Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices 60169

neither party was deemed an exporter.

See Respondent Interested Parties, July

5, 2000, Substantive Response at 1. In

the first administrative review, both

Chusovskoy and Tulachermet provided

information to the Department.

However, in their substantive response

they assert that, due to a tragic event at

Chusovskoy, they were unable to

complete their participation in this

review. Id.

With respect to adequacy of response

from respondent interested parties, the

Department normally will conclude that

respondent interested parties have

provided adequate response to conduct

a full sunset review where respondent

interested parties account for more than

50 percent, by volume, of the total

exports of subject merchandise to the

United States. Where respondent

interested parties provide inadequate

responses, the Department will conduct

an expedited sunset review and issue

final results of review based on the facts

available.

After examining respondent

interested parties’ import statistics, on

June 26, 2000, the Department notified

the U.S. International Trade

Commission that respondent interested

parties did not provide an adequate

response in this sunset review, pursuant

to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and 19

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). Therefore,

because we did not receive adequate

response from respondent interested

parties, we determined to conduct an

expedited sunset review and to issue the

final results not later than October 3,

2000.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this sunset

review are ferrovanadium and nitrided

vanadium, regardless of grade,

chemistry, form or size, unless expressly

excluded from the scope of this order.

Ferrovanadium includes alloys

containing ferrovanadium as the

predominant element by weight (i.e.,

more weight than any other element,

except iron in some instances) and at

least 4 percent by weight of iron.

Nitrided vanadium includes compounds

containing vanadium as the

predominant element, by weight, and at

least 5 percent, by weight, of nitrogen.

Excluded from the scope of this

review are vanadium additives other

than ferrovanadium and nitrided

vanadium, such as vanadium-aluminum

master alloys, vanadium chemicals,

vanadium waste and scrap, vanadiumbearing raw materials, such as slag,

boiler residues, fly ash, and vanadium

oxides.

The products subject to this review

are currently classifiable under

subheadings 2850.00.20, 7202.92.00,

7202.99.5040, 8112.40.3000, and

8112.40.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope is

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in these cases 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 October 3, 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 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. The paper copy

and electronic version of the Decision

Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

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 percentage weightedaverage margins listed below:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Galt Alloys, Inc ......................... 3.75

Gesellschaft fu ̈r

Elektrometallurgie m.b.H.

(and its related companies

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation and Metallurg, Inc.) 11.72

Odermet .................................... 10.10

Russia-wide Rate ..................... 108.00

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: October 3, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–25970 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–489–807]

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From

Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time

Limits for Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is extending the time limits of the

preliminary results of the antidumping

duty administrative review on steel

concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey.

The review covers four producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States. The period of review

is April 1, 1999, through March 31,

2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina

Itkin at (202) 482–0656, Office of AD/

CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it

is not practicable to complete this

administrative review within the time

limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A)

of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the

Department is extending the time limit

for completion of the preliminary

results. This review involves a number

of complicated issues including high

inflation in Turkey during the period of

review. Moreover, the petitioners

requested that the Department conduct

verification, pursuant to section

782(i)(3)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we

intend to verify the sales and cost

information submitted by the four

respondents. Because the Department

will not be able to conduct verification

before the scheduled preliminary

results, we have extended the deadline

until April 30, 2001.

This extension is in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (19

60170 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 10, 2000 / Notices

U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)) and 19 CFR

351.213(h)(2).

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–25971 Filed 10–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 081400A]

Taking and Importing of Marine

Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of harvesting nation

embargoes.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant

Administrator) imposed embargoes on

yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna

products from Belize, Bolivia, Colombia,

El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,

Nicaragua, Panama, Vanuatu, and

Venezuela under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361

et seq., on October 3, 2000. This action

prohibits the importation into the

United States from these nations of

yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna

products harvested by purse seine in the

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP).

NMFS is imposing the embargoes

because these nations harvest tuna in

the ETP with purse seine vessels with

greater than 400 short tons (362.8 mt) of

carrying capacity and have not received

‘‘affirmative findings’’ as required by 50

CFR 216.24(f)(9). This determination

remains in effect for each nation until

an affirmative finding has been granted

to a nation by the Assistant

Administrator.

