Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3545

APO materials 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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the

Act.

Dated: January 8, 2001.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—List of Issues

for CCC:

1. Clerical Errors

for Clayson:

1. Model Match

2. General and Administrative Expenses

3. Quantity Adjustments

4. Hourly Production Rates

5. Overhead Exclusions

6. Clerical Errors

for Dofasco:

No Issues

for MRM:

1. Revocation

[FR Doc. 01–1224 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–816]

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate From Germany: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results in the

antidumping duty administrative

reviews of certain cut-to-length carbon

steel plate from Germany.

SUMMARY: On September 7, 2000, the

Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) published the

preliminary results of the administrative

reviews of the antidumping duty order

on certain cut-to-length carbon steel

plate from Germany. These reviews

cover one manufacturer/exporter. The

periods of review (‘‘PORs’’) are August

1, 1997 through July 31, 1998, and

August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have not made

any changes in the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final results do not differ

from the preliminary results. The final

adverse facts available margins for the

reviewed firm are listed below in the

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of the

Reviews.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Bolling, or James Doyle,

Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone

202–482–3434 (Bolling), or 202–482–

0159 (Doyle), fax 202–482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘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 the

regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on certain cutto-length carbon steel plate from

Germany on August 19, 1993.

Antidumping Duty Orders and

Amendments to Final Determinations of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Germany, 58 FR 44170 (August 19,

1993) (‘‘Antidumping Duty Order’’). On

August 11, 1998, the Department

published a notice of opportunity to

request administrative review of this

order for the period August 1, 1997

through July 31, 1998. See Antidumping

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,

or Suspended Investigation;

Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review, 63 FR 42821 (August 11, 1998).

Novosteel, a Swiss exporter of subject

merchandise, timely requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of Novosteel’s sales for this

period (‘‘97–98 Review’’). On September

24, 1998, Novosteel requested that the

Department defer the 97–98 Review for

a one year period, in accordance with 19

CFR 351.213(c); the Department agreed

to this request. See Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review, Requests for

Revocation in Part and Deferral of

Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 58009

(October 29, 1998). On August 11, 1999,

the Department published a notice of

opportunity to request administrative

review of this order for the period

August 1, 1998 through July 31, 1999.

See Antidumping or Countervailing

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation; Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review, 64 FR 43649

(August 11, 1999). On August 13, 1999,

Novosteel timely requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of Novosteel’s U.S. entries for

this period (‘‘98–99 Review’’). On

August 31, 1999, Petitioners also timely

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of Novosteel’s

U.S. entries for the 98–99 period of

review (‘‘POR’’). In accordance with

section 751(a) of the Act, the

Department published in the Federal

Register notices of initiation of the 97–

98 Review and the 98–99 Review. See

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in

Part, 64 FR 60161 (November 4, 1999)

(97–98); Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in

Part, 64 FR 53318 (October 1, 1999) (98–

99).

On October 4, 1999, the Department

issued Novosteel its questionnaire for

the 97–98 Review and the 98–99

Review. On December 9, 1999,

Novosteel responded to Section A of the

Department’s questionnaires. In the

Section A response, sales

documentation demonstrated that the

producer of the subject merchandise,

Reiner Brach, had knowledge that the

subject merchandise was being exported

to the United States. See Exhibits 3 and

4 of the December 9, 1999 response.

Also, on January 7, 2000, Novosteel

responded to Sections B and C of the

Department’s questionnaires. On

January 18, 2000, Petitioners submitted

a request that the Department terminate

the administrative reviews with respect

to Novosteel, arguing that a review of

Novosteel, a non-producing exporter,

would only be appropriate where the

supplier did not have knowledge that

the merchandise would be exported to

the United States. Petitioners argued

that Novosteel’s supplier, producer

Reiner Brach, had knowledge that the

merchandise would be sold to the

United States and that, thus, the

appropriate sales to be reviewed were

those made by Reiner Brach to

Novosteel. On February 2, 2000, Reiner

Brach submitted a letter opposing

termination of the administrative review

of Novosteel and agreed to become a

respondent for these administrative

reviews.

Based on the Novosteel’s

questionnaire responses, the

Department determined that Reiner

Brach not only was the producer of the

subject merchandise, but also had

knowledge that the products were

3546 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices

destined for the United States, and that,

thus, the sale between Reiner Brach and

Novosteel was the appropriate link in

the sales chain upon which the

Department should be conducting its

antidumping analysis regarding these

sales of the subject merchandise in the

United States during the

aforementioned PORs. While the result

of this change in focus is that the margin

calculated in these reviews will be that

of Reiner Brach, rather than of

Novosteel, per se, Novosteel

affirmatively accepted the change of

analytical focus to Reiner Brach, and

Petitioners have not disagreed with this

approach. Therefore, bearing these

factors in mind, and in consideration of

the small size and lack of experience of

Reiner Brach, in addition to noting that

two PORs are at issue, the Department

determined that it was proper use of its

discretion to conduct administrative

reviews for the 97–98 and 98–99 PORs

of Reiner Brach’s sales.

