Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices 10667

such a person had any interest at the

time of conviction may be revoked.

Pursuant to §§ 766.25 and 750.8(a) of

the regulations, upon notification that a

person has been convicted of violating

the Espionage Act, the Director, Office

of Exporter Services, in consultation

with the Director, Office of Export

Enforcement, shall determine whether

to deny that person’s export privileges

for a period of up to 10 years from the

date of conviction and shall also

determine whether to revoke any license

previously issued to such a person.

Having received notice of Ames’s

conviction for violating the Espionage

Act, and after providing notice and an

opportunity for Ames to make a written

submission to the Bureau of Export

Administration before issuing an Order

denying her export privileges, as

provided in §766.25 of the regulations,

I, following consultations with the

Director, Office of Export Enforcement,

have decided to deny Ames’s export

privileges for a period of eight years

from the date of her conviction. The

eight-year period ends on October 21,

2002. I have also decided to revoke all

licenses issued pursuant to the Act in

which Ames had an interest at the time

of her conviction.

Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered:

I. Until October 21, 2002, Maria Del

Rosario Cases Ames, Transversal 12

#125–51, Apartment 607, Bogota,

Columbia, may not, directly or

indirectly, participate in any way in any

transaction involving any commodity,

software or technology (hereinafter

collectively referred to as ‘‘item’’)

exported or to be exported from the

United States, that is subject to the

Regulations, or in any other activity

subject to the regulations, including, but

not limited to:

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using

any license, License Exception, or

export control document;

B. Carrying on negotiations

concerning, or ordering, buying,

receiving, using, selling, delivering,

storing, disposing of, forwarding,

transporting, financing, or otherwise

servicing in any way, any transaction

involving any item exported or to be

exported from the United States that is

subject to the Regulations, or in any

other activity subject to the regulations;

or

C. Benefiting in any way from any

transaction involving any item exported

or to be exported from the United States

that is subject to the Regulations, or any

other activity subject to the regulations.

II. No person may, directly or

indirectly, do any of the following:

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf

of the denied person any item subject to

the regulations;

B. Take any action that facilitates the

acquisition or attempted acquisition by

the denied person of the ownership,

possession, or control of any item

subject to the regulations that has been

or will be exported from the United

States, including financing or other

support activities related to a

transaction whereby the denied person

acquires or attempts to acquire such

ownership, possession or control;

C. Take any action to acquire from or

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted

acquisition from the denied person of

any item subject to the regulations that

has been exported from the United

States;

D. Obtain from the denied person in

the United States any item subject to the

Regulations with knowledge or reason

to know that the item will be, or is

intended to be, exported from the

United States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to service

any item subject to the Regulations that

has been or will be exported from the

United States and which is owned,

possessed or controlled by the denied

person, or service any item, of whatever

origin, that is owned, possessed or

controlled by the denied person if such

service involves the use of any item

subject to the Regulations that has been

or will be exported from the United

States. For purposes of this paragraph,

servicing means installation,

maintenance, repair, modification or

testing.

III. After notice and opportunity for

comment as provided in § 766.23 of the

Regulations, any person, firm,

corporation, or business organization

related to Ames by affiliation,

ownership, control, or position of

responsibility in the conduct of trade or

related services may also be subject to

the provisions of this Order.

IV. This Order does not prohibit any

export, reexport, or other transaction

subject to the Regulations where the

only items involved that are subject to

the Regulations are the foreignproduced direct product of U.S.-origin

technology.

V. This Order is effective immediately

and shall remain in effect until October

21, 2002.

VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the

Regulations, Ames may file an appeal

from this Order with the Under

Secretary for Export Administration.

The appeal must be filed within 45 days

from the date of this Order and must

comply with the provisions of Part 756

of the Regulations.

VII. A copy of this Order shall be

delivered to Ames. This Order shall be

published in the Federal Register.

Dated: January 26, 2001.

Eileen M. Albanese,

Director, Office of Exporter Services.

[FR Doc. 01–3915 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 9–2001]

Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone—Butte

County, California Application and

Public Hearing

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board

(the Board) by the Oroville Economic

Development Corporation (a non-profit

corporation), to establish a generalpurpose foreign-trade zone at sites in

southern Butte County, California,

which appears to be within 90 minutes

driving time from the San Francisco/

Oakland/Sacramento, California,

Customs port of entry limits. The

application was submitted pursuant to

the provisions of the FTZ Act, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the

regulations of the Board (15 CFR part

400). It was formally filed on February

6, 2001. The applicant is authorized to

make the proposal under section 6302 of

the California Code.

The proposed zone would be the sixth

general-purpose zone in the San

Francisco/Oakland/Sacramento,

California, Customs port of entry area.

The existing zones are FTZ 3 in San

Francisco (Grantee: San Francisco Port

Commission, Board Order 16, 13 FR

1459, 3/19/48); FTZ 18 in San Jose

(Grantee: City of San Jose, California,

Board Order 103, 39 FR 42031, 12/4/74);

FTZ 56 in Oakland (Grantee: City of

Oakland, California, Board Order 155,

45 FR 27802, 4/24/80); FTZ 143 in the

W. Sacramento area (site also in Chico)

Grantee: Sacramento-Yolo Port District,

Board Order 360, 52 FR 30698, 8/17/87);

and, FTZ 231 in the Stockton (San

Joaquin County) area (Grantee: Stockton

Port District, Board Order 967, 63 FR

23719, 4/30/98).

The proposed new zone would

consist of 4 sites in the southern Butte

County area: Site 1 (1,834 acres)—

central Oroville industrial area located

in Oroville on Highway 70; Site 2 (812

acres)—Oroville Municipal Airport

complex, west of Highway 70 along

Highway 162, Oroville; Site 3 (155

acres)—Gridley industrial area west of

Highway 99 along the Union Pacific

10668 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices

Railroad right of way with Liberty Road,

Gridley; and, Site 4 (9 acres)—east of

Highway 99, north of Standish Lane,

Gridley. Sites 1 and 2 in Oroville are

within a California State Recycling

Market Development Zone and a

California State Enterprise Zone.

The application indicates a need for

foreign-trade zone services in the

southern Butte County area. Several

firms have indicated an interest in using

zone procedures for warehousing/

distribution activities. Specific

manufacturing approvals are not being

sought at this time. Requests would be

made to the Board on a case-by-case

basis.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

As part of the investigation, the

Commerce examiner will hold a public

hearing on March 15, 2001, 9 a.m., at

the City Council Chambers, 1735

Montgomery Street, Oroville, California

95965,

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is April 17, 2001. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to May 2, 2001).

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

during this time for public inspection at

the following locations:

Office of the Deputy City Clerk, Oroville

City Hall, 1735 Montgomery Street,

Oroville, CA 95965

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room

4008, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230

Dated: February 9, 2001.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–4021 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–852]

Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping

Duty Review: Structural Steel Beams

From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of new

shipper antidumping duty review on

structural steel beams from Japan.

SUMMARY: On December 27, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) received a request to

conduct a new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on structural

steel beams from Japan. We are

initiating this new shipper review in

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and

19 CFR 351.214(d).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juanita H. Chen or Robert Bolling,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 1401 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone 202–482–0409 and 202–482–

3434, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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’s regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

On April 25, 2000, the Department

published its final determination in the

less than fair value investigation on

structural steel beams from Japan. See

Structural Steel Beams from Japan, 65

FR 24182 (April 25, 2000) (final

determination). On June 19, 2000, the

Department published its antidumping

duty order on structural steel beams

from Japan. See Structural Steel Beams

from Japan, 65 FR 37960 (June 19, 2000)

(order). Accordingly, the anniversary

month is June. On December 27, 2000,

Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yamato

Kogyo’’) requested a new shipper review

of the antidumping duty order on

structural steel beams from Japan,

covering Yamato Kogyo’s U.S. sales of

structural steel beams.

Period of Review

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June

1, 2000 through November 30, 2000.

Initiation of Review

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.214(b)(2), Yamato Kogyo certified

that: (1) it did not export subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) (July

1, 1998 through June 30, 1999); and (2)

since the initiation of the investigation,

it has never been affiliated with any

exporter or producer who exported the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POI, including those

exporters or producers not individually

examined during the investigation.

Yamato Kogyo also submitted

documentation establishing the

following: (1) The date on which it first

shipped subject merchandise for export

to the United States; (2) the volume of

that shipment; and (3) the date of the

first sale to an unaffiliated customer in

the United States.

As Yamato Kogyo meets the eligibility

requirements for a new shipper review,

we are initiating a new shipper review

of the antidumping duty order on

structural steel beams from Japan, in

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1),

with respect to Yamato Kogyo. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1),

we intend to issue the preliminary

results of this review no later than 180

days after the day on which this new

shipper review is initiated.

Concurrent with publication of this

notice, and in accordance with 19 CFR

351.214(e), we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to allow, at the option

of the importer, the posting of a bond or

security in lieu of a cash deposit for

each entry of the merchandise exported

by Yamato Kogyo until the completion

of this new shipper review.

The interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective order in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and

351.306.

This initiation notice is published in

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and

351.221(c)(1)(i).

Dated: January 31, 2001.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 01–4020 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P