Certain Crude Petroleum Oil Products from Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-397-400 and 731-TA-842-845 (Preliminary)

=== Dismissal of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions === 44480 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 1999 / Notices 1 The region identified by the petitioner consists of the 48 contiguous states, excluding Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. office and/or involve special, one-time survey operations. Applicants completing the form are applying for temporary jobs in office and field positions (clerks, enumerators, crew leaders, supervisors). Selecting officials review the information shown on the form to determine the best qualified applicants. The form has been demonstrated to meet our recruitment needs for temporary workers and requires significantly less burden than the Office of Personnel Management Optional Forms that are available for use by the public when applying for Federal positions. Current efforts to hire an enormous temporary workforce for Census 2000 will significantly increase the usage of the BC–170. The 2000 Census is the largest peacetime mobilization of civilians that enumerate and account for the population of the United States. We expect to recruit approximately 3,000,000 applicants for Census 2000 jobs. Affected Public: Individuals or households. Frequency: One-time. Respondent’s Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Legal Authority: Title 13 USC, Section 23. OMB Desk Officer: Linda Hutton, (202) 395–7858. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 482–3272, Department of Commerce, room 5033, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 or via the internet at LEngelme@doc.gov). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Linda Hutton, OMB Desk Officer, room 10201, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: August 10, 1999. Linda Engelmeier, Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 99–21102 Filed 8–13–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–505–801, A–201–825, A–517–802, A–307– 817, C–505–802, C–201–826, C–517–803, C– 307–818] Dismissal of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions: Certain Crude Petroleum Oil Products From Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Ross or Thomas Schauer (Antidumping) or Roy Malmrose (Countervailing Duty), Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4794, (202) 482– 0410, or (202) 482–5414, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Applicable Statute and Regulations 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 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce’s (the Department’s) regulations are to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1998) and to the substantive countervailing duty regulations published in the Federal Register on November 25, 1998 (63 FR 65348). The Petitions On June 29, 1999, the Department received petitions filed in proper form by Save Domestic Oil, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), an organization composed of producers of crude oil. The Department received supplemental submissions during June, July, and August 1999. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioner alleges that imports of crude oil from Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a regional 1 industry in the United States. In addition, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the petitioner alleges that producers or exporters of crude oil from Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela received countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act. The Department finds that the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. However, as discussed below, the petitioner has not demonstrated that it filed the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry. Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficient industry support, as required by sections 702(c)(4) and 732(c)(4) of the Act, the Department has no basis to initiate the requested investigations (see the ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ section, below). Scope of the Petitions For purposes of these petitions, the product covered is all crude petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals testing at, above, or below 25 degrees A.P.I. The merchandise covered by these petitions is classifiable under subheadings 2709.00.10 and 2709.00.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Consultations Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department invited representatives of the Governments of Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela for consultations with respect to the countervailing duty petitions filed. On August 2, 1999, consultations were held with representatives of the Government of Venezuela. On August 5, 1999, consultations were held with representatives of the Governments of Mexico and Saudi Arabia. See the August 3, 1999, August 5, 1999, and August 6, 1999, memoranda to the file regarding these consultations. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions a. The Regional Industry The petitioner alleges that there is a regional industry for the domestic like product. In support of its allegation, the petitioner provided sufficient information, reasonably available to the petitioner, regarding the criteria set out in section 771(4)(C) of the Act: (1) the producers within such market sell all or almost all of their production of the domestic like product in question in that market; (2) the demand in that market is not supplied, to any substantial degree, by producers of the product in question located elsewhere in the United States; and (3) appropriate 44481Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 1999 / Notices 2 See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988), and High Information Content Flat Panel Displays and Display Glass Therefor from Japan; Final Determination; Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380– 81 (July 16, 1991). circumstances exist to divide the United States into the two markets alleged. In accordance with sections 702(c)(4)(C) and 732(c)(4)(C) of the Act, if the petitioner alleges that the industry is a regional industry, the Department shall determine whether the petition has been filed by or on behalf of the industry by applying the requirements set forth in sections 702(c)(4)(A) and 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act on the basis of the