Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Notices 70695

(‘‘PRC’’), which has an April

anniversary month.

As required by 19 CFR

351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), each of the

three companies identified above has

certified that it did not export brake

rotors to the United States during the

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’), and that

it has never been affiliated with any

exporter or producer which did export

brake rotors during the POI. Each

company has further certified that its

export activities are not controlled by

the central government of the PRC,

satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to the

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR

351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A), Concord, Huanri,

and Meita each submitted

documentation establishing the date on

which it first shipped the subject

merchandise to the United States, the

volume of that shipment, and the date

of the first sale to an unaffiliated

customer in the United States.

In accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended, and

19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on

information on the record, we are

initiating the new shipper reviews for

Concord, Huanri, and Meita.

It is the Department’s practice in cases

involving non-market economies to

require that a company seeking to

establish eligibility for an antidumping

duty rate separate from the countrywide rate provide de jure and de facto

evidence of an absence of government

control over the company’s export

activities. Accordingly, we will issue a

questionnaire to Concord, Huanri, and

Meita (including a separate rates

section), allowing approximately 37

days for response. If the response from

each respondent provides sufficient

indication that it is not subject to either

de jure or de facto government control

with respect to its exports of brake

rotors, each review will proceed. If, on

the other hand, a respondent does not

demonstrate its eligibility for a separate

rate, then it will be deemed to be

affiliated with other companies that

exported during the POI, and the review

of that respondent will be rescinded.

Initiation of Review

In accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.214(d)(1), we are initiating new

shipper reviews of the antidumping

duty order on brake rotors from the PRC.

We intend to issue the preliminary

results of these reviews not later than

180 days after the date on which the

reviews are initiated.

Antidumping Duty Proceeding Period to be reviewed

PRC: Brake Rotors, A–570–846:

Beijing Concord Auto Technology Inc. ............................................................................................................................. 04/01/00–09/30/00

Qingdao Meita Automotive Industry Co., Ltd.

Shandong Laizhou Huanri Group General Co.

We will instruct the Customs Service

to allow, at the option of the importer,

the posting, until the completion of the

review, of a bond or security in lieu of

a cash deposit for each entry of the

merchandise exported by the abovelisted companies. This action is in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e).

Interested parties that need access to

proprietary information in these new

shipper reviews should submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and

351.306.

This initiation and notice are in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR

351.214(d).

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Louis Apple,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–30142 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–825]

Sebacic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China: Rescission of

antidumping duty administrative

review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On September 6, 2000, in

response to a request made by

Guangdong Chemicals Import and

Export Corporation, Sinochem Tianjin

Import and Export Corporation, and ICC

Chemical Corporation, the Department

of Commerce published the notice of

initiation of an antidumping duty

administrative review on sebacic acid

from the People’s Republic of China for

the period July 1, 1999, through June 30,

2000. Because these parties have

withdrawn their request for review, the

Department is rescinding this review in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Priddy or James Nunno,

AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–1130 or (202) 482–

0783, respectively.

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 19

CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On July 31, 2000, Guangdong

Chemicals Import and Export

Corporation (Guangdong), Sinochem

Tianjin Import and Export Corporation

(Tianjin), and ICC Chemical Corporation

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sebacic acid

from the People’s Republic of China for

the review period July 1, 1999, through

June 30, 2000. On September 6, 2000,

the Department published in the

Federal Register a notice of initiation of

administrative review with respect to

Guangdong and Tianjin. See Initiation

of Antidumping and Countervailing

Duty Administrative Reviews and

Requests for Revocation in Part, 65 FR

53980 (Sept. 6, 2000). On October 19,

2000, Guangdong, Tianjin, and ICC

70696 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 228 / Monday, November 27, 2000 / Notices

1The petitioner also alleged that there is a reason

to believe or suspect that critical circumstances

exist with respect to imports of rebar from Belarus.

However, we are not making a determination with

respect to this country at this time.

Chemical Corporation withdrew their

request for an administrative review in

the above-referenced case.

