31206 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices

deposit rate for PRC exporters who

received a separate rate in a prior

segment of the proceeding but of whom

a review was not requested for this POR

will continue to be the rate assigned in

that segment of the proceeding; (3) the

cash deposit rate for the PRC NME

entity (i.e., all other exporters which

have not been reviewed) will continue

to be 198.63 percent; and (4) the cash

deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of

subject merchandise from the PRC will

be the rate applicable to the PRC

supplier of that exporter. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review for these companies.

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 these review periods. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double 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.

Timely written notification of the

return/destruction of 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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

List of Comments and Issues in the

Decision Memorandum:

Comment 1: India versus Indonesia as

Surrogate Country

Comment 2: Fresh Mushroom Valuation

Comment 3: Factory Overhead, SG&A, and

Profit Ratios

Comment 4: Classification of Personnel

Expenses

Comment 5: Valuation of Tin Plate

Comment 6: Valuation of Steam Coal

Comment 7: Valuation of Cans Consumed by

Raoping

Comment 8: Adjustment for Brined

Mushrooms Valuation

Comment 9: Spawn Valuation Calculation

Comment 10: Bona Fides of China

Processed’s U.S. Sale

Comment 11: Use of China Processed’s Factor

Data

Comment 12: Raoping’s Labor Consumption

Figure

[FR Doc. 01–14644 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–823–805]

Suspension Agreement on

Silicomanganese From Ukraine; Final

Results of Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final 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 determines

that the Government of Ukraine (‘‘the

GOU’’) is not in compliance with the

Agreement. The final results are listed

in the section titled ‘‘Final Results of

Review,’’ infra.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean

Kemp or Stephen Bailey, 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–

1102, 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 GOU

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, 64 FR 72644, (‘‘Initiation

Notice’’). On December 5, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the Suspension Agreement on

Silicomanganese from Ukraine (65 FR

75921) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The

Department is conducting this review in

accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the

Act.

On November 2, 1999, the Department

initiated (Notice of Inititation of FiveYear ‘‘Sunset’’ Reviews, 64 FR 59160)

and the International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) instituted (Silicon Metal From

Argentina, Brazil, and China and

Silicomanganese From Brazil, China,

and Ukraine, 64 FR 59204, 59209) a

sunset review of the suspended

antidumping duty investigation on

silicomanganese from Ukraine, pursuant

to section 751(c) of the Act. As a result

of its review, on September 27, 2000,

the Department determined (Final

Results of Full Sunset Review:

Silicomanganese from Ukraine, 65 FR

58045) that termination of the

agreement on silicomanganese from

Ukraine would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and notified the ITC of the magnitude of

the margin likely to prevail were the

agreement terminated. On February 5,

2001, the ITC determined

(Silicomanganese from Brazil, China,

and Ukraine Investigations Nos. 731–

TA–671–673 (Review), 66 FR 8981; ITC

Publication # 3386) that termination of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices 31207

the suspended investigation on

silicomanganese from Ukraine would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore,

on February 16, 2001, the Department

published, (Continuation of

Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon

Metal From Brazil and China and on

Silicomanganese From Brazil and

China, and Continuation of Suspended

Antidumping Duty Investigation on

Silicomanganese From Ukraine, 66 FR

10669) notice of continuation of the

suspended investigation on

silicomanganese from Ukraine, pursuant

to section 751(c) and 752 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case brief to

this administrative review are addressed

in the ‘‘Issues and Decision

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision

Memorandum’’) from Joseph A.

Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration, to Faryar

Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated June, 4, 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 this review and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the main Department building. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum can be accessed

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based upon our analysis of the

comments received, there have been no

changes since issuing the preliminary

results.

Final 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.

As discussed in the Preliminary

Results, 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), attached as

exhibit 1 to petitioner’s October 6, 2000

letter.

For this administrative review, we

find that the GOU failed to provide the

Department with sales reports required

by the Agreement. The GOU failed to

submit a sales report due December 1,

1999. The GOU also denied the

Department’s request that sales reports,

placed on the administrative record of

the Agreement on December 1, 1998,

March 1, 1999, May 31, 1999 and

September 10, 1999, also be placed onto

the administrative record of this review.

The GOU expressed concern that the

previously submitted sales reports, if

submitted in this review, would be

released to the general public. In a

public letter dated February 14, 2001,

the GOU pointed out that disclosure of

‘‘economic activity’’ and ‘‘commercial

secrets’’ would cause damage to

Ukrainian silicomanganese producers

Nikopol Ferroalloys (‘‘Nikopol’’) and

Zaporizhzhya Ferroalloys

(‘‘Zaporizhzhya’’). The Department

replied to this letter on February 16,

2001, pointing out that the information

contained in the reports would be

protected by administrative protective

order (APO) and would not be available

to the general public as part of this

administrative review.