production in the region. The Department has reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information supplied by the petitioner with respect to its regional-industry claim. Based upon this review and in accordance with the statutory criteria stated above, the petitioner has made an adequate regional-industry claim for initiation purposes. For a further discussion regarding the regional-industry claim, see Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland, dated August 8, 1999. b. Scope of the Industry Examined for Support Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who account for production of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether the domestic industry has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory provision regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to the law.2 Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the Department’s analysis of the domestic like product begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition. The ‘‘Scope of the Petitions’’ section above sets forth the domestic like product identified in the petitions. In addition to the products included in the petitioner’s definition of domestic like product, parties have argued that two other products, refined products and ‘‘lease condensates,’’ should be included within the domestic like product. With respect to refined products, we determine that there is a clear dividing line between the characteristics and uses of crude oil and refined products. Crude oil, which is the input product used to produce a refined product, must undergo a distinct and significant process to become a refined product such as gasoline and other fuel oils. While both crude oil and refined products consist of hydrocarbon compounds, the refining process changes the physical structure and characteristics of the compounds found originally in the crude oil such that generally there remains no significant similarities between the two products in terms of physical characteristics and uses. Because of the differences in characteristics and uses, we determine that refined products are not within the domestic like product for purposes of determining industry support for the petitions. See Memorandum from the Team to Richard W. Moreland, regarding ‘‘Domestic Like Product,’’ dated August 9, 1999, for additional analysis. The issue of whether ‘‘lease condensates’’ are included properly within the domestic like product is more complicated. Lease condensates consist essentially of a mixture of certain hydrocarbon compounds that, in terms of weight and complexity, fall between natural gas and crude oil. They are liquids formed from natural gas as a result of temperature or pressure changes. Often lease condensates are mixed with crude oil and the resulting mixture is sold to a refinery as crude oil. The petitioner argues that the Department should not include lease condensates in the domestic like product because the mixture of hydrocarbon compounds in lease condensates is different from the mixture of hydrocarbon compounds in crude oils. Consequently, it asserts, lease condensates can only be refined into a limited range of products. Opposing the petitioner’s position, other parties have argued that lease condensates are very similar in physical characteristics and uses to light crude oil and that, when mixed, they simply become an indistinguishable part of the crude-oil stream which is sent to the refinery. In addition to the extremely complex technical nature of the issue, ascertaining the precise nature of available production and distribution data as well as attempting to establish the appropriate analytical framework for a very diverse industry has been problematic for the Department. However, it is not necessary to decide this issue because, as discussed below, we have determined that the petitioner does not have the requisite industry support, regardless of how the issue of lease condensates is resolved. c. Calculation of Industry Support Within the Region Sections 702(b)(1) and 732(b)(1) of the Act require that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. In particular, sections 702(c)(4)(A) and 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provide that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers in the region who support the petition account for: (1) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product in the region; and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced in the region by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. The petitioner alleges that, based on the support of individual producers and support by a number of industry associations, the petitions have the required support of the industry. As of July 27, 1999, the Department had received letters from 20 domestic producers opposing the petitions. In the aggregate, these producers accounted for approximately 50 percent of total production within the region. Because there was a question as to whether the petitioner met the statutory requirements concerning industry support cited above, we exercised our statutory discretion under sections 702(c)(1)(B) and 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act to extend the deadline for determining whether to initiate investigations to a maximum of 40 days from the date of filing in order to resolve this issue. See Memorandum from the Industry Support Team to Richard W. Moreland, regarding ‘‘Determination of Industry Support,’’ dated July 30, 1999. In order to determine the level of industry support for the petitions, the Department surveyed (1) each of the 410 largest producers in the region, which 44482 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 1999 / Notices accounted for over 86 percent of regional production, and (2) a 401- company sample of the remaining producers in the region. The purpose of the survey was to ascertain the companies’ positions with regard to the petitions. We received responses from 41 percent of the 410 companies and 18 percent of the sampled 401 companies. As mentioned above, we received letters of opposition from a number of companies who accounted for approximately 50 percent of total regional production. Based on the surveys, additional companies indicated that they opposed the petitions. The petitioner submitted comments alleging that certain companies opposed to the petitions are related to producers in the subject countries and that a number of those companies are importers of subject merchandise. The petitioner argues that, consistent with sections 702(c)(4)(B) and 732(c)(4)(B) of the Act, the positions of these companies should be disregarded. Sections 702(c)(4)(B) and 732(c)(4)(B) of the Act provide that the position of certain domestic producers may be disregarded for purposes of determining industry support. Specifically, subsection (B)(i) provides that the position of domestic producers who oppose the petition shall be disregarded ‘‘if such producers are related to foreign producers * * * unless such domestic producers demonstrate that their interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping [or countervailing] duty order.’’ Additionally, subsection (B)(ii) provides that the position of domestic producers of a domestic like product who are importers of the subject merchandise may be disregarded. Our analysis of whether to disregard any positions focused on whether the opposing companies have demonstrated that their interests as domestic producers would be affected adversely by the imposition of an antidumping or countervailing duty order. Because we are able to resolve the issue on this basis, we need not determine whether these companies are related to foreign producers. We note, however, that we have serious questions about the sufficiency of the petitioner’s allegations. For example, we question whether the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of any relationship, as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act, and, in the case of alleged relationships as defined in section 771(4)(B)(ii)(IV) of the Act, that these relationships would cause the domestic producer to act differently than a non- related producer. We have not resolved these questions; rather, we looked first at the question of whether the opposing domestic producers had established that their interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in which case the issue of whether they are related parties becomes moot. In this regard, we focused our analysis on the API Ad Hoc Free Trade Committee (the Committee) because it is composed of the largest U.S. producers in opposition to the petitions and because its treatment is dispositive of the industry support issue. The Committee argues that its opposition is not based on foreign interests or imports, but rather on the based on the fact that the Committee members’ interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of antidumping or countervailing duties. The Committee also argues that the petitioner has not alleged that each U.S. producer about which allegations were made is related to a foreign producer in each of the subject countries. Moreover, the petitioner has provided no basis for assuming that a relationship in one country would cause a producer to oppose a case against another country with potentially competing suppliers. Even assuming there are relationships, the Committee argues, because the interest of domestic producers opposing the petition would be adversely affected by the imposition of an order, the Department must consider their views. The arguments and information presented by the Committee to demonstrate the adverse affects it believes would ensue are described in its August 2, 1999, and August 4, 1999, submissions. Finally, with respect to imports, the Committee argues that importing is a standard practice in the U.S. oil industry and that the large producers account for only a small portion of total imports. Moreover, the Committee argues, domestic producers which oppose the petition are not bound to imports from the subject countries. Therefore, the Committee argues, the Department should not disregard its opposition. After reviewing comments submitted by all parties, we believe that the Committee and other opposing companies have demonstrated that their interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping or countervailing duty order. Accordingly, we have not disregarded the opposition of the Committee members alleged to be related to foreign producers. In addition, we have determined that the Committee members who import should not be excluded because those domestic producers have demonstrated that their opposition to the petitions is based on their concern that the imposition of an antidumping or countervailing duty order would adversely affect their interests as domestic producers. For a further discussion, see Memorandum from the Industry Support Team to Richard W. Moreland, regarding ‘‘Consideration of Opposition from Domestic Producers Alleged to Be Related to Foreign Producers and/or Importing Subject Merchandise,’’ dated August 9, 1999. Based on the opposition we received from companies we have determined not to disregard, we find that the petitions do not have support from more than 50 percent of the production in the region of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions. The opposition of the Committee and companies not challenged by the petitioner ranges from 65 to 68 percent across the various cases. See Memorandum from the Industry Support Team to Richard W. Moreland, regarding ‘‘Calculation of Industry-Support Percentages,’’ dated August 9, 1999. Accordingly, we determine that the petitions are not filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of sections 702(b)(1) and 732(b)(1) of the Act. There are a number of complex issues regarding the 25-percent test which we are not addressing because the 50- percent test has not been met. Because the petitions did not have the required industry support, all other issues are moot. Notice is hereby given that the petitions are dismissed and the proceedings terminated. International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our determination, as required by sections 702(d) and 732(d) of the Act. This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: August 9, 1999. Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 99–21197 Filed 8–13–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Revised Schedule === 38691Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 137 / Monday, July 19, 1999 / Notices 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 For purposes of this investigation, Commerce has defined ‘‘nitrile rubber’’ as the synthetic rubber produced by the copolymerization of butadiene and acrylonitrile, not in latex form, and not containing additives, rubber processing chemicals, and/or other materials used for further processing beyond the copolymerization process. filing is December 22, 1999. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in § 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.67 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is January 24, 2000; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before January 24, 2000. On February 9, 2000, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before February 11, 2000, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. In accordance with §§ sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Determination The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: July 13, 1999. Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–18336 Filed 7–16–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 701–TA–397–400 (Preliminary) and 731–TA–842–845 (Preliminary)] Certain Crude Petroleum Oil Products From Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Revised schedule for the subject investigations. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Ruggles (202–205–3187), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 29, 1999, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject investigations (64 FR 36919, July 8, 1999). Subsequently, the Department of Commerce extended the date for its initiation of the investigations from July 19 to August 9, 1999. The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with Commerce’s new schedule. The Commission’s new schedule for the investigations is as follows: Requests to appear at the conference must be filed with Fred Ruggles not later than August 9; the conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on August 12; and the deadline for filing written briefs is August 17, 1999. For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: July 14, 1999. Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–18338 Filed 7–16–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731–TA–827 (Preliminary)] Nitrile Rubber From Korea Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission determines, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), that there is no reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from Korea of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (nitrile rubber),2 provided for in subheading 4002.59.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). Background On May 27, 1999, a petition was filed with the Commission and the Department of Commerce by Zeon Chemicals, L.P., Louisville, KY, and Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., Middlebury, CT, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of nitrile rubber from Korea. Accordingly, effective May 27, 1999, the Commission instituted antidumping investigation No. 731-TA–827 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigation and of a public conference 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 of June 4, 1999 (64 FR 30059). The conference was held in ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Institution === 36919Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 1999 / Notices Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. This notice has been sent to officials of the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Rick L. Weathermon, NAGPRA Contact, University of Wyoming Department of Anthropology Human Osteology Repository, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3431, Laramie, WY 82071-3431; telephone: (307) 766–5136, before August 9, 1999. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward. Dated: June 29, 1999. Francis P. McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist, Manager, Archeology and Ethnography Program. [FR Doc. 99–17365 Filed 7–7–99: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–70–F DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [A7619 (2430)] Availability of Draft Director’s Order and Draft Reference Manual Concerning Risk Management/ Occupational Safety and Health Management Activities in the National Park Service AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is converting and updating its current system of internal instructions. When these documents contain new policy or procedural requirements that may affect parties outside the NPS, this information is being made available for public review and comment. Draft Director’s Order #50B contains Risk Management Program requirements, policies and responsibilities, and Draft Reference Manual #50B provides additional detailed guidance to NPS personnel engaged in Risk Management/ Occupational Safety and Health management activities. DATES: Written comments will be accepted through August 1, 1999. ADDRESSES: Draft Director’s Order #50B/ Draft Reference Manual #50B are available on the Internet at http:// www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/ index.htm. Requests for copies and written comments should be sent to Shirley Rowley, National Park Service, Risk Management Program Office, 14795 W. Alameda Parkway, Denver, Colorado 80228. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rowley at (303) 969–2197. Dated: June 24, 1999. Richard C. Powell, Program Manager, WASO Risk Management Program. [FR Doc. 99–17257 Filed 7–7–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–70–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 701–TA–397–400 (Preliminary) and 731–TA–842–845 (Preliminary)] Certain Crude Petroleum Oil Products From Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Institution of countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations. SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase countervailing duty investigations Nos. 701–TA–397–400 (Preliminary) and antidumping investigations Nos. 731–TA–842–845 (Preliminary) under sections 703(a) and 733(a), respectively, of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela of crude petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals above or below 25 degrees A.P.I., as provided for in subheadings 2709.00.10 and 2709.00.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela and to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to sections 702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach preliminary determinations in these investigations in 45 days, or in this case by August 13, 1999. The Commission’s views are due at the Department of Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by August 20, 1999. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Ruggles (202–205–3187), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background.—These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed on June 29, 1999, by an incorporated consortium of independent domestic crude petroleum oil producers. Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in §§ 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission’s rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in these investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the 36920 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 1999 / Notices 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Conference.—The Commission’s Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on July 20, 1999, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Fred Ruggles (202–205–3187) not later than July 16, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of countervailing duties and/or antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference. Written submissions.—As provided in §§ 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission’s rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before July 23, 1999, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: June 30, 1999. Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–17376 Filed 7–7–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. AA1921–111 (Review)] Roller Chain from Japan 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 finding on roller chain from Japan 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. Background The Commission instituted this review on July 6, 1998 (63 FR 36440), and determined on October 8, 1998, that it would conduct a full review (63 FR 56048, October 20, 1998). 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 November 25, 1998 (63 F.R. 65221). Since all requests by interested parties to appear at the hearing were withdrawn before its scheduled date, no hearing was held in this review. The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on July 1, 1999. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3203 (July 1999), entitled Roller Chain from Japan: Investigation No. AA1921–111 (Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: July 1, 1999. Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–17378 Filed 7–7–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 731–TA–846 through 850 (Preliminary)] Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe and Tube from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania, and South Africa AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of antidumping investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping investigations Nos. 731–TA–846 through 850 (Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Romania and South Africa of certain seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipe and tube (including redraw hollows), provided for in subheadings 7304.10.10, 7304.10.50, 7304.31.30, 7304.31.60, 7304.39.00, 7304.51.50, 7304.59.60, and 7304.59.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to §§ 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach preliminary determinations in antidumping investigations in 45 days, or in these cases by August 16, 1999. The Commission’s views are due at the Department of Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by August 23, 1999. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). EFFECTIVE DATE: June 30, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Mazur (202–205–3184), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Notice of Discontinuation === 44537Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 1999 / Notices 1 A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s web site. 2 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Mill Iron Works, Trinity Fitting and Flange Group, Tube Forgings of America, and Weldbend to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 5, 1999, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group responses to its notice of institution (64 FR 23672, May 3, 1999) were adequate and the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. Staff Report A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 4, 1999, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. Written Submissions As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 2 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before October 7, 1999, and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by October 7, 1999. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Determination The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(B). Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. Issued: August 11, 1999. By order of the Commission. Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–21171 Filed 8–13–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–U INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 701–TA–397–400 (Preliminary) and 731–TA–842–845 (Preliminary)] Certain Crude Petroleum Oil Products From Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice of discontinuation of countervailing duty and antidumping investigations. SUMMARY: On August 9, 1999, the Department of Commerce issued a determination to not initiate antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on crude oil from Iraq, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Accordingly, the Commission gives notice that its countervailing duty and antidumping investigations concerning those products (Investigations Nos. 701– TA–397–400 (Preliminary) and 731– TA–842–845 (Preliminary)) are discontinued. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Ruggles (202–205–3187), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). Issued: August 10, 1999. By order of the Commission. Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary. [FR Doc. 99–21173 Filed 8–13–99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigations Nos. 731–TA–385–386 (Review)] Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy and Japan AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Scheduling of expedited five- year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy and Japan. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy and Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Recent amendments to the Rules of Practice and Procedure pertinent to five-year reviews, including the text of subpart F of part 207, are published at 63 FR 30599, June 5, 1998, and may be downloaded from the Commission’s World Wide Web site at http:// www.usitc.gov/rules.htm. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1999.