11152 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices

the description in the Scope of the

Review section above, and sold in the

home market during the POR, to be

foreign like products for purposes of

determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Since there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we matched U.S. sales to the most

similar foreign like product based on the

physical characteristics reported by the

respondent, Lafarge. Among similar

products sold in the home market we

chose that product with the least

difference in size (i.e., the type of

crushing and screening performed) and

packaging between the home market

and the U.S. product. In any case, we

did not use any home market product

which, when compared to the U.S.

model, resulted in a difference-inmerchandise adjustment in excess of 20

percent of the total cost of manufacture

of the U.S. model.

C. Price to Price Comparisons

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the

Act, we compared the CEPs of

individual transactions to the monthly

weighted-average price of sales of the

foreign like product.

We based NV on the price at which

the foreign like product is sold for

consumption in the exporting country to

the first unaffiliated party, in the usual

commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade in accordance

with sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and

773(a)(5) of the Act. Where appropriate,

we deducted loading expenses, inland

freight, credit, credit insurance, travel

expenses incurred by technicians,

product liability insurance, and

packing. We deducted indirect selling

expenses incurred in the home market

up to the amount of the U.S. indirect

selling expenses. We also made

adjustments for home market indirect

selling expenses to offset U.S.

commissions. Prices were reported net

of value-added taxes (VAT) and,

therefore, no adjustment for VAT was

necessary. No other adjustments were

claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter

Period of review

Margin

(percent)

Lafarge Aluminates .. 06/01/95–05/31/96 7.30

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first workday thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs within 30

days of the date of publication of this

notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to

written comments, limited to issues

raised in the case briefs and comments,

may be filed not later than 37 days after

the date of publication. Parties who

submit arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. The

Department will issue the final results

of this administrative review, including

the results of its analysis of issues raised

in any such written comments.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between CEP and

NV may vary from the percentage stated

above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

Customs. The final results of this review

shall be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon the

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of CA flux from France entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for Lafarge will be the

rate established in the final results of

this administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in these

reviews but covered in the original lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received a company-specific

rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, or the original

LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate will

be 37.93 percent, the rate established in

the LTFV investigation (59 FR 5994,

February 9, 1994).

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 3, 1997.

Robert. S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–6039 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–485–602]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From

Romania; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

petitioner, The Timken Company

(Timken), the Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished or unfinished (TRBs), from

Romania. The review covers shipments

of the subject merchandise to the United

States during the period June 1, 1995,

through May 31, 1996.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Johnson or Jean Kemp, Office of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–3793.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices 11153

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

On June 19, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (52

FR 23320) the antidumping duty order

on TRBs from Romania. On June 6,

1996, the Department published in the

Federal Register (61 FR 28840, 28841)

a notice of opportunity to request an

administrative review of this

antidumping duty order. On June 28,

1996, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a), the petitioner requested that

we conduct an administrative review of

the following firms: Tehnoimportexport,

S.A. (TIE); Tehnoforestimportexport;

S.C. Rulmenti S.A. Alexandria

(Alexandria); S.C. Rulmentul S.A.

Brasov (Brasov); S.C. Rulmenti S.A.

Birlad (Birlad); S.C. Rulmenti Grei S.A.

Ploiesti (Ploiesti); S.C. Rulmenti S.A.

Slatina (Slatina); and S.C. URB

Rulmenti S.A. Suceava (Suceava); S.C.

Ocromfer SRL; A. Hartrodt; Shanghai

Yawa Printing Machinery Co., Ltd.;

Famous Freight Forwarding Company;

Accord Shipping Pte Ltd.; ABCO

International Freight (Hong Kong) Ltd.;

Thompson Russel & Ulrich

Semiconductor Technologies Inc.;

Votainer Nederland B.V.; Sunrise

Bearing and Technology Ltd.; Destrex

Dora AFV SA DE CV AVE; Madison

Metals Corp.; Euro Precision Bearings

and Commodities, Inc.; William

McGinty Company; Associated

Dynamics Inc.; Universal Automotive

Trading Company, Ltd.; Stevens

Graphics; Eurasia Freight Service Inc.;

ABCO International Freight Inc.; Ameru

Trading del Peru, S.A.; and Madison

Bearing Co. We published the notice of

initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review on August 8, 1996

(61 FR 41373, 41374). On September 12,

1996, the petitioner withdrew its

request that the administrative review

include Ameru Trading del Peru.

