66232 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1123]

Approval for Expanded Manufacturing

Authority; (Automobile Transmissions)

Within Foreign-Trade Subzone 229A;

Toyota Motor Manufacturing West

Virginia, Inc., Buffalo, West Virginia

Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the

following Order:

Whereas, the West Virginia Economic

Development Authority, grantee of FTZ

229, has requested authority on behalf

of Toyota Motor Manufacturing West

Virginia, Inc. (TMMWV), operator of

FTZ 229A, at the TMMWV automobile

engine manufacturing plant in Buffalo,

West Virginia, to expand the scope of

authority to include the manufacture of

automobile transmissions under FTZ

procedures within Subzone 229A (FTZ

Doc. 52–99, filed 10–25–99);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in the Federal

Register (64 FR 59160, 11–2–99);

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 are satisfied, and

that approval of the application is in the

public interest;

Now Therefore, the Board hereby

approves the request subject to the FTZ

Act and the Board’s regulations,

including § 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of

October 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–28286 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–557–805]

Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner and two producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce is conducting

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia. This

review covers three manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States (Filati Lastex Sdn.

Bhd., Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./Filmax Sdn.

Bhd, and Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd.). The

period of review is October 1, 1998,

through September 30, 1999.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

normal value by each of the three

companies subject to this review. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

the final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who wish to submit comments

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with each argument: (1) A

statement of the issue; and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 3, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina

Itkin, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement,

Office 2, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–0656.

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,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations at 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 20, 1999, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia (64 FR

56485).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b)(1), on October 21, 1999, the

petitioner, North American Rubber

Thread, requested an administrative

review of the antidumping order

covering the period October 1, 1998,

through September 30, 1999, for the

following producers and exporters of

extruded rubber thread: Filati Lastex

Sdn. Bhd. (Filati), Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./

Filmax Sdn. Bhd. (Heveafil), and

Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. (Rubberflex). On

October 29, 1999, Filati and Heveafil

also requested an administrative review.

On November 23, 1999, the

Department initiated an administrative

review for Filati, Heveafil, and

Rubberflex (64 FR 67846 (Dec. 3, 1999)).

The Department also issued

questionnaires to each of these

companies in November.

In March 2000, we received responses

from Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex.

In June, July, and September 2000, we

issued supplemental questionnaires to

Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex. We

received responses to these

questionnaires in September 2000.

In October 2000, we issued additional

supplemental questionnaires to

Rubberflex. We received responses to

these questionnaires in October 2000.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

extruded rubber thread. Extruded rubber

thread is defined as vulcanized rubber

thread obtained by extrusion of stable or

concentrated natural rubber latex of any

cross sectional shape, measuring from

0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140

gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch

or 18 gauge, in diameter. Extruded

rubber thread is currently classifiable

under subheading 4007.00.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review (POR) is October

1, 1998, through September 30, 1999.

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

extruded rubber thread from Malaysia to

the United States were made at less than

normal value (NV), we compared the

export price (EP) to the NV for

Rubberflex, as specified in the ‘‘Export

Price and Constructed Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,

below. We compared the constructed

export price (CEP) to the NV for Filati

and Heveafil, also as specified in those

sections.

When making comparisons in

accordance with section 771(16) of the

Act, we considered all products sold in

the home market as described in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Notices 66233

notice, above, that were in the ordinary

course of trade for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market made in the

ordinary course of trade (i.e., sales

within the contemporaneous window

which passed the cost test), we

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most

similar foreign like product made in the

ordinary course of trade, based on the

characteristics listed in sections B and

C of our antidumping questionnaire, or

constructed value (CV), as appropriate.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on

sales in the comparison market at the

same level of trade as EP or CEP. The

NV level of trade is that of the startingprice sales in the comparison market or,

when NV is based on CV, that of the

sales from which we derive selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. level

of trade is also the level of the startingprice sale, which is usually from the

exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP or CEP

sales, we examine stages in the

marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between

the producer and the unaffiliated

customer. If the comparison market

sales are at a different level of trade and

the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the

level of trade of the export transaction,

we make a level of trade adjustment

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the

CEP level and there is no basis for

determining whether the difference in

the levels between NV and CEP affects

price comparability, we adjust NV

under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

(the CEP offset provision). See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa,

62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).

We note that the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) has held that

the Department’s practice of

determining levels of trade for CEP

transactions after CEP deductions is an

impermissible interpretation of section

772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v.

United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221,

1241–42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). The

Department believes, however, that its

practice is in full compliance with the

statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered

final judgement in Borden on the level

of trade issue. See Borden Inc. v. United

States, Court No. 96–08–01970, Slip Op.

99–50 (CIT June 4, 1999). The

government has filed an appeal of

Borden which is pending before the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Consequently, the Department has

continued to follow its normal practice

of adjusting CEP under section 772(d)

prior to starting a level of trade analysis,

as articulated by the Department’s

regulations at section 351.412.

Filati, Heveafil, and Rubberflex

claimed that they made home market

sales at only one level of trade (i.e., sales

to original equipment manufacturers).

Because each of these respondents

performed the same selling activities for

sales to all customers in the home

market, we determined that all home

market sales by each of these companies

were at the same level of trade.

Both Filati and Heveafil made CEP

sales during the POR. In order to

determine whether NV was established

at a level of trade which constituted a

more advanced stage of distribution

than the level of trade of the CEP for

these companies, we compared the

selling functions performed for home

market sales with those performed with

respect to the CEP transaction, which

excludes economic activities occurring

in the United States. We found that

Filati and Heveafil performed

essentially the same selling functions in

their sales offices in Malaysia for both

home market and U.S. sales. Therefore,

the respondents’ sales in Malaysia were

not at a more advanced stage of

marketing and distribution than the

constructed U.S. level of trade, which

represents a F.O.B. foreign port price

after the deduction of expenses

associated with U.S. selling activities.

Because we find that no difference in

level of trade exists between markets,

we have not granted a CEP offset for

Filati or Heveafil.

Regarding Rubberflex, we compared

the selling functions performed for its

home market and export price

transactions in order to determine

whether a level of trade adjustment was

warranted. We found that Rubberflex

performed essentially the same selling

functions for its U.S. and home market

sales and that, therefore, no level of

trade adjustment is warranted for this

company.

Export Price and Constructed Export

Price

For Rubberflex, we based the U.S.

price on EP, in accordance with section

772(a) of the Act, when the subject

merchandise was sold directly to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation and CEP

methodology was not otherwise

warranted.

For Filati and Heveafil, we based the

U.S. price on CEP where sales to the

unaffiliated purchaser took place after

importation into the United States, in

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act. We also based U.S. price on CEP for

Filati and Heveafil where the

merchandise was shipped directly to

certain unaffiliated customers because

we found that the extent of the affiliates’

activities performed in the United States

in connection with those sales was

significant.

A. Filati

We calculated CEP based on the

starting price to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of

the Act, we added an amount for

uncollected import duties in Malaysia.

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for rebates. In

addition, where appropriate, we made

deductions for foreign inland freight,

foreign brokerage and handling

expenses, ocean freight, marine

insurance, U.S. customs duty, U.S.

brokerage and handling expenses, U.S.

inland freight, and U.S. warehousing

expenses, in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We made additional deductions from

CEP, where appropriate, for

commissions, credit expenses, and U.S.

indirect selling expenses, including U.S.

inventory carrying costs, in accordance

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. We

disallowed an offset claimed by Filati

relating to imputed costs associated

with financing antidumping and

countervailing duty deposits, in

accordance with the Department’s

practice. See Extruded Rubber Thread

from Malaysia; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 65 FR 6140, 6142 (Feb. 8, 2000)

(Thread Sixth Review); Extruded Rubber

Thread from Malaysia; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 12967, 12968 (Mar. 16,

1999); Extruded Rubber Thread from

Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

12752, 12754 (Mar. 16, 1998); and

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

66234 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Notices

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden

and the United Kingdom; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 54043, 54075 (Oct. 17,

1997).

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit to arrive

at CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by Filati and its affiliate on their sales

of the subject merchandise in the United

States and the foreign like product in

the home market and the profit

associated with those sales.

B. Heveafil

We calculated CEP based on the

starting price to the first unaffiliated

customer in the United States. In

accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of

the Act, we added an amount for

uncollected import duties in Malaysia.

We made deductions from the starting

price, where appropriate, for rebates.

We also made deductions for foreign

inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling expenses, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. customs duty,

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses,

U.S. inland freight, and U.S.

warehousing expenses, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We made additional deductions to

CEP, where appropriate, for credit

expenses and U.S. indirect selling

expenses, including U.S. inventory

carrying costs, in accordance with

section 772(d)(1) of the Act.

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the

Act, we further reduced the starting

price by an amount for profit to arrive

at CEP. In accordance with section

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP

profit rate using the expenses incurred

by Heveafil and its affiliate on their

sales of the subject merchandise in the

United States and the foreign like

product in the home market and the

profit associated with those sales.

C. Rubberflex

We based EP on the starting price to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States. We made deductions

from the starting price, where

appropriate, for rebates. We also made

deductions, where appropriate, for

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling expenses, ocean freight,

marine insurance, U.S. customs duty,

U.S. inland freight, and U.S.

warehousing expenses, in accordance

with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is greater than five

percent of the aggregate volume of U.S.

sales), we compared the volume of each

respondent’s home market sales of the

foreign like product to the volume of

U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act. Based on this comparison, we

determined that each respondent had a

viable home market during the POR.

Consequently, we based NV on home

market sales.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of

the Act, there were reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that Filati,

Heveafil, and Rubberflex had made

home market sales at prices below their

costs of production (COPs) in this

review because the Department had

disregarded sales below the COP for

these companies in the most recent

administrative review. See Thread Sixth

Review, 65 FR at 6143. As a result, the

Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether the respondents

made home market sales during the POR

at prices below their respective COPs.

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for SG&A

and packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act.

We compared the COP figures to

home market prices of the foreign like

product, as required under section

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine

whether these sales had been made at

prices below the COP. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

home market prices, less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, rebates,

and packing costs.

In determining whether to disregard

home market sales made at prices below

the COP, we examined whether such

sales were made: (1) In substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time; and (2) at prices which permitted

the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time in the normal

course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of

the Act.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of

the Act, where less than 20 percent of

a respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a respondent’s sales

of a given product were at prices below

the COP, we found that sales of that

model were made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time (as defined in section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In

such cases, we also determined that

such sales were not made at prices

which would permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time,

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded

the below-cost sales. Where all sales of

a specific product were at prices below

the COP, we disregarded all sales of that

product.

We found that, for certain models of

extruded rubber thread, more than 20

percent of each respondent’s home

market sales within an extended period

of time were at prices less than COP.

Further, the prices did not provide for

the recovery of costs within a reasonable

period of time. We therefore disregarded

the below-cost sales and used the

remaining sales as the basis for

determining NV, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those

U.S. sales of extruded rubber thread for

which there were no comparable home

market sales in the ordinary course of

trade, we compared EP or CEP, as

appropriate, to CV, in accordance with

section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit, and

U.S. packing costs. In accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based

SG&A and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by each

respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade

for consumption in the foreign country.

Company-specific calculations are

discussed below.

A. Filati

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the starting price

to unaffiliated customers. For all priceto-price comparisons, we made

deductions from the starting price for

rebates, where appropriate. We also

made deductions, where appropriate,

for foreign inland freight, pursuant to

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant

to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we

also made deductions for home market

credit expenses and bank charges.

Where applicable, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any

commission paid on a U.S. sale by

reducing the NV by the amount of home

market indirect selling expenses and

inventory carrying costs, up to the

amount of the U.S. commission.

In addition, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Notices 66235

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where

appropriate, we made adjustments to

NV to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.411.

For CV-to-CEP comparisons, we made

an adjustment, where appropriate, for

differences in credit expenses, in

accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Where applicable, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.410(e), we offset any

commission paid on a U.S. sale by

reducing the NV by the amount of home

market indirect selling expenses and

inventory carrying costs, up to the

amount of the U.S. commission.

B. Heveafil

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the starting price

to unaffiliated customers. We made

deductions from the starting price for

discounts. We also made deductions for

foreign inland freight and foreign inland

insurance, pursuant to section

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) if the Act, we

also made deductions for home market

credit expenses.

In addition, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where

appropriate, we made adjustments to

NV to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.411.

C. Rubberflex

Where NV was based on home market

sales, we based NV on the starting price

to unaffiliated customers. We made

deductions from the starting price for

foreign inland freight expenses,

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the

Act.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) if

the Act, we made circumstance of sale

adjustments for differences in credit

expenses.

In addition, we deducted home

market packing costs and added U.S.

packing costs, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act. Where

appropriate, we made adjustments to

NV to account for differences in

physical characteristics of the

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.411.

For CV-to-EP comparisons, we made

circumstance of sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses, in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Section 773A of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

benchmark for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

October 1, 1998, through September 30,

1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd. ................. 18.49

Heveafil Sdn. Bhd./ ....................... ................

Filmax Sdn. Bhd. .......................... 0.04

Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd .................... 0.14

The Department will disclose to

parties the calculations performed in

connection with these preliminary

results within five days of the date of

publication of this notice. Interested

parties may request a hearing within 30

days of the publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held seven days after

the date rebuttal briefs are filed.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

not later than 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such case briefs,

within 120 days of the publication of

these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. We calculate

importer-specific assessment rates based

on the ratio of the total amount of

antidumping duties calculated for the

examined sales to the total entered

value of those sales, where available.