On August 31, 2000, the Department

issued the preliminary results of these

administrative reviews. See Certain Cutto-Length Carbon Steel Plate from

Germany: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 65 FR 54205 (September 7,

2000) (‘‘German Plate’’). The

Department has now completed these

administrative reviews in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Reviews

The products covered by these

administrative reviews constitute one

‘‘class or kind’’ of merchandise: certain

cut-to-length carbon steel plate. These

products include hot-rolled carbon steel

universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled

products rolled on four faces or in a

closed box pass, of a width exceeding

150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250

millimeters and of a thickness of not

less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and

without patterns in relief), of

rectangular shape, neither clad, plated,

nor coated with metal, whether or not

painted, varnished, or coated with

plastics or other nonmetallic substances;

and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flatrolled products in straight lengths, of

rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither

clad, plated, nor coated with metal,

whether or not painted, varnished, or

coated with plastics or other

nonmetallic substances, 4.75

millimeters or more in thickness and of

a width which exceeds 150 millimeters

and measures at least twice the

thickness, as currently classifiable in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’)

under item numbers 7208.40.3030,

7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,

7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060,

7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000,

7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,

7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000,

7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000,

7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000.

Included are flat-rolled products of

nonrectangular cross-section where

such cross-section is achieved

subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,

products which have been ‘‘worked

after rolling’’)—for example, products

which have been beveled or rounded at

the edges. Excluded is grade X–70 plate.

These HTS item numbers are provided

for convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to these

administrative reviews are addressed in

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Joseph

A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration, to Troy H. Crib,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated January 5, 2001,

which is hereby adopted by this notice.

A list of the issues which parties have

raised and to which we have responded,

all of which are in the Decision

Memorandum, is attached to this notice

as an Appendix. Parties can find a

complete discussion of all issues raised

in these reviews and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum which is on file at the

U.S. Department of Commerce, in the

Central Records Unit, in room B–099. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum, is accessible in

B–099 and on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov.

The paper copy and electronic version

of the Decision Memorandum are

identical in content.

Use of Facts Available

In accordance with section 776 of the

Act, we have determined that the use of

facts available is appropriate for these

proceedings for our analysis of Reiner

Brach’s entries. For a discussion of our

determination with respect to this

matter, see the facts available section of

the Decision Memorandum, accessible

in B–099 and on the Web at

ia.ita.doc.gov.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have not made any changes

in the margin calculations. See

‘‘Decision Memorandum,’’ accessible in

B–099 and on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov.

Final Results of the Reviews

We determine the following margins

for the periods August 1, 1997 through

July 31, 1998 and August 1, 1998

through July 31, 1999:

CERTAIN CUT-TO-LENGTH CARBON

STEEL PLATE

Producer/ manufacturer/exporterMargin

(percent)

Reiner Brach (97–98 Review) .. 36.00

Reiner Brach (98–99 Review) .. 36.00

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of

this notice of final results of

administrative reviews for all shipments

of cut-to-length plate from Germany

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rates for the reviewed company will be

the rate shown above; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, 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 review, a prior review, or the

original less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’)

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 36.00

percent. This rate is the ‘‘all others’’

rates from the LTFV investigation. See

Antidumping Duty Orders and

Amendments to Final Determinations of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Germany, 58 FR 44170 (August 19,

1993) (‘‘Antidumping Duty Order’’).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also 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 comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2001 / Notices 3547

subsequent assessment of doubled

antidumping duties.

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 requested. Failure to

comply with the regulations and terms

of an APO is a violation which is subject

to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the

Act.

Dated: January 5, 2001.

Troy H. Cribb,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

1. Respondent Cooperation

2. Request to Extend Final and Submit

Additional Data

3. The Application of Total Adverse Facts

Available

4. The Facts Available Margin

[FR Doc. 01–1225 Filed 1–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Public Hearing on Establishment of

Import Restrictions on Certain Steel

Products From Ukraine to the United

States

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

procedural questions concerning the

public hearing and/or public comments,

contact Lesley Stagliano at (202) 482–

0190. All other questions should be

directed to Edward Yang at (202) 482–

0406.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 1,

1990, pursuant to Title IV of the Trade

Act of 1974 (the Trade Act), the

Governments of the United States of

America and Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics entered into the Agreement

on Trade Relations Between the United

States of America and the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics. On May 6,

1992, this agreement became effective

between the United States of America

and Ukraine (the 1992 Agreement).

