Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices 65835

if the Department does not extend the

time limit for the preliminary

determination) from the date of

publication of the preliminary

determination.

Background

On August 30, 1999, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Silicon

Metal from Brazil covering the period

July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, (64

FR 47167). On August 4, 2000, (65 FR

47960), we published the preliminary

results of review. In our notice of

preliminary results, we stated our

intention to issue the final results of this

review no later than 120 days after the

date of publication of the preliminary

results, December 2, 2000.

Extension of Final Results of Review

We determine that it is not practicable

to complete the final results of this

review within the original time limit.

Therefore, the Department is extending

the time limit for completion of the final

results until no later than January 31,

2000. See Decision Memorandum from

Thomas F. Futtner to Holly A. Kuga,

dated concurrently with this notice,

which is on file in the Central Records

Unit, Room B–099 of the main

Commerce Building.

This extension is in accordance with

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

Dated: October 20, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, Group II.

[FR Doc. 00–28191 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–809]

Certain Stainless Steel Flanges From

India; Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Killiam or Robert James, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5222, or (202)

482–0649, respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute refer 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. In

addition, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, codified at 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

Extensions of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results

Based on requests by interested

parties, on March 24, 2000, the

Department initiated an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain stainless steel flanges from

India, covering the period February 1,

1999 through January 31, 2000 (65 FR

16875, March 30, 2000). The

preliminary results are currently due no

later than October 31, 2000. The

respondents are Echjay Forgings Ltd.

(with affiliate Pushpaman), Isibars, Ltd.,

Panchmahal Steel Ltd., Patheja Forgings

& Auto Parts, Ltd., and Viraj Forgings,

Ltd. The Department has determined

that it is not practicable to issue the

preliminary results of review within the

original time limit mandated by section

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

351.213(h)(1) of the Department’s

regulations. See Memorandum from

Richard A. Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Enforcement Group III, October 20,

2000. Accordingly, the Department is

extending the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results until February

28, 2001, in accordance with section

351.213(h)(2). The deadline for the final

results of this review will continue to be

120 days after the date on which the

preliminary results are published in the

Federal Register, in accordance with

section 351.213(h)(1).

Dated: October 24, 2000.

Edward C. Yang,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 00–28193 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–357–813]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigation: Honey From

Argentina

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana S. Mermelstein at (202) 482–1391

or Doug Campau at (202) 482–1395,

Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VII,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

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’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(2000).

The Petition

On September 29, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) received a countervailing

duty petition filed in proper form on

behalf of the American Honey Producers

Association and the Sioux Honey

Association (the petitioners).

Supplements to the petitions were filed

on October 5, 11, 17 and 19, 2000. In

addition, we received submissions from

the parties with regard to industry

support on October 16, 18, and 24.

In accordance with section 702(b)(1)

of the Act, petitioners allege that

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of honey from Argentina received

countervailable subsidies within the

meaning of section 701 of the Act.

Pursuant to section 702(C)(1)(b), the

Department extended the deadline for

initiation to no later than October 27,

2000.

The Department finds that petitioners

filed the petition on behalf of the

domestic industry because they are

interested parties as defined under

sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act.

The petitioners have demonstrated

sufficient industry support with respect

to this countervailing duty

investigation, which they are requesting

the Department to initiate. See

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition below.

Scope of the Investigation

For purposes of these investigations,

the products covered are natural honey,

artificial honey containing more than 50

percent natural honey by weight,

preparations of natural honey

containing more than 50 percent natural

65836 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices

honey by weight, and flavored honey.

The subject merchandise includes all

grades and colors of honey whether in

liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or

chunk form, and whether packaged for

retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise subject to these

investigations is currently classifiable

under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90,

and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs Service

(‘‘U.S. Customs’’) purposes, the

Department’s written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed the scope with the petitioners

to ensure that the scope in the petition

accurately reflects the product for which

the domestic industry is seeking relief.

Moreover, as discussed in the preamble

to the Department’s regulations

(Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323

(May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a

period for parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments by November 9,

2000. Comments should be addressed to

Import Administration’s Central

Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The period of

scope consultations is intended to

provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments

and consult with parties prior to the

issuance of the preliminary

determination.

Consultations

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of

the Act, the Department invited

representatives of the Government of

Argentina (GOA) for consultations with

respect to the petition filed. The

Department held consultations with the

GOA on October 13, 2000.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) At least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition. In addition, section

702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that if

the petition does not establish support

of domestic producers or workers

accounting for more than 50 percent of

the total production of the domestic like

product, the administering authority

shall poll the industry or rely on other

information in order to determine if

there is support for the petition as

required by subparagraph (A). Because

the petitions at issue did not establish

support of domestic producers or

workers accounting for more than 50

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product, the Department

has relied on other information in order

to determine whether they meet the

statutory requirements for industry

support.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as ‘‘the producers as a

whole of a domestic like product, or

those producers whose collective output

of a domestic like product constitutes a

major proportion of the total domestic

production of the product.’’ Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who produce the

domestic like product. The International

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is

responsible for determining whether

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been

injured, must also determine what

constitutes a domestic like product in

order to define the industry. While both

the Department and the ITC must apply

the same statutory definition regarding

the domestic like product (section

771(10) of the Act), they do so for

different purposes and pursuant to

separate and distinct authority. In

addition, the Department’s

determination is subject to limitations of

time and information. Although this

may result in different definitions of the

like product, such differences do not

render the decision of either agency

contrary to the law. (See Algoma Steel

Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp.

639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays

and Display Glass from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of

Investigation and Partial Dismissal of

Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–81 (July

16, 1991)).

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product that

is like, or in the absence of like, most

similar in characteristics and uses with,

the article subject to an investigation

under this title.’’ Thus, the reference

point from which the domestic like

product analysis begins is ‘‘the article

subject to an investigation,’’ i.e., the

class or kind of merchandise to be

investigated, which normally will be the

scope as defined in the petition.

The domestic like product referred to

in the petitions is the single domestic

like product defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section above. The

Department has no basis on the record

to find the petitioners’ definition of the

domestic like product to be inaccurate.

The Department, therefore, has adopted

the domestic like product definition set

forth in the petition.

Moreover, the Department has

determined that the petition (and

subsequent amendments) and

supplemental information obtained

through the Department’s research

contain adequate evidence of industry

support; therefore, polling is

unnecessary. It is undisputed that

parties expressing support for the

petition represent more than 25 percent

of domestic production, and thus meet

the requirements of section

702(c)(4)(A)(i). Moreover, knowing the

1999 total production of the domestic

like product, and the portion of

production represented by those

supporting the petition, as well as those

who have explicitly declined to take a

position, the Department is able to

conclude that, even if all parties whose

production is not accounted for were to

oppose the petition, parties expressing

support for the petition would represent

more than 50 percent of those

expressing support or opposition.

Therefore, the petition meets the

requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii).

For a detailed discussion of this

analysis, see Attachment to the

Initiation Checklist, Re: Industry

Support, dated October 26, 2000.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that these petitions are filed

on behalf of the domestic industry

within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)

of the Act.

Injury Test

Because Argentina is a ‘‘Subsidies

Agreement Country’’ within the

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,

section 701(a)(2) applies to this

investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must

determine whether imports of the

subject merchandise from Argentina

materially injure, or threaten material

injury to, a U.S. industry.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation 

The petition alleges that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, and

is threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise.

Petitioners explained that the industry’s

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices 65837

injured condition is evident in the

declining trends in (1) U.S. market

share, (2) average unit sales values, (3)

share of domestic consumption, (4)

operating income, (5) output, and (6)

sales.

The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

The Department assessed the allegations

and supporting evidence regarding

material injury and causation and

determined that these allegations are

supported by accurate and adequate

evidence and meet the statutory

requirements for initiation. See

Attachment to Initiation Checklist, Re:

Material Injury and Causation (October

26, 2000).

Allegations of Subsidies

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the

Department to initiate a countervailing

duty proceeding whenever an interested

party files a petition, on behalf of an

industry, that (1) alleges the elements

necessary for an imposition of a duty

under section 701(a), and (2) is

accompanied by information reasonably

available to petitioners supporting the

allegations.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation

The Department has examined the

countervailing duty petition on honey

from Argentina and found that it

complies with the requirements of

section 702(b) of the Act. Therefore, in

accordance with section 702(b) of the

Act, we are initiating a countervailing

duty investigation to determine whether

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of honey from Argentina receive

subsidies. See the October 26, 2000,

Memorandum to the File; Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Investigation:

Honey from Argentina (C–357–813)

(public document on file in the Central

Records Unit of the Department of

Commerce, Room B–099 (CRU)).