DATES: Effective October 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of this notice may be

obtained by writing to Nicole R. Le

Boeuf, Office of Protected Resources,

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, Maryland 90210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicole R. Le Boeuf; phone 301–713–

2322; fax 301–713–4060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior to

March 3, 1999, section 101(a)(2)(B) of

the MMPA required nations wishing to

import into the United States yellowfin

tuna or yellowfin tuna products

harvested by purse seine in the ETP to

submit documentation indicating that

they were enforcing dolphin protection

measures comparable to those of the

United States. Under section

101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA effective prior

to March 3, 1999, Belize, Colombia,

Panama, Vanuatu, and Venezuela were

embargoed. The existing embargoes

against yellowfin tuna harvested by

purse seine in the ETP and exported

from those five nations remain in effect.

Since March 3, 1999, the standards of

the MMPA, as amended by the

International Dolphin Conservation

Program Act (IDCPA) (Pub. L. 105–42),

changed for the entry into the United

States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin

tuna products harvested by purse seine

vessels in the ETP, as set forth by the

interim final rule implementing the

IDCPA (65 FR 30, January 3, 2000).

In order to export to the United States

yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine

in the ETP, nations that have, operating

under their jurisdiction, purse seine

vessels with over 400 short tons of

carrying capacity that fish for tuna in

the ETP (i.e., a harvesting nation) are

now obligated to submit documentary

evidence directly to Assistant

Administrator, and to request an

affirmative finding as required by 50

CFR 216.24(f)(9). Based upon

documentary evidence submitted by a

harvesting nation and obtained from the

Inter-American Tropical Tuna

Commission (IATTC) and/or from the

Department of State, the Assistant

Administrator will determine whether

the nation qualifies for an affirmative

finding under section 101(a)(2)(B) of the

MMPA. An affirmative finding allows

for the importation into the United

States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin

tuna products harvested by purse seine

in the ETP after March 3, 1999. If a

harvesting nation does not provide

documentary evidence that shows that

the nation meets the standards under

section 101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA, the

Assistant Administrator must embargo

yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine

in the ETP. Bolivia, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua

are not currently embargoed, however,

those nations have failed to submit

documentation to NMFS, as required by

50 CFR 216.24(f)(9).

The application procedures to request

an affirmative finding are described in

the interim final regulations

implementing the IDCPA (65 FR 30,

January 3, 2000). Harvesting nations

must submit documentary evidence

directly to the Assistant Administrator

demonstrating that they meet several

conditions related to compliance with

the International Dolphin Conservation

Program (IDCP), and request an

affirmative finding. To issue an

affirmative finding, NMFS must receive

the following information:

1. A statement requesting an

affirmative finding;

2. Evidence of membership in the

Inter-American Tropical Tuna

Commission (IATTC);

3. Evidence that a nation is meeting

its obligations to the IATTC, including

financial obligations;

4. Evidence that a nation is complying

with the IDCP. For example, national

laws and regulations implementing the

Agreement on the IDCP and information

that the nation is enforcing those laws

and regulations;

5. Evidence of a tuna tracking and

verification program comparable to the

U.S. tracking and verification

regulations at 50 CFR 216.94;

6. Evidence that the national fleet

dolphin mortality limits (DMLs) were

not exceeded in the previous calendar

year;

7. Evidence that the national fleet perstock per-year mortality limits, if they

are allocated to countries, were not

exceeded in the previous calendar year;

8. Authorization for the IATTC to

release to the Assistant Administrator

complete, accurate, and timely

information necessary to verify and

inspect Tuna Tracking Forms; and

9. Authorization for the IATTC to

release to the Assistant Administrator

information whether a nation is meeting

its obligations of membership to the

IATTC and whether a nation is meeting

its obligations under the IDCP,

including managing (not exceeding) its

national fleet DMLs or its national fleet

per-stock per-year mortality limits. A

nation may opt to provide this

information directly to NMFS on an

annual basis or to authorize the IATTC

to release the information to NMFS in

years when NMFS will review and

consider whether to issue an affirmative

finding determination without an

application from the harvesting nation.

An affirmative finding will be

terminated, in consultation with the

Secretary of State, if the Assistant

Administrator determines that the

requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f)(9) are

no longer being met or that a nation is

consistently failing to take enforcement

actions on violations which diminish

the effectiveness of the IDCP. Every 5

years, the government of a harvesting

nation, must request an affirmative

finding and submit the required

documentary evidence directly to the

Assistant Administrator.

Until such time as the Assistant

Administrator receives documentary

evidence from the Governments of

Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua,