Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22209

1See Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd., v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefore from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–10856 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–307–820, A–533–823, and A–834–807]

Notice of Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations: Silicomanganese

From Kazakhstan, India and Venezuela

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Initiation of antidumping duty

investigations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sally Gannon (India), Robert James

(Venezuela), and Jean Kemp

(Kazakhstan) at (202) 482–0162, (202)

482–0649, and (202) 482–4037,

respectively; Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

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).

The Petition

On April 6, 2001, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by the

following parties: Eramet Marietta Inc.

(Eramet) and the Paper, AlliedIndustrial, Chemical and Energy

Workers International Union, Local 5–

0639 (collectively, the petitioners). The

Department received from the

petitioners information supplementing

the petition throughout the 20-day

initiation period.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of silicomanganese from

Kazakhstan, India, and Venezuela are

being, or are likely to be, sold in the

United States at less than fair value

within the meaning of section 731 of the

Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring an industry in the

United States.

The Department finds that the

petitioners filed this petition on behalf

of the domestic industry because they

are interested parties as defined in

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

Act and have demonstrated sufficient

industry support with respect to each of

the antidumping investigations that they

are requesting the Department to initiate

(see the Determination of Industry

Support for the Petitions section below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

the products covered are all forms, sizes

and compositions of silicomanganese,

including silicomanganese briquettes,

fines and slag. Silicomanganese is a

ferroalloy composed principally of

manganese, silicon and iron, and

normally contains much smaller

proportions of minor elements, such as

carbon, phosphorous and sulfur.

Silicomanganese is sometimes referred

to as ferrosilicon manganese.

Silicomanganese is used primarily in

steel production as a source of both

silicon and manganese.

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.

Silicomanganese is properly classifiable

under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Some

silicomanganese may also be classified

under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.

This petition covers all

silicomanganese, regardless of its tariff

classification. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope remains dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we

discussed the scope with the petitioners

to ensure that it accurately reflects the

product for which the domestic industry

is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed

in the preamble to the Department’s

regulations (62 FR 27323), we are setting

aside a period for parties to raise issues

regarding product coverage. The

Department encourages all parties to

submit such comments by May 17,

2001. 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, DC 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

determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

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

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like 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.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the

domestic like product as ‘‘a product

which 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.

Moreover, the petitioners do not offer a

definition of domestic like product

distinct from the scope of the

investigation.

In this case, ‘‘the article subject to

investigation’’ also is substantially

similar to the scope of the Department’s

antidumping duty order involving

silicomanganese published in 1994. See

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:

Silicomanganese From the People’s

Republic of China (PRC), 59 FR 66003

(December 22, 1994). Thus, based on

our analysis of the information

22210 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

presented to the Department above and

the information obtained and reviewed

independently by the Department, we

have determined that there is a single

domestic like product which is defined

in the Scope of Investigations section

above, and have analyzed industry

support in terms of this domestic like

product.

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 732(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. The sole U.S. producer of the

domestic like product, and the trade

union which represents its workers, are

petitioners in this case. Furthermore,

the Department received no opposition

to the petition. Therefore, we conclude

that the domestic producers or workers

who support the petition account for

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. Thus, the requirements of

section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) are also met.

Accordingly, the Department

determines that the petitions were filed

on behalf of the domestic industry

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)

of the Act. See the Import

Administration AD Investigation

Checklist, April 26, 2001 (Initiation

Checklist) (public version on file in the

Central Records Unit of the Department

of Commerce, Room B–099).

Export Price and Normal Value

The following are descriptions of the

allegations of sales at less than fair value

upon which the Department has based

its decision to initiate these

investigations. The sources of data for

the deductions and adjustments relating

to home market price, U.S. price,

constructed value (CV) and factors of

production (FOP) are detailed in the

Initiation Checklist. Where the

petitioners obtained data from foreign

market research, we contacted the

researcher to establish its credentials

and to confirm the validity of the

information being provided. See

Memorandum to the File, Contacts with

Source of Market Research for

Antidumping Petition Regarding

Imports of Silicomanganese from India

and Kazakhstan, April 23, 2001 (Market

Research for India and Kazakhstan),

and see also Memorandum to the File,

Contacts with Source of Market

Research for Antidumping Petition

Regarding Imports of Silicomanganese

from Venezuela, April 23, 2001 (Market

Research for Venezuela). Should the

need arise to use any of this information

as facts available under section 776 of

the Act in our preliminary or final

determinations, we may re-examine the

information and revise the margin

calculations, if appropriate. The

anticipated period of investigation (POI)

for the market economy countries is

April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001,

while the anticipated POI for

Kazakhstan, the non-market economy

(NME) country, is October 1, 2000,

through March 31, 2001.

