Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices 75921

be provided for each loan. RUS

generally obtains a lien on all the

property financed by the loans. The

borrower will need to provide adequate

security and execute the appropriate

legal documents.

Evaluation Criteria

Loan applications will be accepted as

of the date of this notice and will be

processed and approved on a first-come,

first served basis throughout FY 2001

until the appropriation is utilized in its

entirety provided that:

(1) The loan is for approved loan

purposes for broadband

telecommunications services in rural

areas;

(2) The loan is deemed to be feasible

and adequate security is provided;

(3) The system design is appropriate;

and

(4) All other applicable Federal

requirements are met.

Dated: November 27, 2000.

Christopher A. McLean,

Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30872 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

BROADCASTING BOARD OF

GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: December 12, 2000; 8:30

a.m.–4 p.m.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330

Independence Ave., SW., Washington,

DC 20237.

Closed Meeting

The members of the Broadcasting

Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in

closed session to review and discuss a

number of issues relating to U.S.

Government-funded non-military

international broadcasting. They will

address internal procedural, budgetary,

and personnel issues, as well as

sensitive foreign policy issues relating

to potential options in the U.S.

international broadcasting field. This

meeting is closed because if open it

likely would either disclose matters that

would be properly classified to be kept

secret in the interest of foreign policy

under the appropriate executive order (5

U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose

information the premature disclosure of

which would be likely to significantly

frustrate implementation of a proposed

agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B))

In addition, part of the discussion will

relate solely to the internal personnel

and organizational issues of the BBG or

the International Broadcasting Bureau.

(5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6)).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Persons interested in obtaining more

information should contact either

Brenda Hardnett or Carol Booker at

(202) 401–3736.

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Carol Booker,

Legal Counsel.

Certification

Based on the information provided to

me, the meeting scheduled by the

Broadcasting Board of Governors for

December 12, 2000, may be closed to the

public pursuant to sections (c)(1), (2),

(6), and 9(B) of the Government in the

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b.).

Issues qualifying for closure of the

meeting will be inextricably intertwined

with issues which do not so qualify.

During the course of the meeting there

will be discussions relating to foreign

policy options (c)(1), internal BBG or

IBB personnel, budgetary, and

organizational matters (c)(2), the

performance or selection of personnel

(c)(6), and options for negotiations or

other sensitive discussions within the

U.S. or abroad. (c)(9)(B).

Carol Booker,

BBG Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–31031 Filed 12–1–00; 2:29 pm]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–823–805]

Suspension Agreement on

Silicomanganese from Ukraine;

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

the administrative review of the

suspension agreement on

silicomanganese from Ukraine.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

Eramet Marietta Inc. (petitioner), the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the suspension

agreement on silicomanganese from

Ukraine (‘‘the Agreement’’) for the

period November 1, 1998 through

October 31, 1999, to review the current

status of, and compliance with, the

Agreement. For the reasons stated in

this notice, the Department

preliminarily determines that the

Government of Ukraine (‘‘the GOU’’) is

not in compliance with the Agreement.

The preliminary results are listed in the

section titled ‘‘Preliminary Results of

Review,’’ infra. Interested parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Parties who submit

comments are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the

issues, and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean

Kemp or Carrie Blozy, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4037 or (202) 482–

0165, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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 (‘‘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 October 31, 1994, the Department

signed an agreement with the

Government of Ukraine which

suspended the antidumping

investigation on silicomanganese from

Ukraine. See Silicomanganese from

Ukraine; Suspension of Investigation, 59

FR 60951 (November 29, 1994). In

accordance with section 734(g) of the

Act, on December 6, 1994, the

Department published its final

determination of sales at less than fair

value in this case. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicomanganese From

Ukraine, 59 FR 62711 (December 6,

1994).

On November 30, 1999, petitioner

submitted a request for an

administrative review pursuant to the

notice of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity

to Request Administrative Review, 64

FR 62167 (November 16, 1999). On

December 28, 1999, the Department

initiated a review of the Agreement. See

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews (‘‘Initiation Notice’’), 64 FR

72644 (December 28, 1999).

On August 4, 2000, the Department

extended the time limit for the

preliminary results of review by 120

days. See Notice of Extension of Time

75922 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices

1The report covering the period August 1, 1999

to October 31, 1999 was due on December 1, 1999. 2This includes three reporting periods outside of

the POR.

Limits for the Preliminary Results of

Administrative Review of the

Suspension Agreement on

Silicomanganese From Ukraine, 65 FR

47959 (August 4, 2000). On October 6,

2000, petitioner submitted a letter to the

Department requesting that the

Department determine within the

administrative review that the

Government of Ukraine has violated the

Agreement. On November 14, 2000, the

Department placed on the record of this

administrative review a copy of the

public version of all sales reports filed

by the GOU which cover the reporting

periods during the period of review. The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

agreement is silicomanganese.

Silicomanganese, which is sometimes

called ferrosilicon manganese, is a

ferroalloy composed principally of

manganese, silicon, and iron, and

normally containing much smaller

proportions of minor elements, such as

carbon, phosphorous and sulfur.

Silicomanganese generally contains by

weight not less than 4 percent iron,

more than 30 percent manganese, more

than 8 percent silicon and not more

than 3 percent phosphorous. All

compositions, forms and sizes of

silicomanganese are included within the

scope of this agreement, including

silicomanganese slag, fines and

briquettes. Silicomanganese is used

primarily in steel production as a source

of both silicon and manganese. This

agreement covers all silicomanganese,

regardless of its tariff classification.

Most silicomanganese is currently

classifiable under subheading

7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’).

Some silicomanganese may also

currently be classifiable under HTS

subheading 7202.99.5040. Although the

HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope is

dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is

November 1, 1998 through October 31,

1999.

Preliminary Results of Review

Section 751(a)(1)(C) of the Act

specifies that the Department shall

‘‘review the current status of, and

compliance with, any agreement by

reason of which an investigation was

suspended.* * *’’ In this case the

Department and the GOU signed the

Agreement suspending the antidumping

duty investigation on silicomanganese

from Ukraine on October 31, 1994. In

order to effectively restrict the volume

of exports of silicomanganese from

Ukraine to the United States, the

Agreement provides for the

implementation by the GOU of certain

provisions (Article VII). Moreover,

Article IX of the Agreement

(Monitoring) requires the GOU to

‘‘provide to the Department such

information as is necessary and

appropriate to monitor the

implementation of and compliance with

the terms of {the} Agreement.’’ One of

the tools the Department uses to

monitor the Agreement is sales reports

filed by the GOU. Specifically, the GOU

is required to collect and provide to the

Department sales data on

silicomanganese from Ukraine to the

United States, in the home market, and

to countries other than the United States

in the format specified in Appendix B.

Although the Agreement specifies that

these sales reports are to be submitted

to the Department on a semi-annual

basis, subsequent to the signing of the

Agreement the GOU agreed to submit

the sales reports on a quarterly basis.

See Paris Minutes, Memorandum of

Consultations Regarding Administration

of the Silicomanganese Suspension

Agreement, (May 28, 1998), which are

attached as exhibit 1 to petitioner’s

October 6, 2000 letter.

For the first three reporting periods of

the POR, the GOU timely submitted

their sales reports; however, to date, the

GOU has not filed a sales report for the

fourth reporting period of the POR.1 In

their October 6, 2000 letter, which was

filed on the record of this administrative

review, petitioner, arguing that the GOU

has violated the Agreement and that the

Agreement can no longer be effectively

monitored, calls for the Department to

cancel the Agreement, issue the

antidumping duty order and take the

other actions required by law when a

suspension agreement has been

violated. Specifically, as evidence that

the GOU has violated the Agreement,

petitioner cites the failure by the GOU

to file a sales report for the last four

reporting periods 2 as well as other

alleged sales reporting and

implementation violations, which were

alleged in a February 3, 1998 letter to

the Department, a copy of which is

attached as an exhibit to the October 6,

2000 letter.

It is indisputable that the GOU failed

to file a required sales report for the last

period of the POR. Although parties

may dispute whether this omission

alone constitutes non-compliance with

the Agreement, absent complete and

verifiable information on sales of

silicomanganese from Ukraine during

the POR, the Department cannot

conclusively determine whether the

GOU has complied with the provisions

of the Agreement restricting the price

and volume of direct and indirect

exports of silicomanganese from

Ukraine to the United States over the

POR. Therefore, we preliminarily

determine that the GOU has not been in

compliance with the Agreement during

the POR. Nevertheless, at this time we

are not reaching a determination on

petitioner’s allegation that the

Agreement has been violated. As stated

at the beginning of this section, the

purpose of this administrative review is

to ‘‘review the current status of, and

compliance with’’ the Agreement.