Article XI of the 1992 Agreement

provides that the Parties will consult

with a view toward finding means of

remedying or preventing actual or

threatened market disruption, and it

authorizes the Parties to take action,

including the imposition of import

restrictions, to achieve this goal.

In January 2001, the United States

Department of Commerce and the

Ministry of Economy of Ukraine entered

into negotiations and consultations

pursuant to Article XI of the Agreement

on Trade Relations Between the United

States of America and Ukraine. In these

negotiations, the Parties are considering

whether the conditions of Article XI

have been met with respect to U.S.

imports of certain steel products from

Ukraine and, if so, what action should

be taken.

Pursuant to Article XI, the United

States is considering establishing import

restrictions on Ukrainian exports to the

United States of the following 21 steel

products:

1. Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar (ReBar)

2. Hot-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel

Products

3. Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel

Products

4. Hot-Rolled Steel Stainless and Alloy

Products

5. Cold-Rolled Stainless, Alloy and

Other Carbon Steel Products

6. Galvanized Sheet Products

7. Other Metallic Coated Flat-Rolled

Products

8. Rails

9. Electrical Sheet Products

10. Heavy Structural Shapes

11. Hot-Rolled Bars

12. Hot-Rolled Light Shapes

13. Cold-Finished Bars

14. Certain Tin Mill Products Pipe and

Tube Products

15. Wire Rod Products

16. Tool Steel

17. Drawn Wire

18. Wheels and Axles

19. Fabricated Structural Shapes

20. Semifinished Steel Products

21. Pig Iron

Each category of steel would have a

separate export limit. In addition to the

issuance of export licenses by the

Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, the

United States would establish a border

enforcement mechanism to ensure

compliance with the export limits. The

border mechanism will be in the form

of denial of entry for any shipment of

steel, covered by the categories listed

above, which exceeds the limits or lacks

the required documents.

Section 125(c) of the Trade Act (19

U.S.C. 2135(c)) provides that whenever

the United States, acting in pursuance of

any of its rights or obligations under any

trade agreement entered into pursuant

to the Trade Act, modifies any

obligation with respect to the trade of

any foreign country or instrumentality,

the President is authorized to proclaim

increased duties or other import

restrictions, to the extent, at such times,

and for such periods as he deems

necessary or appropriate, in order to

exercise the rights or fulfill the

obligations of the United States.

Section 125(f) of the Trade Act (19

U.S.C. 2135(f)) requires the President to

provide the opportunity for interested

parties to present views at a public

hearing prior to taking action pursuant

to section 125(b), (c), or (d) of the Trade

Act (19 U.S.C. 2135(b), (c), or (d)). Such

an opportunity is being provided by

scheduling such a hearing for

Wednesday, January 17, 2001, at the

United States Department of Commerce.

If the consultations and negotiations

with the Ministry of Economy of

Ukraine result in a tentative agreement,

the Department will publish the

proposed agreement on its Import

Administration website (http://

ia.ita.doc.gov) no later than 12:00 p.m.

on Tuesday, January 16, 2001, and

conduct the hearing on January 17,

2001.

Notice of Public Hearing: Pursuant to

section 125(f) of the Trade Act of 1974

(19 U.S.C. 2135(f)), the International

Trade Administration of the Department

of Commerce, has scheduled a public

hearing beginning at 10 a.m., on January

17, 2001, at Room 1412 of the Herbert

C. Hoover Building, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave.,

NW, Washington, DC.

Requests to Present Oral Testimony:

Parties wishing to testify orally at the

hearing must provide written

notification of their intention not later

than 5 p.m., January 16, 2001 to Troy H.

Cribb, Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration: In re Public Hearing on

Establishment of Import Restrictions on

Certain Steel Products From Ukraine to

the United States, Room 1870, Herbert

C. Hoover Building, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave.,

NW, Washington, DC. The notification

should include (1) the name of the

person presenting the testimony, their

address and telephone number; (2) the

organization or company they are

representing, if appropriate; (3) a list of

issues to be addressed; and (4), if

applicable, any request for an extension

of the time limitation on the oral

presentation. This notification may be

submitted via facsimile to Vicki

Sullivan at (202) 273–0957. Those

parties presenting oral testimony must

also submit a written brief, in 20 copies,

not later than 10 a.m., January 18, 2001,

to the above-mentioned address.