletin, a more recent rate may be

appropriate where a company chooses

to increase dumping in order to increase

or maintain market share. According to

the U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports,

however, overall imports have

decreased. Without company-specific

information or argument related to

increasing exports corresponding to

increased dumping, we have no basis to

determine that a more recent rate is

more probative. Therefore, we will

report to the Commission the companyspecific and ‘‘all others’’ rates as

contained in the Final Results of Review

section of this notice, because these

rates reflect the behavior of producers/

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5587

1The petitioners in this investigation are Gulf

States Tube, a division of Vision Metals, Inc.;

Koppel Steel Corporation; Sharon Tube

Corporation; USS/Kobe Steel Corporation; United

Steel Workers of America; and U.S. Steel Group, a

unit of USX Corporation, hereinafter referred to as

Petitioners.

exporters without the discipline of the

order.

Final Results of Review

As a result of the review, the

Department 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 of

dumping

(percent)

Salmonar A/S ........................... 18.39

Sea Start International .............. 24.61

Kinn Salmon A/S (formerly,

Skaarfish) .............................. 15.65

Fremstad Group (A/S) .............. 21.51

Domstein and Co ...................... 31.81

Saga A/S .................................. 26.55

Chr. Bjelland ............................. 19.96

Hallvard Leroy (A/S) ................. 31.81

All others ................................... 23.80

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.

These five-year (‘‘sunset’’) reviews

and notice are in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2591 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–827]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell Morris or John R. Brinkmann, at

(202) 482–1775 or (202) 482–4126,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement II,

Office VI, Group II, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain large diameter carbon and alloy

seamless standard, line, and pressure

pipe (seamless pipe) from Mexico are

being sold, or are likely to be sold, in

the United States at less than fair value

(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of

the Act. The estimated margins of sales

at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of

Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on

July 20, 1999.1 See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and Mexico

and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic,

Japan, the Republic of South Africa and

Romania, 64 FR 40825 (July 28, 1999)

(Initiation Notice). Since the initiation

of the investigation, the following

events occurred:

On August 12, 1999, the Department

issued its antidumping questionnaire to

Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A.

(TAMSA), the sole Mexican producer of

the subject merchandise.

On August 23, 1999, the United States

International Trade Commission (ITC)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of the

products subject to each of these

antidumping investigations are

materially injuring the U.S. industry.

See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe

from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa, 64 FR

46953 (August 27, 1999).

We issued supplemental

questionnaires where appropriate.

Responses to those supplemental

questionnaires were timely filed

between November 1, 1999 and

November 16, 1999, and we have

incorporated the information provided

in those responses into this preliminary

determination.

On November 17, 1999, the

Department concluded, consistent with

section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, that the

Mexican investigation of large diameter

pipe is extraordinarily complicated, and

that additional time was necessary to

issue the preliminary determination.

Consequently, we extended the deadline

for the preliminary determination to

January 26, 2000. See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determinations:

Certain Small and Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe From the Czech

Republic, Romania and Mexico, 64 FR

66168 (November 24, 1999).

Although the deadline for this

determination was originally January

26, 2000, due to the Federal

Government shutdown on January 25

and 26, 2000, resulting from inclement

weather, the time frame for issuing this

determination has been extended by two

days.

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the date of the publication of the

preliminary determination if, in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by exporters who

account for a significant proportion of

exports of the subject merchandise, or in

the event of a negative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by the

petitioners. The Department’s

regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2),

require that requests by respondents for

postponement of a final determination

be accompanied by a request for

extension of provisional measures from

a four-month period to not more than

six months.

On January 14, 2000, TAMSA

requested that, in the event of an

affirmative preliminary determination

in this investigation, the Department

postpone its final determination until

not later than 135 days after the date of

the publication of the affirmative