Where the entered value is not

available, we calculate a quantity-based

assessment rate. These rates will be

assessed uniformly on all entries of

particular importers made during the

POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),

we will instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to antidumping

duties all entries for any importer for

whom the assessment rate is de minimis

(i.e., less than 0.50) percent. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Further, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of extruded rubber thread

from Malaysia entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date of the final

results of this administrative review, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Filati,

Heveafil, and Rubberflex will be the

rates established in the final results of

this review, except if the rate is less

than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR

351.106, the cash deposit will be zero;

(2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for all other manufacturers

or exporters will continue to be 15.16

percent, the all others rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)

to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

66236 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Notices

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28285 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of revocation of Export

Trade Certificate of Review No. 86–

00002.

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Commerce

issued an export trade certificate of

review to National Association of Export

Companies, Inc. (‘‘NEXCO’’). Because

this certificate holder has failed to file

an annual report as required by law, the

Secretary is revoking the certificate.

This notice summarizes the notification

letter sent to NEXCO.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morton Schnabel, Director, Office of

Export Trading Company Affairs,

International Trade Administration,

202/482–5131 (This is not a toll-free

number) or E-mail at oetca@ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (‘‘the Act’’) (Pub. L. 97–290, 15

U.S.C. 4011–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue export

trade certificates of review. The

regulations implementing Title III (‘‘the

Regulations’’) are found at 15 CFR part

325 (1999). Pursuant to this authority, a

certificate of review was issued on July

9, 1986 to NEXCO.

A certificate holder is required by law

to submit to the Department of

Commerce annual reports that update

financial and other information relating

to business activities covered by its

certificate (section 308 of the Act, 15

U.S.C. 4018, § 325.14 (a) of the

Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14 (a)). The

annual report is due within 45 days

after the anniversary date of the

issuance of the certificate of review

(§ 325.14 (b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR

325.14 (b)). Failure to submit a complete

annual report may be the basis for

revocation (§§ 325.10(a) (3) and

325.14(c) of the Regulations, 15 CFR

325.10(a) (3) and 325.14(c)).

On June 29, 1999, the Department of

Commerce sent to NEXCO a letter

containing annual report questions with

a reminder that its annual report was

due on August 23, 1999. Additional

reminders were sent on September 27,

1999 and on December 1, 1999. The

Department has received no written

response from NEXCO to any of these

letters.

On September 25, 2000, and in

accordance with § 325.10(c)(1) of the

regulations, (15 CFR 325.10(c)(1)), the

Department of Commerce sent a letter

by certified mail to notify NEXCO that

the Department was formally initiating

the process to revoke its certificate for

failure to file an annual report. In

addition, a summary of this letter

allowing NEXCO thirty days to respond

was published in the Federal Register

on September 29, 2000 at 65 FR 58512.

Pursuant to § 325.10(c)(2) of the

regulations (15 CFR 325.10(c)(2)), the

Department considers the failure of

NEXCO to respond to be an admission

of the statements contained in the

notification letter.

The Department has determined to

revoke the certificate issued to NEXCO

for its failure to file an annual report.

The Department has sent a letter, dated

October 30, 2000, to notify NEXCO of its

determination. The revocation is

effective thirty (30) days from the date

of publication of this notice. Any person

aggrieved by this decision may appeal to

an appropriate U.S. district court within

30 days from the date on which this

notice is published in the Federal

Register (325.10(c)(4) and 325.11 of the

regulations, 15 CFR 324.10(c)(4) and

325.11 of the regulations, 15 CFR

325.10(c)(4) and 325.11).

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Morton Schnabel,

Director, Office of Export Trading, Company

Affairs.

[FR Doc. 00–28212 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 103000D]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council’s Spiny Dogfish

Monitoring Committee will hold a

public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

Friday, November 17, 2000, from 10

a.m. until 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at

the Comfort Inn at the Airport

(Providence), 1940 Post Road, Warwick,

RI; telephone: 401–732–0470.

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, Room 2115, 300

S. New Street, Dover, DE 19904.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director,

Mid–Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; telephone: 302–674–2331, ext.

19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following agenda items will be

discussed: Update current stock status,

yield estimates based on F= 0.027 and

current stock size, review 2000–01

measures and fishery performance,

recommended management measures

for 2001–02.

Although non-emergency issues not

contained in this agenda may come

before this group for discussion, those

issues may not be the subject of formal

action during this meeting. Action will

be restricted to those issues specifically

identified in this notice and any issues

arising after publication of this notice

that require emergency action under

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act, provided the public has been

notified of the Council’s intent to take

final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

Joanna Davis at the Council office (see

ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the

meeting date.

Dated: October 31, 2000.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28303 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE: 3510–22–S

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain

Cotton, Man-Made Fiber, Silk Blend

and Other Vegetable Fiber Textiles and

Textile Products Produced or

Manufactured in Bangladesh

October 31, 2000.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs adjusting

limits.