Rescission of Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the

Department will rescind an

administrative review, in whole or in

part, if a party that requested a review

withdraws the request within 90 days of

the date of publication of notice of

initiation of the requested review.

Because Guangdong and Tianjin’s

withdrawal was submitted within the

90-day time limit, and no other party

requested a review, we are rescinding

the review. We will issue appropriate

appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and terms of an

APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

This determination is issued in

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (d)(4).

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Louis Apple,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–30143 Filed 11–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–823–809, A–841–804]

Preliminary Determinations of Critical

Circumstances: Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and

Moldova

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Mark Manning at (202)

482–4162 and (202) 482–3936,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,

Group II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Preliminary Determinations of Critical

Circumstances

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 references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part

351 (2000).

Background

On July 18, 2000, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) initiated

investigations to determine whether

imports of steel concrete reinforcing

bars (rebar) from Ukraine and Moldova,

among others, are being, or are likely to

be, sold in the United States at lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) (65 FR 45754,

July 25, 2000). On August 14, 2000, the

International Trade Commission (ITC)

determined that there is a reasonable

indication of material injury to the

domestic industry from imports of rebar

from Ukraine and Moldova, among

other countries. On August 22, 2000, the

petitioner alleged that there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that critical circumstances exist with

respect to imports of rebar from the

above-referenced two countries.1

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.206(c)(2)(i), because the petitioner

submitted critical circumstances

allegations more than 20 days before the

scheduled date of the preliminary

determinations, the Department must

issue preliminary critical circumstances

determinations not later than the date of

the preliminary determinations. In a

policy bulletin issued on October 8,

1998, the Department stated that it may

issue preliminary critical circumstances

determinations prior to the date of the

preliminary determinations of dumping,

assuming sufficient evidence of critical

circumstances is available (see Change

in Policy Regarding Timing of Issuance

of Critical Circumstances

Determinations, 63 FR 55364). In

accordance with this policy, at this time

we are issuing the preliminary critical

circumstances decision in the

investigations of imports of rebar from

Ukraine and Moldova for the reasons

discussed below and in the concurrent

Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Troy

H. Cribb: Antidumping Duty

Investigations of Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar from Ukraine and

Moldova—Preliminary Affirmative

Determinations of Critical

Circumstances (Critical Circumstances

Preliminary Determinations

Memorandum).

Critical Circumstances

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides

that the Department will preliminarily

determine that critical circumstances

exist if there is a reasonable basis to

believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a

history of dumping and material injury

by reason of dumped imports in the

United States or elsewhere of the subject

merchandise, or (ii) the person by

whom, or for whose account, the

merchandise was imported knew or

should have known that the exporter

was selling the subject merchandise at

less than its fair value and that there

was likely to be material injury by

reason of such sales, and (B) there have

been massive imports of the subject

merchandise over a relatively short

period. Section 351.206(h)(1) of the

Department’s regulations provides that,

in determining whether imports of the

subject merchandise have been

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally

will examine: (i) the volume and value

of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and

(iii) the share of domestic consumption

accounted for by the imports. In

addition, section 351.206(h)(2) of the

Department’s regulations provides that

an increase in imports of 15 percent

during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of

time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s

regulations defines ‘‘relatively short

period’’ as normally being the period

beginning on the date the proceeding

begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed)

and ending at least three months later.

The regulations also provide, however,

that if the Department finds that

importers, exporters, or producers, had

reason to believe, at some time prior to

the beginning of the proceeding, that a

proceeding was likely, the Department

may consider a period of not less than

three months from that earlier time.

In determining whether the above

criteria have been satisfied, we

examined: (1) The evidence presented

in the petition; (2) recent import

statistics released by the Census Bureau

after the initiation of the LTFV

investigation; and (3) the ITC

preliminary injury determination.

History of Dumping and Importer

Knowledge

We are not aware of any existing

antidumping order in any country on

rebar from Ukraine and Moldova. For