Scope of This Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of TRBs from Romania.

These products include flange, take-up

cartridge, and hanger units

incorporating tapered roller bearings,

and tapered roller housings (except

pillow blocks) incorporating tapered

rollers, with or without spindles,

whether or not for automotive use. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00,

8482.91.00, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40,

8483.30.40, and 8483.90.20. Although

the HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive.

This review covers 28 companies and

the period June 1, 1995 through May 31,

1996. Of the 28 companies for which

petitioner requested a review, only TIE

made shipments of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of review (POR). Alexandria

and Brasov produced the merchandise

sold by TIE to the United States, but

have stated that they did not ship TRBs

directly to the United States. The

Department has received information

from the Government of Romania and

other respondents stating that they did

not produce or sell TRBs subject to this

review.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by TIE and Brasov, using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities, examination of relevant sales

and financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Separate Rates

To establish whether a company is

sufficiently independent to be entitled

to a separate rate, the Department

analyzes each exporting entity under the

test established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s

Republic of China (‘‘Sparklers’’), 56 FR

20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by the

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘Silicon

Carbide’’), 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).

Under this policy, exporters in nonmarket-economy (NME) countries are

entitled to separate, company-specific

margins when they can demonstrate an

absence of government control, both in

law and in fact, with respect to exports.

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control includes: (1) An

absence of restrictive stipulations

associated with an individual exporter’s

business and export licenses; (2) any

legislative enactments decentralizing

control of companies; and (3) any other

formal measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. De

facto absence of government control

with respect to exports is based on four

criteria: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by or subject to the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits or financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has autonomy in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether each exporter has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts.

TIE is the only company covered by

this review with shipments of the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the POR. Therefore, TIE is

the only firm for which we have made

a determination of whether it should

receive a separate rate. We have found

that the evidence on the record

demonstrates an absence of government

control, both in law and in fact, with

respect to TIE according to the criteria

identified in Sparklers and Silicon

Carbide. For a further discussion of the

Department’s preliminary determination

that TIE is entitled to a separate rate, see

Memorandum to Edward Yang, Office

Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Group

III, dated February 25, 1997:

Antidumping Administrative Review of

Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania:

Assignment of a Separate Rate for

Tehnoimportexport, S.A. in the 1995/96

review, which is on file in the Central

Records Unit (room B099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

Export Price

Information on the record indicates

that TIE was the only Romanian

exporter of the subject merchandise to

the United States during the POR. For

sales made by TIE, the Department used

export price, in accordance with section

772(a) of the Act, in calculating U.S.

price. We calculated export price based

on the price to unrelated purchasers. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for foreign inland freight and ocean

freight. We used surrogate information

from Indonesia to value foreign inland

freight for reasons explained in the

‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice.

Normal Value

For merchandise exported from an

NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the

Act provides that the Department shall

determine NV using factors of

production methodology if available
11154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices

information does not permit the

calculation of NV using home market or

third country prices under section

773(a) of the Act. In every case

conducted by the Department involving

Romania, Romania has been treated as

an NME country. None of the parties to

this proceeding has contested such

treatment in this review. Accordingly,

we calculated NV in accordance with

section 773(c) of the Act and § 353.52 of

the Department’s regulations. In

accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the

Act, the factors of production utilized in

producing TRBs include, but are not

limited to—(a) hours of labor required,

(b) quantities of raw materials

employed, (c) amounts of energy and

other utilities consumed, and (d)

representative capital cost, including

depreciation. In accordance with section

773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department

valued the factors of production, to the

extent possible, using the prices or costs

of factors of production in market

economy countries that are—(a) at a

level of economic development

comparable to that of Romania, and (b)

significant producers of comparable

merchandise.