We are including in our investigation

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided

countervailable subsidies to producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise in Argentina:

I. Government of Argentina Programs

A. Argentine Internal Tax Reimbursement/

Rebate Program (‘‘Reintegro’’)

B. National Income Tax Exemption for

Corporate Profits Tied to Export Sales

Pursuant to Article 20(1) of Law 20,628

C. Law 24,467 Programs for Small and

Medium-Sized Enterprises (PyMES)

1. Investment-Expenditure Credits for

Exports

2. Law 24,467 Short- and Long-Term

Export Financing

3. Law 24,467 Short-Term Financing,

Including Pre-Financing of Export Sales

4. Law 24,467 Line of Credit for the

Acquisition of new Capital Goods of

Argentine Origin

5. Law 24,467 Preferential Line of Credit to

Increase Agricultural and Agro-Industrial

Production in the Southern Argentine

Provinces

6. Law 24,467 ‘‘Production Poles’’ Program

for Honey Producers

7. Law 24,467 Credit for Small Business

Establishments

8. Law 24,467 Preferential Lines of Credit

for Working-Capital Purposes

9. Law 24,467 Program for the

Enhancement of Regional Production

10. Law 24,467 Enterprise Restructuring

Program (‘‘PRE’’)

11. Law 24,467 Government-Backed Loan

Guarantees

12. Law 24,467 Global Credit Program

D. Preferential Export Financing Based on

Warrants

E. Fundacion Export*Ar

F. Honey-Specific Line-of-Credit Program

for the Pre-Financing of Development

Expenses Associated with Export Sales

G. PROMEX Consortium for Honey

Exportation

H. PROMEX/PROAPI Development Plan

for the Enhanced Exportation of Honey

I. Additional Lines of Credit to Foment the

Purchase of Capital Goods of Argentine

Origin

J. Regional Promotional Scheme—

Reimbursement ‘‘Patagonico’’:

Exemption of Import Duties on Capital

Goods

K. Law 22,913 Emergency Aid

II. Government of Argentina/Provincial

Government Program

A. Buenos Aires Honey Program

B. Province of San Luis Honey

Development Program

III. Provincial Government Programs

A. Exemption from Municipal Gross

Income Tax Contingent on Export

Activity Pursuant to Article 116(12) of

Law 150 (Buenos Aires Tax Code)

B. Formosa Honey Project

C. La Pampa Lines of Credit

D. Entre Rios Honey Program: Law No.

7435/84

E. Province of Chubut Law No. 4430/98

F. Province of Chaco Line of Credit

Earmarked for the Honey Sector

G. Province of Santiago del Estero: Creditos

de Confianza (Trust Credits)

H. Province of San Luis: Creditos de

Confianza (Trust Credits)

We are not including in our

investigation the following programs

alleged to be benefitting producers and

exporters of the subject merchandise in

Argentina:

1. Other Potentially Countervailable

Law 24,467 Subsidies

Petitioners allege that the GOA offers

more than 70 subsidy programs

pursuant to Law 24,467, including those

specifically named and discussed above.

Petitioners allege that the main vehicle

used to confer government benefits

under Law 24,467 is the bestowal of

subsidized lines of credit and short- and

long-term loans through Argentina’s

three principal state-controlled banks:

the Banco de la Nation (GOA Bank of

the Nation); the Banco de la Provincia

de Buenos Aires (Bank of the Province

of Buenos Aires); and the BICE,

Argentina’s second-tier Development

Bank. Petitioners provided excerpts

from a report on the operation of the

PYMES programs as well as a ‘‘Guide

for Small Businesses’’ as support for

their allegations that these additional

programs exist and requested that the

Department investigate any other

programs established under Law 24,467.

Because petitioners did not provide

specific information supporting their

allegations, we are not initiating on

these allegations.

2. Argentine Drawback Regime:

Excessive Duty Drawback

Petitioners allege that the Argentine

Duty Drawback regime has a built-in

allowance for an excessive rebate.

According to petitioners, Argentine

customs law requires that drawback

claims be examined by GOA’s National

Institute of Industrial Technology

(‘‘INTI’’). Petitioners allege that if INTI

finds that the difference between the

value presented in the exporter’s sworn

declaration versus its own analysis is

less than five percent, then by law, the

‘‘excessive’’ rebate stands. Thus,

according to petitioners, the law

expressly allows exporters to claim five

percent more in duty drawback than

actually paid in duties and taxes.

Petitioners have provided excerpts from

the 1998 financial statements of two

Argentine honey exporters which they

allege show that both may have received

at least the automatic excessive rebate of

five percent under the statutory scheme,

as well as relevant sections of Argentine

customs law.

