65834 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 213 / Thursday, November 2, 2000 / Notices

producer of the subject merchandise.

Petitioners also stated that the

Department selected India as the

preferred surrogate in the 1994–95

antidumping investigation of honey

from China. See Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Honey from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 14725, 14729

(March 20, 1995) (‘‘Honey from China’’).

Based on the information provided by

petitioners and Department practice, we

believe that petitioners’ use of India as

a surrogate country is appropriate for

purposes of initiation of this

investigation.

In accordance with section 773(c)(4)

of the Act, petitioners valued factors of

production, where possible, on

reasonably available, public surrogate

country data. For the normal value

calculation, petitioners obtained

surrogate value information on the cost

of producing natural honey in India,

including direct costs (i.e., raw honey),

indirect costs (i.e., factory overhead and

SG&A), and profit. Raw honey was

valued using Indian domestic prices as

reported in the Mahabaleshwar Honey

Producers Cooperative Society Ltd.

(‘‘MHPC’’) 1998–99 Annual Report. The

number of labor hours was derived from

the Chinese producer’s February 28,

1995 questionnaire response in Honey

from China, and labor was valued using

the Department’s regression-based wage

rate in accordance with 19 CFR

351.408(c)(3). Factory overhead, SG&A,

and profit were valued using financial

data reported in MHPC’s 1998–99

Annual Report. Additional amounts for

export packing were based on an offer

for sale from an Indian manufacturer of

steel drums and on the consumption

rate for packing labor as reported by the

Chinese producers in Honey from

China. As necessary, petitioners inflated

non-contemporaneous surrogate values

to the period of investigation using IMF

International Financial Statistics.

Petitioners converted the Indian Rupee

prices to U.S. dollars using the exchange

rates published in the Federal Reserve

Statistical Release H.10 for the period

April 2000 through August 2000. Based

on the information provided by

petitioners, we believe that their

surrogate values represent information

reasonably available to petitioners and

are acceptable for purposes of initiation

of this investigation.

Based on comparisons of EP to NV,

the calculated dumping margins for

natural honey from China range from

169.40 to 183.80 percent.

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 sold

at less than NV. Petitioners explained

that the industry’s 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

Attachments to Initiation Checklist, Re:

Material Injury, October 26, 2000).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based upon our examination of the

petition, our discussions on October 12,

2000, with the author of the foreign

market research report supporting the

petition, measures to confirm the

information contained in this report (see

Memorandum to the File; Re: Foreign

Market Research, dated October 26,

2000), and all other information on the

record regarding industry support, we

have found that the petition meets the

requirements of section 732 of the Act.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of honey

from Argentina and China, are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value. Unless this

deadline is extended, we will make our

preliminary determinations no later

than 140 days after the date of this

initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of each petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of Argentina and China.

We will attempt to provide a copy of the

public version of each petition to each

exporter named in the petition, as

appropriate.

International Trade Commission

Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine, by no later

than November 20, 2000, whether there

is a reasonable indication that imports

of honey from Argentina and China are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

for any country will result in the

investigation being terminated with

respect to that country; otherwise, these

investigations 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. 00–28041 Filed 11–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–806]

Silicon Metal From Brazil: Extension of

Time Limit for Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nova Daly or Ron Trentham, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

(202) 482–0989 and (202) 482–6320,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statutory Time Limits

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) to make a preliminary

determination within 245 days after the

last day of the anniversary month of an

order/finding for which a review is

requested and a final determination

within 120 days after the date on which

the preliminary determination is

published. However, if it is not

practicable to complete the review

within the time period, section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the

Department to extend the time limit for

the preliminary determination to a

maximum of 365 days and for the final

determination to 180 days (or 300 days

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