Consequently, within this

administrative review, the Department

will determine the status of the

Agreement and whether the GOU was in

compliance with the Agreement over

the POR. If the Department makes a

final determination of non-compliance,

it will then be necessary to determine

whether this non-compliance rises to

the level of a violation as defined in

Article XII of the Agreement.

Therefore, to provide all interested

parties an opportunity to address our

preliminary finding of non-compliance

and whether such non-compliance

constitutes a violation, we are extending

the deadline for submission of factual

information, other than the reports

required under the Agreement, until 30

days after publication of this notice in

the Federal Register.

Public Comment

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 60

days of the date of publication of this

notice. Requests should contain: (1) The

party’s name, address, and telephone

number; (2) the number of participants;

and (3) a list of the issues to be

discussed. At the hearing, each party

may make an affirmative presentation

only on issues raised in that party’s case

brief, and may make rebuttal

presentations only on arguments

included in that party’s rebuttal brief.

See 19 C.F.R. 351.310(c).

Any hearing, if requested, will be held

67 days after the date of publication or

the first business day thereafter. Case

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 5, 2000 / Notices 75923

briefs from interested parties may be

submitted not later than 60 days after

publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in case briefs, may be filed

not later than five days after the date of

filing of case briefs. If this review

proceeds normally, the Department will

publish the final results of this

administrative review, including its

analysis of issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs, not later than 120 days

after the date of publication of this

notice.

This notice is published in

accordance with sections 751(a) and

777(i) of the Act.

Dated: November 29, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–30955 Filed 12–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–810]

Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty New

Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty new shipper review:

stainless steel bar From India.

SUMMARY: On October 4, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the new shipper

review of the antidumping duty order

on stainless steel bar from India. This

review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Atlas Stainless Corporation.

This review covers sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period February 1, 1999 through

January 31, 2000. We gave interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

the preliminary results of review but

received no comments. The final results

do not differ from the preliminary

results of review, in which we found

that the respondent did not make sales

in the United States at prices below

normal value.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Blanche Ziv or Ryan Langan, Office 1,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4207 or

(202) 482–1279, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations are to 19

CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

On October 4, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of its new shipper

review of stainless steel bar from India.

See Preliminary Results of the New

Shipper Review, 65 FR 59173 (October

4, 2000). We invited parties to comment

on our preliminary results of review. We

received no comments. The Department

has now completed the new shipper

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’).

SSB means articles of stainless steel in

straight lengths that have been either

hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn,

cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished,

or ground, having a uniform solid cross

section along their whole length in the

shape of circles, segments of circles,

ovals, rectangles (including squares),

triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other

convex polygons. SSB includes coldfinished SSBs that are turned or ground

in straight lengths, whether produced

from hot-rolled bar or from straightened

and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars

that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or

other deformations produced during the

rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut length flat-rolled

products (i.e., cut length rolled products

which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness

have a width measuring at least 10 times

the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in

thickness having a width which exceeds

150 mm and measures at least twice the

thickness), wire (i.e., cold-formed

products in coils, of any uniform solid

cross section along their whole length,

which do not conform to the definition

of flat-rolled products), and angles,

shapes and sections.

The SSB subject to these orders is

currently classifiable under subheadings

7222.10.0005, 7222.10.0050,

7222.20.0005, 7222.20.0045,

7222.20.0075, and 7222.30.0000 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 of this

order is dispositive.

Final Results of the Review

We received no comments from

interested parties on our preliminary

results. In addition, we have determined

that no changes to our analysis are

warranted for purposes of these final

results. The weighted-average dumping

margin for Atlas for the period February

1, 1999 through January 31, 2000, is as

follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

Atlas Stainless Corporation

(‘‘Atlas’’) ..................................... 0.00%

Because the weighted-average

dumping margin is zero, we will

instruct the Customs Service to

liquidate entries made during this

review period without regard to

antidumping duties for the subject

merchandise that Atlas exported.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

shall be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of

administrative review for all shipments

of stainless steel bar from India, entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cashdeposit rate for the reviewed company

will be the rate indicated above; (2) for

previously investigated or reviewed

companies, 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 or any previous review or the

original less-than-fair-value

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 12.45

percent, the all-others rate.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final 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