31204 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices

1The petitioners are the Coalition for Fair

Preserved Mushroom Trade which includes the

American Mushroom Institute and the following

domestic companies: L.K. Bowman, Inc.,

Nottingham, PA; Modern Mushroom Farms, Inc.,

Toughkenamon, PA; Monterey Mushrooms, Inc.,

Watsonville, CA; Mount Laurel Canning Corp.,

Temple, PA; Mushrooms Canning Company,

Kennett Square, PA; Southwood Farms, Hockessin,

DE; Sunny Dell Foods, Inc., Oxford, PA; United

Canning Corp., North Lima, OH.

specifically, on an order-by-order basis,

which exporter(s) the request is

intended to cover.

Six copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street &

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. The

Department also asks parties to serve a

copy of their requests to the Office of

Antidumping/Countervailing

Enforcement, Attention: Sheila Forbes,

in room 3065 of the main Commerce

Building. Further, in accordance with

section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the

regulations, a copy of each request must

be served on every party on the

Department’s service list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Administrative Review of

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

Order, Finding, or Suspended

Investigation’’ for requests received by

the last day of June 2001. If the

Department does not receive, by the last

day of June 2001, a request for review

of entries covered by an order, finding,

or suspended investigation listed in this

notice and for the period identified

above, the Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

or countervailing duties on those entries

at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or

bond for) estimated antidumping or

countervailing duties required on those

entries at the time of entry, or

withdrawal from warehouse, for

consumption and to continue to collect

the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

Dated: June 4, 2001.

Holly A. Kuga,

Senior Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement,

Group II, Office 4.

[FR Doc. 01–14648 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–848]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Antidumping Review: Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s

Republic of China

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Campau or Maureen Flannery,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1395 or

(202) 482–3020, 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 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the current

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351

(2000).

Background

On September 29, 2000, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), the Crawfish

Processors Alliance, the Louisiana

Department of Agriculture & Forestry

and Bob Odom, Commissioner

(petitioners), submitted a timely request

to the Department for administrative

review of eighty-nine entities. On

October 30, 2000, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s

Republic of China, covering the period

of September 1, 1999 through August

31, 2000. See Initiation of Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reveiws, Requests for Revocation in Part

and Deferral of Administrative Reviews,

65 FR 64662 (October 30, 2000). On

November 13, 2000 and January 29,

2001, the petitioners withdrew their

request for review of a number of

entities for which reviews were

initiated. Even with these withdrawals,

thirteen companies have submitted

section A questionnaire responses.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary

Results

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the

Act, the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of the

preliminary results of a review if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the preliminary results within

the statutory time limit of 245 days from

the date on which the review was

initiated. The Department has

determined that it is not practicable to

complete the preliminary results of this

review within the statutory time limit.

The Department must review the

thirteen responding companies, as well

as all suppliers and affiliated importers.

Many of the respondent companies have

multiple suppliers and importers. Given

the number of entities involved, it is not

practicable to complete this review

within the time limits mandated by

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and

section 351.213(h)(1) of the

Department’s regulations.

Therefore, in accordance with these

sections, the Department is extending

the time limits for the preliminary

results by 120 days, to September 30,

2001.

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–14645 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–851]

Final Results of First New Shipper

Review and First Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain

Preserved Mushrooms From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On November 7, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the first new

shipper review and first administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain preserved mushrooms from

the People’s Republic of China with

respect to China Processed Food Import

& Export Co., Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co.,

Ltd., and Raoping Xingyu Foods Co.,

Ltd. (new shipper). The period of review

is August 5, 1998, through January 31,

2000.