Regarding the investigation involving

the NME, the Department presumes,

based on the extent of central

government control in an NME, that a

single dumping margin, should there be

one, is appropriate for all NME

exporters in the given country. See, e.g.,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In

the course of these investigations, all

parties will have the opportunity to

provide relevant information related to

the issues of Kazakhstan’s NME status

and the granting of separate rates to

individual exporters.

Lastly, export price (EP) was based on

the data published by the U.S.

International Trade Commission’s

dataweb, at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/

scripts/REPORT.asp (dataweb). This

data, as presented, is FOB customs

value. Specifically, the petitioners

calculated the average unit values

(AUVs) of silicomanganese entering the

United States from India, Kazakhstan,

and Venezuela during the respective

POIs, excluding February and March

2001, and made the applicable

adjustments to the AUVs. The margins

calculated using this methodology are as

follows: India, 5.89 to 86.98 percent;

Kazakhstan, 164.29 percent; and

Venezuela, 20.38 to 47.14 percent.

Because the Department considers the

country-wide import statistics to

calculate estimated margins to be

sufficient for purposes of initiation, we

have initiated these investigations based

on the country-wide import statistics for

the POI, excluding February and March

2001, for which data was not available,

for each country, respectively.

India

Export Price

The petitioners based EP on the AUV

of silicomanganese imported from India

under the applicable HTSUS

subheading, for the POI, excluding

February and March 2001, based on the

data published by the U.S. International

Trade Commission’s dataweb. This data,

as presented, is FOB customs value. Net

U.S. price was calculated by deducting

foreign inland freight and brokerage and

handling charges, which were based on

foreign market research and inflated

appropriately.

Normal Value

With respect to normal value (NV),

the petitioners provided a home market

price that was obtained from foreign

market research for a grade, i.e., silicon

and carbon content, that is comparable

or identical to that of the products

exported to the United States which

serve as the basis for EP. The petitioners

state that the home market price

quotation was ex-factory, and, therefore,

they did not make any deductions for

movement expenses from this price.

Although the petitioners provided

information on home market prices,

they also provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales of

silicomanganese in the home market

were made at prices below the fully

absorbed cost of production (COP),

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Tariff Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide

sales-below-cost investigation.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the

Tariff Act, COP refers to the total cost

of producing the foreign-like product

which includes the cost of

manufacturing (COM), selling, general

and administrative expenses (SG&A),

and packing expenses. The petitioners

calculated COM based on their own

production experience, adjusted for

known differences between costs

incurred to produce silicomanganese in

the United States and India, using

publicly available data, foreign market

research, and price quotes from

suppliers. To calculate SG&A,

petitioners relied upon the aggregate

financial and cost data for the metals

and chemicals sector in India published

by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Based upon the comparison of the

prices of the foreign like product in the

home market to the calculated COP of

the product, we find reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that sales of the

foreign like product were made at prices

below the COP, within the meaning of

section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act.

Accordingly, the Department is

initiating a country-wide cost

investigation. See Initiation of Cost

Investigations section below.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Tariff Act, petitioners

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22211

based NV for sales in India on CV. The

petitioners calculated CV using the

same COM and SG&A used to compute

Indian home market costs. Consistent

with section 773(e)(2) of the Tariff Act,

petitioners included in CV an amount

for profit. The petitioners calculated a

profit amount using the data published

by the RBI for the metals and chemicals

processing and manufacturing sector.

The estimated dumping margin for

India based on a comparison between

EP and home market price is 5.89

percent. Based upon the comparison of

EP to CV, the petitioners calculated an

estimated dumping margin of 86.98

percent.

Kazakhstan

Export Price

The petitioners identified Joint Stock

Corporation Yermak Ferro-Alloys

(Yermak) and Temirtau Chemical and

Metal Works (Temirtau) as the only

producers of subject merchandise in

Kazakhstan. The petitioners were

unable to obtain specific sales or offers

for sale of subject merchandise in the

United States. Therefore, petitioners

based EP on the AUVs for one ten-digit

category of the HTSUS (7202.30.0000)

on imports from Kazakhstan for the POI

(excluding February and March 2001

because data were not available at the

time of the petition filing). For the

HTSUS category under examination, the

petitioners calculated the import AUVs

using the reported quantity and

Customs value for imports as recorded

in the U.S. Census Bureau’s official IM–

145 import statistics. We note that

Customs import value as defined by

Technical Documentation for US

Exports and Imports of Merchandise on

CD–ROM excludes U.S. import duties,

freight, insurance and other charges

incurred in bringing the merchandise to

the United States. The petitioners

calculated a net U.S. price by deducting

from EP foreign inland freight to the

port of exportation and brokerage and

handling charges at the port of

exportation. In order to calculate foreign

inland freight, the petitioners

determined that the distance by rail

between each of the factories and the

port exceeds 1,525 kilometers, and then

applied an Indian rail rate as a

surrogate. We note that the distance

from both factories to the port of

exportation appears to exceed 1,525

kilometers. For brokerage and handling

charges at the port of exportation,

petitioners used an Indian brokerage

and handling rate as a surrogate. Both of

these surrogate value rates, which were

adjusted for inflation, were used in the

Department’s most recent final results of

review in the Silicomanganese from the

People’s Republic of China antidumping

case. See Silicomanganese From the

People’s Republic of China: Notice of

Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 65 FR 31514

(May 18, 2000) (Silicomanganese from

the PRC).

Normal Value

The petitioners allege that Kazakhstan

is an NME country, and in all previous

investigations, the Department has

determined that Kazakhstan is an NME.

See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Beryllium Metal and High Beryllium

Alloys from the Republic of Kazakhstan,

62 FR 2648, 2649 (January 17, 1997).

Kazakhstan will be treated as an NME

unless and until its NME status is

revoked. Pursuant to section

771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act, because

Kazakhstan’s status as an NME remains

in effect, the petitioners determined the

dumping margin using a factors of

production (FOP) analysis.

For NV, the petitioners based the

FOP, as defined by section 773(c)(3) of

the Tariff Act, on the consumption rates

of Eramet’s silicomanganese plant in the

United States, adjusted for known

differences in electricity and electrode

consumption. The petitioners assert that

information regarding either Kazakhstan

producers’ consumption rates is not

available, and have therefore assumed,

for purposes of the petition, that

producers in Kazakhstan use the same

inputs in the same quantities as the

petitioners use, except where a variance

from the petitioners’ cost model can be

justified on the basis of available

information. The petitioners argue that

the use of the petitioners’ FOP is

conservative for the following reasons:

(1) They have not made adjustments to

Eramet’s FOP for the increases in certain

FOP by the Kazakh producers; and (2)

they have used a certain surrogate value.

Because this information is proprietary,

see the Initiation Checklist (proprietary

version) for details. Based on the

information provided by the petitioners,

we believe the petitioners’ FOP

methodology represents information

reasonably available to the petitioners

and is appropriate for purposes of

initiating this investigation.

The petitioners assert that India is the

most appropriate surrogate country for

Kazakhstan because, pursuant to section

773(c), the Department calculates

normal value in an NME antidumping

investigation by valuing the FOP using

values in a surrogate, market-economy

country that (1) is at a comparable level

of economic development to the NME

and (2) is a significant producer of

comparable merchandise. Also,

petitioners state that Indian data are

available for nearly all FOP used to

manufacture silicomanganese. Based on

the information provided by the

petitioners, we believe that the

petitioners’ use of India as a surrogate

country is appropriate for purposes of

initiating this investigation.

In accordance with section 773(c)(4)

of the Tariff Act, the petitioners valued

FOP, where possible, on reasonably

available, public surrogate data from

India. Raw and process materials were

primarily valued based on price quotes

from an Indian supplier, foreign

research conducted in India (including

using Eramet’s cost methodology for

valuing silicomanganese fines), and

Indian import statistics from the

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade

of India, Volume II: Imports. (We note

that petitioners did not directly value

electrode paste but instead treated

electrode paste as part of factory

overhead, citing Silicomanganese from

the PRC, in which the Department

concluded that electrode paste may

have been already included in the

‘‘stores and spares’’ overhead category.

