12810 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2001 / Notices

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR § 207.2(f)).

2Commissioner Dennis M. Devaney did not

participate in this investigation.

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR 207.2(f)).

2Commissioner Dennis M. Devaney not

participating.

Dated: February 16, 2001.

Lucy Querques Denett,

Associate Director for Minerals Revenue

Management.

[FR Doc. 01–4831 Filed 2–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731–TA–652 (Review)]

Aramid Fiber Formed of Poly ParaPhenylene Terephthalamide From the

Netherlands

Determination

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject five-year review, the

United States International Trade

Commission determines, pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order on aramid fiber formed of poly

para-phenylene terephthalamide from

the Netherlands would not be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.2

Background

The Commission instituted this

review on December 1, 1999 (64 FR

67302) and determined on March 3,

2000 that it would conduct a full review

(65 FR 13988, March 15, 2000). Notice

of the scheduling of the Commission’s

review and of a public hearing to be

held in connection therewith was given

by posting copies of the notice in the

Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the

notice in the Federal Register on August

21, 2000 (65 FR 50720). The hearing was

held in Washington, DC, on January 9,

2001, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this review to the

Secretary of Commerce on February 22,

2001. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 3394

(February 2001), entitled Aramid Fiber

Formed of Poly Para-Phenylene

Terephthalamide from the Netherlands:

Investigation No. 731–TA–652 (Review).

Issued: February 21, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–4835 Filed 2–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731–TA–683 (Review)]

Fresh Garlic From China

Determination

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject five-year review, the

United States International Trade

Commission determines, 2 pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order on fresh garlic from China would

be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

Background

The Commission instituted this

review on December 1, 1999 (64 FR

67315) and determined on March 3,

2000, that it would conduct a full

review (65 FR 13989, March 15, 2000).

Notice of the scheduling of the

Commission’s review and of a public

hearing to be held in connection

therewith was given by posting copies

of the notice in the Office of the

Secretary, U.S. International Trade

Commission, Washington, DC, and by

publishing the notice in the Federal

Register on August 30, 2000 (65 FR

52784). The hearing was held in

Washington, DC, on December 19, 2000,

and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on February

21, 2001. The views of the Commission

are contained in USITC Publication

3393 (February 2001), entitled Fresh

Garlic from China: Investigation No.

731–TA–683 (Review).

Issued: February 22, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–4834 Filed 2–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–868–870 (Final)]

Steel Wire Rope From China, India, and

Malaysia; Notice of Commission

Determination To Conduct a Portion of

the Hearing In Camera

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Closure of a portion of a

Commission hearing to the public.

SUMMARY: Upon request of respondents

The Ad Hoc Coalition of America Steel

Wire Rope Importers and the Coalition’s

individual members, as well as foreign

producers Usha Martin Industries,

Xinshan City Wire Rope Factory,

Nantong Zhongde Steel Rope Co., Ltd.,

Henan Boai Wire Material Factory, and

Nantong Wire Rope Group Co., Limited

(collectively ‘‘Respondents’’), the

Commission has determined to conduct

a portion of its hearing in the abovecaptioned investigations scheduled for

February 21,2001, in camera. See

Commission rules 207.24(d), 201.13(m)

and 201.36(b)(4) (19 CFR 207.24(d),

201.13(m) and 201.36(b)(4)). The

remainder of the hearing will be open to

the public. The Commission has

determined that the seven-day advance

notice of the change to a meeting was

not possible. See Commission rule

201.35(a), (c)(1) (19 CFR 201.35(a),

(c)(1)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Diehl, Office of General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3095, e-mail mdiehl@usitc.gov.

Hearing-impaired individuals are

advised that information on this matter

may be obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission believes that Respondents

have justified the need for a closed

session. Respondents seek a closed

session to allow testimony on a

producer-specific basis and on

allegations of lost sales due to

competition with subject imports.

Because such discussions will

necessitate disclosure of business

proprietary information (BPI), they can

only occur if a portion of the hearing is

held in camera. In making this decision,

the Commission nevertheless reaffirms

its belief that whenever possible its

business should be conducted in public.

The hearing will include the usual

public presentations by petitioners and

by Respondents, with questions from