54832 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices

operation of a frequency of 94 GHz for

highest sensitivity. Advice received

from: National Institutes of Health,

September 2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–069. Applicant:

University of California, Los Angeles,

Los Angeles, CA 90095–1569.

Instrument: Stopped-Flow Reaction

Analyzer, Model SX.18MV.

Manufacturer: Applied Photophysics

Ltd., United Kingdom. Intended Use:

See notice at 62 FR 45397, August 27,

1997. Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides sequential mixing (multimixing) capability. Advice received

from: National Institutes of Health,

September 2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–070. Applicant:

Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520–

8202. Instrument: Signal Conditioner

Processor, Model SIGMA–5–DF.

Manufacturer: CardioDynamics BV, The

Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at

62 FR 45397, August 27, 1997. Reasons:

The foreign instrument provides

conductance catheter measurement of

right and left ventricular volumes.

Advice received from: National

Institutes of Health, September 3, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–071. Applicant:

Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO

80401. Instrument: Mass Spectrometer,

Model JMS–700T. Manufacturer: JEOL,

Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at

62 FR 45397, August 27, 1997. Reasons:

The foreign instrument provides high

resolution tandem mass spectrometry

for study of pyrolysis products from

bacteria. Advice received from: National

Institutes of Health, September 3, 1997.

The National Institutes of Health

advises in its memoranda that (1) the

capabilities of each of the foreign

instruments described above are

pertinent to each applicant’s intended

purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic

instrument or apparatus of equivalent

scientific value for the intended use of

each instrument.

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus being manufactured in the

United States which is of equivalent

scientific value to any of the foreign

instruments.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–27994 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of California, San Diego;

Notice of Decision on Application for

Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–066. Applicant:

University of California, San Diego, San

Diego, CA 92121. Instrument: Wave

Measurement Equipment. Manufacturer:

Datawell bv, The Netherlands. Intended

Use: See notice at 62 FR 43710, August

15, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides: (1) More reliable wave

direction estimates at frequencies under

1.0 Hz and over 3.0 Hz with less

variability within the range and (2)

better wave spread estimates than

comparable domestic equipment. Two

domestic manufacturers of similar

equipment advised on April 23, 1997

that (1) these capabilities are pertinent

to the applicant’s intended purpose and

(2) they know of no domestic

instrument or apparatus of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument for the applicant’s intended

use (comparable case).

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–27995 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Florida; Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–068. Applicant:

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

32611. Instrument: IR Mass

Spectrometer, Model DELTAplus.

Manufacturer: Finnigan MAT, Germany.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR

44949, August 25, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides: (1) A magnetic sector analyzer

with double direction (stigmatic)

focusing and (2) a universal triple

collector suitable for N2, O2, CO2 and

SO2 measurements. These capabilities

are pertinent to the applicant’s intended

purposes and we know of no other

instrument or apparatus of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–27996 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration,

Commerce

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an

Amended Export Trade Certificate

Review, Application No. 88–4A013.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an amendment to the Export

Trade Certificate of Review granted to

CISA Export Trade Group, Inc. (‘‘CISA

ETG’’) on October 19, 1988. Notice of

issuance of the Certificate was

published in the Federal Register on

October 26, 1988 (53 FR 43253).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morton Schnabel, Acting Director,

Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs, International Trade

Administration, (202) 482–5131. This is

not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. The

regulations implementing Title III are

found at 15 CFR part 325 (1997).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54833

The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuing

this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),

which requires the Department of

Commerce to publish a summary of a

Certificate in the Federal Register.

Under section 305(a) of the Act and 15

CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by

the Secretary’s determination may,

within 30 days of the date of this notice,

bring an action in any appropriate

district court of the United States to set

aside the determination on the ground

that the determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended Certificate

Export Trade Certificate of Review

No. 88–00013 was issued to CISA ETG

on October 19, 1988 (53 FR 43253,

October 26, 1988) and previously

amended on May 31, 1990 (55 FR

23123, June 6, 1990); and December 16,

1991 (57 FR 883, January 9, 1992).