Petitioners have established that

Argentina operates a duty drawback

system. However, the excerpt of the law

provided by petitioners does not

indicate that the GOA routinely pays

drawback up to five percent in excess of

the allowable amounts. The excerpt

apparently establishes the level of

accuracy which the GOA uses to

evaluate exporters’ compliance with the

law. According to the translated excerpt,

for exporters filing duty drawback

claims which are found by INTI to be

within five percent of the correct

amount ‘‘the appropriate credit or debit

will be effected.’’ This appears to

explain the administrative procedure by

which the GOA does not penalize

companies for minor errors in their duty

drawback claims. This language does

65838 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices

not suggest that exporters receive more

in drawback than the amount to which

they are entitled. Thus, petitioners have

not provided sufficient information to

support their allegation that there is a

benefit to exporters under Argentina’s

duty drawback regime, and we are not

including this program in our initiation.

3. Regional Promotional Scheme—

Reimbursement ‘‘Patagonico’’:

Reimbursement of Argentine National

Income Tax

Petitioners allege that the GOA

administers a regional promotion

scheme for the Patagonian region (La

Pampa, Rio Negro, Neuquen, Chubut,

Santa Cruz, the National Territory of

Tierra del Fuego, the Antarctic, the

Falkland Islands and part of the

Patagonian region located in the

Province of Buenos Aires). According to

petitioners, pursuant to Law 2,333/83,

the GOA offers reimbursement of

national income taxes to companies in

the named region.

Petitioners have provided information

supporting their allegation of import

duty exemptions for capital goods under

this program (See section I.J. above).

However, petitioners have not provided

information establishing that there is

also an income tax reimbursement

program under this regional promotion

scheme. Therefore, we are not including

this program in our initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of the

public version of the petition have been

provided to the representatives of

Argentina. We will attempt to provide

copies of the public version of the

petition to all the exporters named in

the petition, as provided for under

section 351.203(c)(2) of the

Department’s regulations.

ITC Notification

Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act,

we will notify the ITC of this initiation.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by November

20, 2000, whether there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of imports of honey from

Argentina. A negative ITC

determination will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: October 26, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28190 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Notice of Government Owned

Inventions Available for Leasing

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of government owned

inventions available for licensing.

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below

are owned in whole or in part by the

U.S. Government, as represented by the

Department of Commerce. The

Department of Commerce’s interest in

the inventions is available for licensing

in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37

CFR Part 404 to achieve expeditious

commercialization of results of federally

funded research and development.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical and licensing information on

these inventions may be obtained by

writing to: National Institute of

Standards and Technology, Office of

Technology Partnerships, Building 820,

Room 213, Gaithersburg, MD 20899; Fax

301–869–2751. Any request for

information should include the NIST

Docket No. and Title for the relevant

invention as indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST may

enter into a Cooperative Research and

Development Agreement (‘‘CRADA’’)

with the licensee to perform further

research on the inventions for purposes

of commercialization. The inventions

available for licensing are:

NIST Docket Number: 98–032US.

Title: Method of Manufacture of

Convective Accelerometers

Abstract: This invention is jointly

owned by the Department of Commerce

and RF Microsystems. The Department’s

interest in the invention is available for

licensing. A gamma radiation sensing

device is described which can be used

to create a detailed three dimensional

intensity distribution of a high radiation

zone and to map the radiation intensity

as a registered color contour field of a

three dimensional geometric model of

the radiation zone. The device consists

of two mated hemispheres fabricated

from material with high-gamma

blocking capability. The hemispheres

contain an offset mating surface that

precludes the mating surface

functioning as a radiation channel to the

center of the mated sphere. A small-bore

linear collimation channel is machined

into each hemisphere to create a single,

narrow bore viewing path to a central

radiation sensing means located at the

core of the sphere. The sensing element

(an ionization probe, scintillator, or

similar radiation sensitive means) is

positioned so that it is at the terminus

of the radiation channel. A circuitous

path means machined into the

hemisphere mating surfaces carries the

signal (through the use of a flexible

cable means—either coaxial or fiber

optic) from the sensor to a remote

electronic diagnostic and data logging

means located well outside the high

radiation environment. The circuitous

path serves to restrict direct radiation

entry to the sensor from all sources

except those in line-of-sight with the

collimated radiation channel.

Dated: October 23, 2000.

Karen H. Brown,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 00–28199 Filed 11–01–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 103000A]

Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery

Management Plan Framework

Adjustment 14

AGENCY: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

ACTION: Proposed collection; Comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before January 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington

DC 20230 (or via Internet at

MClayton@doc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or