As discussed above, these sales

reports are important in order to

determine whether or not the GOU has

effectively restricted the volume of

exports of silicomanganese from

Ukraine to the United States. Despite

the Department’s letter of February 16,

2001, the GOU has not responded to the

Department’s request to allow these

reports to be placed on the

administrative record of this

proceeding. Moreover, the GOU has

never submitted the sales report

required on December 1, 1999. As a

result, the Department does not believe

the GOU has acted to the best of its

ability to cooperate in this

administrative review.

Section 776 (b) of the Act provides

that, in selecting from the facts

available, adverse inferences may be

used when an interested party fails to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for

information. Because the GOU, as

discussed above, has not acted to the

best of its ability in this administrative

review, the Department finds, as adverse

facts available, that the GOU is not in

compliance with the Agreement.

Moreover, we note that the GOU has

continued its pattern of non-compliance

beyond this POR, by failing to file any

required quarterly sales reports since,

31208 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices

1A1 Tech Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals

division, Crucible Materials Corp., Electroalloy

Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Slater Steels

Corp., Talley Metals Technology, Inc. and the

United Steelworkers of America (AFL–CIO/CLC).

and including, the report required on

December 1, 1999.

In the preliminary results of this

administrative review, the Department

stated, ‘‘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.’’ The

Department finds non-compliance on

the part of the GOU for its failure to

submit the December 1, 1999 sales

report and its failure to place sales

reports, placed on the administrative

record of the Agreement, onto the

administrative record of this review. In

addition, the Department views the

GOU’s failure to provide sales reports

for any of the reporting periods after

December 1999 as a continuing pattern

of uncooperative behavior. Article XII of

the Agreement requires that prior to

making a determination of an alleged

violation, the Department will engage in

emergency consultations with the GOU.

Therefore, the Department has requested

emergency consultations with the GOU,

consistent with Article XII of the

Agreement. If, pursuant to these

consultations, the Department finds that

the GOU’s non-compliance constitutes a

violation pursuant to section 351.209 of

the Department’s regulations, the

Department will terminate the

Agreement and issue an antidumping

duty order.

This notice is published in

accordance with sections 751(a) and

777(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 4, 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—List of Issues

1. Whether the GOU has failed to comply

with the information reporting requirements

of the Agreement.

2. Whether the GOU has failed to establish

and maintain the required regimes necessary

to implement the price and volume

restrictions of the Agreement.

3. Whether the GOU’s failures to comply

with the Agreement constitute violations of

the Agreement.

4. Whether the GOU has effectively given

notice of termination of the Agreement,

requiring the Department to issue an order

and take the other steps required when an

Agreement has been violated.

[FR Doc. 01–14650 Filed 6–8–01; 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

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping administrative review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has conducted an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

stainless steel bar from India. This

review covers sales of stainless steel bar

to the United States by Panchmahal

Steel Limited. We have determined that

sales have been made below normal

value during the review period of

February 1, 1999, through January 31,

2000.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based upon our

analysis of the comments received, we

have not made any changes in the

margin calculation presented in the

preliminary results of review. The final

weighted-average dumping margin for

the company under review is listed

below in the section entitled, ‘‘Final

Results of Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Blanche Ziv or Annika O’Hara, Office 1,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4207 or (202) 482–

3798, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 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 of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’’) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On February 5, 2001, the Department

published Stainless Steel Bar From

India; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review

and Partial Rescission of Administrative

Review, 66 FR 8939 (February 5, 2001)

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’), and invited

parties to comment on these results.

Since the Preliminary Results, the

following events have occurred.

On March 7, 2001, the respondent,

Panchmahal Steel Limited

(‘‘Panchmahal’’) submitted a case brief.

The petitioners 1 submitted a rebuttal

brief on March 19, 2001.

On April 26, 2001, the Department

issued a memorandum addressing

certain allegations regarding our

verification in the respondent’s case

brief (see ‘‘Panchmahal Steel Limited’s

Verification Allegations,’’ (April 26,

2001) from Blanche Ziv to Susan

Kuhbach which is on file in the Central

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room B–099 of

the Department) (‘‘Verification

Allegations Memo’’). We invited parties

to comment on the information

presented in the memorandum. We

received no comments.

The Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act. The period

of review (‘‘POR’’) is February 1, 1999,

through January 31, 2000.

Scope of the Order

Imports covered by the order 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,