We received case briefs from the

petitioners,1 Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co.,

Ltd., and Raoping Xingyu Foods Co.,

Ltd., and rebuttal briefs from these three

parties and China Processed Food

Import & Export Co. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have made changes in the margin

calculations. Therefore, the final results

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Notices 31205

2On June 19, 2000, the Department affirmed that

‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified,’’ or ‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms

containing less than 0.5 percent acetic acid are

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

See ‘‘Recommendation Memorandum—Final Ruling

of Request by Tak Fat, et al. for Exclusion of Certain

Marinated, Acidified Mushrooms from the Scope of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic of China,’’

dated June 19, 2000.

differ from the preliminary results. The

final weighted-average dumping

margins for the reviewed firms are listed

below in the section entitled ‘‘Final

Results of Reviews.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Katherine

Johnson, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–4929,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 November 7, 2000, the Department

published the preliminary results of the

new shipper review of Raoping Xingyu

Foods, Ltd. (Raoping), and the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of China Processed Food Import

& Export Co. (China Processed) and

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co. (Gerber) with

respect to the antidumping duty order

on certain preserved mushrooms from

the People’s Republic of China (PRC)

(65 FR 66703). We invited interested

parties to comment on the preliminary

results of these reviews. On April 6,

2001, we received comments from the

petitioners, Gerber, and Raoping. The

petitioners, China Processed, Gerber,

and Raoping submitted rebuttal

comments on April 13, 2001. The

Department has now completed these

reviews, in accordance with section 751

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and

351.214.

Scope of the Order

The products covered by the order are

certain preserved mushrooms whether

imported whole, sliced, diced, or as

stems and pieces. The preserved

mushrooms covered under the order are

the species Agaricus bisporus and

Agaricus bitorquis. ‘‘Preserved

mushrooms’’ refer to mushrooms that

have been prepared or preserved by

cleaning, blanching, and sometimes

slicing or cutting. These mushrooms are

then packed and heated in containers

including but not limited to cans or

glass jars in a suitable liquid medium,

including but not limited to water,

brine, butter or butter sauce. Preserved

mushrooms may be imported whole,

sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces.

Included within the scope of the order

are ‘‘brined’’ mushrooms, which are

presalted and packed in a heavy salt

solution to provisionally preserve them

for further processing.

Excluded from the scope of the order

are the following: (1) All other species

of mushroom, including straw

mushrooms; (2) all fresh and chilled

mushrooms, including ‘‘refrigerated’’ or

‘‘quick blanched mushrooms’’; (3) dried

mushrooms; (4) frozen mushrooms; and

(5) ‘‘marinated,’’ ‘‘acidified’’ or

‘‘pickled’’ mushrooms, which are

prepared or preserved by means of

vinegar or acetic acid, but may contain

oil or other additives.2

The merchandise subject to the order

is currently classifiable under

subheadings 2003.10.0027,

2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037,

2003.10.0043, 2003.10.0047,

2003.10.0053, and 0711.90.4000 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of the

order is 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 Richard

W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration, to

Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated May 31,

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

the Central Records Unit in Room B–099

of the main Commerce Building. In

addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memorandum can be accessed

directly on the Web at http://

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

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

certain changes to the margin

calculations. For a discussion of these

changes, see the ‘‘Margin Calculations’’

section of the Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

weighted-average margin percentages

exist for the period August 5, 1998,

through January 31, 2000:

Exporter/manufacturer Margin percentage

Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd 47.61

China Processed Food Import

& Export Co .......................... 0.00

Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co ....... 111.04

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.212(b), we have calculated

importer-specific ad valorem duty

assessment rates. We will direct the

Customs Service to assess the resulting

percentage margins against the entered

Customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of that importer’s

entries under the relevant order during

the review period (see 19 CFR

351.212(a)). Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate without

regard to antidumping duties all entries

for any importer for whom the

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less

than 0.50 percent). For entries from the

PRC non-market economy (NME) entity

companies (i.e., PRC exporters which

are not entitled to separate rates), the

Customs Service shall assess ad valorem

duties at the PRC-wide rate. Because the

PRC-wide entity was not reviewed

during this period of review (POR), the

PRC-wide rate remains that established

in the less-than-fair-value investigation.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit rates shall be

required for merchandise subject to the

order entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date of these final

results of administrative and new

shipper reviews, as provided by section

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

rate for each reviewed company will be

the rate indicated above; (2) the cash

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