See Issues and Decision Memorandum

for the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review of

Silicomanganese from the People’s

Republic of China—December 1, 1997

through November 30, 1998 (May 8,

2000). Also, we note that petitioners

believe the correct approach is to

directly value electrode paste because it

is a direct input and to include ‘‘stores

and spares’’ expenses in the numerator

in the calculation of the factory

overhead rate.) Labor was valued using

the regression-based wage rate for

Kazakhstan provided by the

Department, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.408(c)(3). Electricity was valued

using the rate for India published in a

quarterly report of the OECD’s

International Energy Agency. For

overhead, SG&A and profit, the

petitioners, at the request of the

Department, applied rates derived from

the RBI for the Indian metals and

chemicals sector. All surrogate values

which fell outside the POI were

adjusted for inflation based on the

currency in which the source data were

reported. The Indian wholesale price

index, as published by the International

Monetary Fund’s International Financial

Statistics, was used for these

adjustments. Based on the information

provided by the petitioners, we believe

their surrogate values represent

information reasonably available to the

petitioners and are acceptable for

22212 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices

purposes of initiation of this

investigation.

Based upon the comparison of EP to

CV, the petitioners calculated an

estimated dumping margin of 164.29

percent.

Venezuela

Export Price

The petitioners based EP on the AUV

of silicomanganese imported from

Venezuela under the applicable HTSUS

subheading, for the POI, excluding

February and March 2001, based on the

data published by the U.S. International

Trade Commission’s dataweb. This data,

as presented, is FOB customs value. Net

U.S. price was calculated by deducting

foreign inland, which was based on

foreign market research.

Normal Value

Petitioners used data obtained from a

foreign market researcher to determine

the price charged in the home market.

The price quote obtained by the

researcher represents a selling price

(exclusive of taxes) in U.S. dollars

during the last half of 2000 and January

and February 2001. Terms of sale were

delivered. Petitioners then deducted an

amount for inland freight. Information

regarding inland freight charges in

Venezuela was also obtained from the

foreign market researcher. See Initiation

Checklist.

Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect that sales of

silicomanganese in the home market

were made at prices below COP, within

the meaning of section 773(b) of the

Tariff Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a sales-below-cost

investigation for Venezuela.

As indicated above, pursuant to

section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, COP

consists of the COM, SG&A, and

packing. Petitioners calculated COM

based on their own production

experience, adjusted for known

differences between cost incurred to

produce silicon manganese in the

United States and Venezuela using

publicly available data and foreign

market research. To calculate SG&A,

petitioners relied on data obtained from

the financial statement of HEVENSA, a

Venezuelan steel producer. Based upon

the comparison of the prices of the

foreign like product in the home market

to the calculated COP of the product, we

find reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that sales of the foreign like

product were made at prices below the

COP, within the meaning of section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act.

Accordingly, the Department is

initiating a cost investigation for

Venezuela. See Initiation of Cost

Investigations section below.

Given the evidence of below-cost

sales, petitioners also based NV on CV

pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b)

and 773(e) of the Tariff Act. The

petitioners calculated CV using the

same COM and SG&A used to compute

Venezuelan home market costs. The

petitioners did not include in CV an

amount for profit. However, petitioners

point out that, consistent with section

773(e)(2) of the Tariff Act, the

Department has to include an amount

for profit in its NV and CV calculations

during the investigation.

The estimated dumping margin for

Venezuela, based on a comparison

between EP and home market price, is

20.38 percent. The estimated dumping

margin for price-to-CV comparisons is

47.14 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

As noted above, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, the petitioners

provided information demonstrating

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales in the home markets of India

and Venezuela were made at prices

below the fully absorbed COP and,

accordingly, requested that the

Department conduct country-wide salesbelow-COP investigations in connection

with the requested antidumping

investigations for these countries. The

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA), submitted to the U.S. Congress

in connection with the interpretation

and application of the URAA, states that

an allegation of sales below COP need

not be specific to individual exporters

or producers. SAA, H. Doc. 103–316, at

833(1994); see also 19 CFR

351.301(d)(2). The SAA, at 833, states

that ‘‘Commerce will consider

allegations of below-cost sales in the

aggregate for a foreign country, just as

Commerce currently considers

allegations of sales at less than fair value

on a country-wide basis for purposes of

initiating an antidumping

investigation.’’

