58 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Notices 

1A number of parties commented that these 

interim-final regulations provided insufficient time 

for rebuttals to substantive responses to a notice of 

initiation, 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As provided in 19 

CFR 351.302(b), the Department will consider 

individual requests for extension of that five-day 

deadline based upon a showing of good cause.

Department’s regulations on submission 

of proprietary information and 

eligibility to receive access to business 

proprietary information under APO can 

be found at 19 CFR 351.304–306. 

Information Required from Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties (defined 

in 19 CFR 351.102) wishing to 

participate in these sunset reviews must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties

wishing to participate in the sunset 

reviews must file substantive responses 

not later than 30 days after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the notice of initiation. The required 

contents of a substantive response, on 

an order-specific basis, are set forth at 

19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain 

information requirements differ for 

foreign and domestic parties. Also, note 

that the Department’s information 

requirements are distinct from the 

International Trade Commission’s 

information requirements. Please 

consult the Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of sunset reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department.

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

Dated: December 18, 2001. 

Bernard T. Carreau, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–32245 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–046] 

Notice of Final Results of Changed 

Circumstances Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: 

Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of 

changed circumstances antidumping 

duty administrative review. 

SUMMARY: On November 21, 2001, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published a notice of 

initiation and preliminary results of a 

changed circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty finding on 

polychloroprene rubber from Japan. See 

Notice of Initiation and Preliminary 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From 

Japan, 66 FR 58436 (November 21, 

2001) (Preliminary Results). We have 

now completed that review. For these 

final results, as in the Preliminary 

Results, we have determined that the 

restructured manufacturing and 

marketing joint ventures, Showa DDE 

Manufacturing KK (SDEM) and DDE 

Japan Kabushiki Kaisha (DDE Japan), are 

the successor-in-interest companies to 

Dupont Showa Denko (SDP) and its 

predecessor, Showa Neoprene, for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

liability in this proceeding.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Trentham or Tom Futtner, AD/CVD 

Enforcement, Group II, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–6320 or (202) 482–

3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The Applicable Statute and Regulations 

Unless otherwise stated, all citations 

to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), are references to the 

provisions as of 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 

references to the regulations of the 

Department are to 19 CFR part 351 

(2001). 

Background 

In a letter dated September 27, 2001, 

DuPont Dow Elastomers L.L.C. (Dupont 

Dow) and DDE Japan advised the 

Department that in 1998, SDP was 

restructured. The production portion of 

SDP was renamed SDEM. Further, the 

marketing end of SDP’s business was 

separated from SDEM and renamed DDE 

Japan. According to Dupont Dow and 

DDE Japan, these entities were renamed 

to reflect Dupont Dow’s participation in 

the joint ventures and to make the 

companies more globally competitive. 

Nevertheless, like SDP and similar to 

Showa Neoprene, the two firms, SDEM 

and DDE Japan, remained jointly owned 

ventures of Dupont Dow and Showa 

Denko KK. 

On November 21, 2001, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation and preliminary results of a 

changed circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty finding on 

polychloroprene rubber from Japan. See 

Preliminary Results. Interested parties 

were invited to comment on the 

preliminary results. On December 11, 

2001, Dupont Dow Elastomers L.L.C. 

and DDE Japan Kabushiki Kaisha 

submitted comments. See Comments 

section below. 

Scope of Review 

Imports covered by this review are 

shipments of polychloroprene rubber, 

an oil resistant synthetic rubber also 

known as polymerized chlorobutadiene 

or neoprene, currently classifiable under 

items 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00, 

4003.00.00, 4462.15.21 and 4462.00.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS item 

numbers are provided for convenience 

and for U.S. Customs Service purposes. 

The written descriptions remain 

dispositive. 

Successorship 

In making a successor-in-interest 

determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

Management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See Brass Sheet and 

Strip from Canada: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative 

Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 

1992) (Canadian Brass). While no one or 

several of these factors will necessarily 

provide a dispositive indication, the 

Department will generally consider the 

new company to be the successor to the 

previous company if its resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See, e.g., 

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Notices 59

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 

1994) and Canadian Brass, 57 FR 20460. 

Therefore, if the evidence demonstrates 

that, with respect to the production and 

sale of the subject merchandise, the new 

company essentially operates as the 

same business entity as the former 

company, the Department will assign 

the new company the cash deposit rate 

of its predecessor. 

We have examined the information 

provided by Dupont Dow and DDE 

Japan in their September 27, 2001 letter 

and determined that SDEM and DDE 

Japan are the successor-in-interest 

companies to SDP and its predecessor, 

Showa Neoprene. The management, 

production facilities, supplier 

relationships, sales facilities and 

customer base are essentially unchanged 

from those of SDP, and before that, 

Showa Neoprene. Therefore, we 

determine that the new joint venture 

entities essentially operate in the same 

manner as the predecessor companies of 

SDP and Showa Neoprene. 

Final Results of Review 

Based on our analysis in the 

Preliminary Results, we find that 

effective January 1, 1998, the 

restructured manufacturing and 

marketing joint ventures, SDEM and 

DDE Japan, are the successor-in-interest 

companies to Dupont Showa Denko 

(SDP) and its predecessor, Showa 

Neoprene. Further, SDEM and DDE 

Japan should be given the same 

antidumping duty treatment as SDP and 

its predecessor, Showa Neoprene, i.e.,

zero percent antidumping duty cash 

deposit rate. 

Comment: Successorship Effective Date 

DuPont Dow and DDE Japan state that 

the final determination should 

explicitly indicate that, according to the 

facts on the record, SDEM and DDE 

Japan became the successor-in-interest 

companies to SDP and its predecessor, 

Showa Neoprene, effective January 1, 

1998. Department’s Position: We agree 

with DuPont Dow and DDE Japan and 

the effective date of January 1, 1998 is 

reflected in the Final Results of Review 

section below. 

Cash Deposit 

The cash deposit determination from 

this changed circumstances review will 

apply to all entries of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this changed circumstances 

review. This deposit rate shall remain in 

effect until publication of the final 

results of the next relevant 

administrative review. We will instruct 

the U.S. Customs Service accordingly. 

Notification 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (APOs) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to 

timely notify the Department in writing 

of the return/destruction of APO 

material is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing these final results and 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 

Sec. 351.216 of the Department’s 

regulations.

Dated: December 21, 2001. 

Faryar Shirzad, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–32244 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–806] 

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

New Shipper Review: Silicon Metal 

From the People’s Republic of China

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Arrowsmith 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) 482–5255 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 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), on June 29, 2001, the 

Department received the timely and 

properly filed June 28, 2001 request 

from Groupstars Chemical Company, 

Ltd., that we conduct a new shipper 

review of its sales of silicon metal. On 

July 31, 2001, the Department initiated 

a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on silicon 

metal for the period of review (POR) of 

June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001 (66 

FR 41508). 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Section 351.214(i)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations requires the 

Department to issue preliminary results 

of a new shipper review within 180 

days of the date of initiation. However, 

if the Secretary concludes that a new 

shipper review is extraordinarily 

complicated, the Secretary may extend 

the 180-day period to 300 days under 

section 351.214(i)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations. Because of the problems the 

respondent has encountered in meeting 

the Department’s filing requirements 

and the resultant delay to the analysis 

and verification, we find this review to 

be extraordinarily complicated. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

351.214(i)(2) of the regulations, the 

Department is extending the 180-day 

time limit to 300 days. Since the 300th 

day falls on a federal holiday, the due 

date for the preliminary results is now 

the next business day, May 28, 2002. 

The final results will continue to be due 

90 days after the date of issuance of the 

preliminary results.

Dated: December 20, 2001. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–32248 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[C–475–819] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Amended 

Final Results of the Fourth 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amendment of final results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review. 

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2001, the 

Department of Commerce published in 

the Federal Register its final results of 

the fourth administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on certain 

pasta from Italy for the period January