CISA ETG’s Export Trade Certificate

of Review has been amended. The only

change in the CISA ETG Certificate was

in its membership. The members of the

CISA ETG Certificate are as follows:

(a) Ajax Magnethermic Corporation of

Warren, OH;

(b) Allied Minerals Products, Inc. of

Columbus, OH;

(c) American Colloid Company of

Arlington Heights, IL;

(d) Ashland Chemical Company of

Columbus, OH, and its controlling

entity Ashland Oil, Inc. of Ashland, KY;

(e) Borden Chemical, Inc. for the

activities of its Foundry and Industrial

Products Divisions of Westchester, IL;

(f) Centrifugal Casting Machine

Company, Inc. of Tulsa, OK;

(g) Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc. of

Milwaukee, WI;

(h) Didion Manufacturing Company of

St. Peters, MO;

(i) Eirich Machines, Inc. of Gurnee, IL;

(j) Equipment Merchants Int’l, Inc. of

Cleveland, OH;

(k) Fargo Wear, Inc. of Detroit, MI;

(l) General Kinematics Corporation of

Barrington, IL;

(m) George Fischer Disa, Inc. of Holly,

MI;

(n) Hartley Controls Corporation of

Neenah, WI, and its controlling entity

the Neenah Corporation of Neenah, WI;

(o) Hickman, Williams & Company of

Livonia, MI;

(p) Hunter Automated Machinery

Corporation of Schaumburg, IL;

(q) Palmer Manufacturing Company of

Springfield, OH;

(r) Roberts Sinto Corporation of

Lansing, MI;

(s) Sand Mold Systems, Inc. of

Newaygo, MI;

(t) Simpson Technologies Corp. of

Aurora, IL;

(u) Superior Graphite Company of

Chicago, IL;

(v) Thermtronix Corporation of

Adelanto, CA;

(w) Vulcan Engineering Company of

Helena, AL; and

(x) U.S. Filter/Wheelabrator Corp. of

LaGrange, GA;

A copy of the amended certificate will

be kept in the International Trade

Administration’s Freedom of

Information Records Inspection Facility,

Room 4102, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: October 16, 1997.

Morton Schnabel,

Acting Director, Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–27925 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

North American Free-Trade Agreement

(NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel

Reviews

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Binational Panel

decision.

SUMMARY: On September 15, 1997 the

Binational Panel issued its second

decision in the review of the final

antidumping duty administrative review

made by the Secretaria de Comercio y

Fomento Industrial de Mexico (SECOFI)

respecting Flat Coated Sheet Products

from the United States, Secretariat File

No. MEX–94–1904–01. The Binational

Panel unanimously affirmed in part and

remanded in part the agency’s remand

determination. A copy of the complete

Panel decision in Spanish or English is

available from the NAFTA Secretariat.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James R. Holbein, United States

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482–

5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter

19 of the North American Free-Trade

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a

mechanism to replace domestic judicial

review of final determinations in

antidumping and countervailing duty

cases involving imports from a NAFTA

country with review by independent

binational panels. When a Request for

Panel Review is filed, a panel is

established to act in place of national

courts to review expeditiously the final

determination to determine whether it

conforms with the antidumping or

countervailing duty law of the country

that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,

which came into force on January 1,

1994, the Government of the United

States, the Government of Canada and

the Government of Mexico established

Rules of Procedure for Article 1904

Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).

These Rules were published in the

Federal Register on February 23, 1994

(59 FR 8686). The Binational Panel

review in this matter was conducted in

accordance with these Rules.

BACKGROUND: On September 1, 1994

Inland Steel Company and USX

Corporation filed a First Request for

Panel Review with the Mexican Section

of the NAFTA Secretariat pursuant to

Article 1904 of the North American Free

Trade Agreement. Panel review was

requested of the final antidumping

determination that was published in the

Diario Oficial on August 2, 1994.

Complaints were filed by Inland, USX,

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, LTV Steel

Company, New Process Steel

Corporation and Industrias Monterrey,

S.A. de C.V. (IMSA). Briefs were filed by

all participants and oral argument was

held in accordance with the Rules.

First Panel Decision

In its first decision, issued on

September 27, 1996, the Binational

Panel unanimously affirmed in part and

remanded in part the final

determination. In its Order the panel

affirmed all aspects of the final

determination except for several specific

instructions to SECOFI to take further

actions. The Panel Order then

enumerated specific actions involving

competence and formality requirements,

dumping issues, and injury issues. The

Panel directed SECOFI, on remand, to

comply with the specific instructions

within 120 days of the date of the

Decision.

Second Panel Decision

On April 30, 1997, SECOFI filed its

determination on remand. Challenges

were timely filed by two interested

parties, New Process Steel Corp. and

Inland Steel. New Process challenged

certain dumping findings and Inland

sought to have its dumping margin

conformed to any recalculation of New

Process’s dumping margin. After review

of all relevant information and written

arguments made by counsel for the

participants, the Panel issued its second

decision on September 15, 1997. The

Panel remanded the determination on

remand to SECOFI to do the following: