[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60168-60169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25970]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-807]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Ferrovanadium and 
Nitrided Vanadium From Russia

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: 
Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from Russia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 5, 2000, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia (65 FR 35604) 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and 
substantive comments filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties 
and inadequate response from respondent interested parties, Department 
determined to conduct an expedited sunset review. As a result of this 
review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping order 
would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the 
levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Martha V. Douthit or James P. Maeder, 
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5050 or (202) 482-3330, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and in 19 CFR Part 351 (2000) 
in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to 
the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the 
Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of 
Five-Year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

Background

    On June 5, 2000, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia 
(65 FR 35604), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On June 20, 2000, 
the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate within the 
deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations on behalf of the Ferroalloys Association Vanadium Committee 
( the ``TFA Vanadium Committee'') and its members; Bear Metallurgical 
Corporation, Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (``Shieldalloy''), 
Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical, Strategic Minerals Corporation, and CS 
Metals of Louisiana, ( collectively ``the domestic interested 
parties''). On July 5, 2000, the Department received a complete 
substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 
30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 
351.218(d)(3)(i).
    The TFA Vanadium Committee claimed interested party status under 19 
USC 1677(9)(E) as a trade or business association of a majority of 
whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like 
product in the United States. As domestic interested parties, the 
following members of the TFA Vanadium Committee claimed interested 
party status under 19 USC 1677(9)(C); Bear Metallurgical Corporation, 
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical 
and Strategic Minerals Corporation.\1\ In addition, they identified 
another member, CS Metals of Louisiana, as an interested party in this 
sunset review. See Domestic Interested Parties, July 5, 2000, 
Substantive Response at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its substantive response the domestic interested parties 
note that Strategic Minerals Corporation sells domestically-produced 
ferrovanadium in the United States through its wholly-owned 
subsidiary, U.S. Vanadium Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bear Metallurgical Corporation and Shieldalloy Metallurgical 
Corporation assert that they are the only U.S. manufacturers or 
producers of ferrovanadium. Id. at 2. Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical, 
and Strategic Minerals Corporation assert that they are wholesalers in 
the United States of domestically-produced ferrovanadium. Id. at 2.
    With respect to historical participation of this order, the 
domestic interested parties assert that in 1994, Shieldalloy filed the 
petition that lead to the issuance of the antidumping duty order on 
ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia. In addition, 
Shieldalloy actively participated in the Department's first 
administrative review covering the period January 4, 1995, through June 
30, 1996. Id. at 4-5.
    Although Shieldalloy requested an administrative review for one 
exporter, Galt Alloys, during the period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 
1997, the review was terminated because Galt Alloys did not make sales 
of the subject merchandise between July 1, 1996 and June 30, 1997. Id. 
at 4. The domestic interested parties further assert that Shieldalloy 
has actively participated in all judicial appeals and remand 
proceedings related to this order. Id. at 5.
    On July 5, 2000, the Department received a complete substantive 
response to the notice on initiation from respondent interested 
parties; Vanadium Tulachermet (``Tulachermet'') and Chusovskoy 
Metallurgical Works Joint Stock Company (``Chusovskoy'') (collectively 
``the respondent interested parties'') within the 30-day deadline 
specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). The 
respondent interested parties claimed interested party status under 19 
USC 1677(9)(A) as foreign manufacturers of the subject merchandise. 
With respect to respondent interested parties' historical participation 
of the order, they assert that they participated in the original 
investigation by providing factors of production to the Department, 
although

[[Page 60169]]

neither party was deemed an exporter. See Respondent Interested 
Parties, July 5, 2000, Substantive Response at 1. In the first 
administrative review, both Chusovskoy and Tulachermet provided 
information to the Department. However, in their substantive response 
they assert that, due to a tragic event at Chusovskoy, they were unable 
to complete their participation in this review. Id.
    With respect to adequacy of response from respondent interested 
parties, the Department normally will conclude that respondent 
interested parties have provided adequate response to conduct a full 
sunset review where respondent interested parties account for more than 
50 percent, by volume, of the total exports of subject merchandise to 
the United States. Where respondent interested parties provide 
inadequate responses, the Department will conduct an expedited sunset 
review and issue final results of review based on the facts available.
    After examining respondent interested parties' import statistics, 
on June 26, 2000, the Department notified the U.S. International Trade 
Commission that respondent interested parties did not provide an 
adequate response in this sunset review, pursuant to section 
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). Therefore, 
because we did not receive adequate response from respondent interested 
parties, we determined to conduct an expedited sunset review and to 
issue the final results not later than October 3, 2000.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this sunset review are ferrovanadium and 
nitrided vanadium, regardless of grade, chemistry, form or size, unless 
expressly excluded from the scope of this order. Ferrovanadium includes 
alloys containing ferrovanadium as the predominant element by weight 
(i.e., more weight than any other element, except iron in some 
instances) and at least 4 percent by weight of iron. Nitrided vanadium 
includes compounds containing vanadium as the predominant element, by 
weight, and at least 5 percent, by weight, of nitrogen.
    Excluded from the scope of this review are vanadium additives other 
than ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, such as vanadium-aluminum 
master alloys, vanadium chemicals, vanadium waste and scrap, vanadium-
bearing raw materials, such as slag, boiler residues, fly ash, and 
vanadium oxides.
    The products subject to this review are currently classifiable 
under subheadings 2850.00.20, 7202.92.00, 7202.99.5040, 8112.40.3000, 
and 8112.40.6000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in these cases and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this sunset review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (``Decision Memo'') from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office 
of Policy, Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 3, 2000, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision 
Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping 
and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order 
revoked.
    Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, 
which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed 
directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the percentage weighted-average margins listed 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galt Alloys, Inc...........................................         3.75
Gesellschaft fur Elektrometallurgie m.b.H. (and its related        11.72
 companies Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation and
 Metallurg, Inc.)..........................................
Odermet....................................................        10.10
Russia-wide Rate...........................................       108.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 3, 2000.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-25970 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P