Further, the SAA provides that ‘‘new

section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current

requirement that Commerce have

‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’ that below cost sales have

occurred before initiating such an

investigation. ‘Reasonable grounds’

* * * exist when an interested party

provides specific factual information on

costs and prices, observed or

constructed, indicating that sales in the

foreign market in question are at belowcost prices.’’ Id. Based upon the

comparison of the adjusted prices from

the petition for the representative

foreign like products to their COPs, we

find the existence of ‘‘reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect’’ that sales

of these foreign like products in the

markets of India and Venezuela were

made at prices below their respective

COPs within the meaning of section

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly,

the Department is initiating the

requested country-wide cost

investigations.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of silicomanganese from

India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela are

being, or are likely to be, sold at less

than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material

Injury and Causation

The petitioners allege that the U.S.

industry producing the domestic like

product is being materially injured, or is

threatened with material injury, by

reason of the individual and cumulated

imports of the subject merchandise sold

at less than NV. The petitioners contend

that the industry’s injured condition is

evident in the declining trends in net

operating profits, net sales volumes,

profit-to-sales ratios, and capacity

utilization. The allegations of injury and

causation are supported by relevant

evidence including U.S. Customs import

data, lost sales, and pricing information.

We have assessed the allegations and

supporting evidence regarding material

injury and causation, and have

determined that these allegations are

properly supported by accurate and

adequate evidence and meet the

statutory requirements for initiation (see

Initiation Checklist).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based upon our examination of the

petitions on silicomanganese, and the

petitioners’ responses to our

supplemental questionnaire clarifying

the petitions, as well as our

conversations with the foreign market

researcher who provided information

concerning various aspects of the

petition, we have found that it meets the

requirements of section 732 of the Act.

See Initiation Checklist, Market

Research for India and Kazakhstan, and

Market Research for Venezuela.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of

silicomanganese from India,

Kazakhstan, and Venezuela 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Notices 22213

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 the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

governments of India, Kazakhstan, and

Venezuela. We will attempt to provide

a copy of the public version of the

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, no later than

May 21, 2001, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of

silicomanganese from India,

Kazakhstan, and Venezuela 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 issued and published

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T.

Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Dated: April 26, 2001.

Bernard T. Carreau,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–11149 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–815]

Sulfanilic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; Notice of Extension

of Time Limit for Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China. The review covers the period

August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Carey or Samantha Denenberg,

AD/CVD Enforcement Office 7, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–3964 or (202) 482–

1386, respectively.

Postponement of Preliminary Results of

Review

On October 2, 2000, the Department

published a notice of initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from the People’s Republic of

China, covering the period August 1,

1999 through July 31, 2000 (65 FR

58733). The preliminary results are

currently due no later than May 3, 2001.

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

as amended (the Act), requires the

Department to issue its preliminary

results within 245 days after the last day

of the anniversary month of an order/

finding for which a review is requested.

However, if it is not practicable to

complete the preliminary results within

this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Act allows the Department to extend

the time limit for a preliminary

determination to a maximum of 365

days.

We determine that it is not practicable

to complete the preliminary results of

this review within the original time

limit. Therefore, the Department is

extending the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results to no later

than August 31, 2001. See

Memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman

to Joseph A. Spetrini, dated April 26,

2001, 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: April 27, 2001.

Richard O. Weible,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–11151 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–841]

Vector Supercomputers From Japan:

Notice of Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, and

Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances review, and

revocation of antidumping duty order.

SUMMARY: On March 13, 2001, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published a notice of

initiation and preliminary results of a

changed circumstances review with the

intent to revoke the antidumping duty

order on certain vector supercomputers

from Japan. See Certain Vector

Supercomputers From Japan: Notice of

Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstances Review of the

Antidumping Order and Intent to

Revoke Order (‘‘Initiation and

Preliminary Results’’), 66 FR 14547

(March 13, 2001). In our Initiation and

Preliminary Results, we gave interested

parties an opportunity to comment. No

interested party opposed the

preliminary results.

Therefore, we are now revoking this

order because the domestic producer of

the like product has expressed no

interest in the continuation of the order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Young or James Terpstra AD/CVD

Enforcement, Office VI, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–6397, or (202)

482–3965 respectively.

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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations as codified at 19 CFR part

351 (2000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 27, 2001, Cray Inc.

(‘‘Cray’’) requested that the Department