We determined that Indonesia is at a

level of economic development

comparable to that of Romania. We also

found that Indonesia is a producer of

bearings. Therefore, we have selected

Indonesia as the primary surrogate

country. For a further discussion of the

Department’s selection of surrogate

countries, see Memorandum to the File:

Antidumping Administrative Review of

Tapered Roller Bearings from Romania:

Selection of a surrogate country in the

1995/96 review, dated February 27,

1997, which is on file in the Central

Records Unit (room B099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

For purposes of calculating NV, we

valued the Romanian factors of

production as follows:

• Where materials used to produce

TRBs were imported into Romania from

market economy countries, we used the

import price to value the material input.

To value all other direct materials used

in the production of TRBs, we used the

import value per metric ton of these

materials into Indonesia for the period

January 1994 through September 1994

as published in the Indonesian Foreign

Trade Statistical Bulletin—Imports, and

adjusted, as appropriate, with the

wholesale price index inflator to place

these values on an equivalent basis. We

made adjustments to include freight

costs incurred between the suppliers

and the TRB factories, using freight rates

obtained from the public version of the

May 10, 1996 and July 15, 1996

submissions of P.T. Multi Raya Indah

Abadi, respondent in the antidumping

case Melamine Institutional Dinnerware

from Indonesia, which is on file in the

Central Records Unit (B099 of the Main

Commerce Building). We also made an

adjustment for scrap steel which was

sold by the producers.

• For direct labor, we used the

Indonesian average daily wage and

hours worked per week for the iron and

steel basic industries reported in the

1994 Special Supplement to the Bulletin

of Labour Statistics, published by the

International Labour Office.

• For factory overhead, selling,

general and administrative expenses,

and profit, we could not find a value for

the bearings industry in Indonesia.

Therefore, we used information

provided to the Department by the U.S.

Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia in the

antidumping duty investigation of

Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings from the People’s Republic of

China, because the pipe fittings industry

is a similar metal manufacturing

industry.

• To value packing materials, where

materials used to package TRBs were

imported into Romania from marketeconomy countries, we used the import

price to value the material input. To

value all other packing materials, we

used the import value per metric ton of

these materials for the period January

1994 through September 1994 (and

adjusted with the wholesale price index

inflator to place these values on an

equivalent basis), as published in the

Indonesian Foreign Trade Statistical

Bulletin—Imports. We adjusted these

values to include freight costs incurred

between the suppliers and the TRB

factories.

• To value foreign inland freight, we

used freight rates obtained from public

versions of submissions to the

Department in the antidumping case

Melamine Institutional Dinnerware from

Indonesia, as indicated above.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with Section 773A(a) of the

Act. In this case, we used average

monthly exchange rates published by

the International Monetary Fund in

International Financial Statistics.

Non-Shippers

The following companies stated that

they did not have shipments to the

United States during the POR: S.C.

Rulmentul S.A. Brasov, S.C. Rulmenti

S.A. Birlad, S.C. Rulmenti S.A. Slatina,

S.C. Rulmenti S.A. Alexandria, S.C.

Rulmenti Grei S.A. Ploiesti, Votainer

Nederland B.V., Sunrise Bearing and

Technology Ltd., A. Hartrodt, Shanghai

Yawa Printing Machinery Co., Ltd.,

Famous Freight Forwarding Company,

ABCO International Freight (Hong

Kong) Ltd., William McGinty Company,

Associated Dynamics Inc., Stevens

Graphics, Eurasia Freight Service, Inc.,

and ABCO International Freight Inc.

Additionally, the Government of

Romania stated that TIE was the sole

exporter to the United States, and that

therefore the Romanian companies

Tehnoforestimportexport, S.C. Ocromfer

SRL, and S.C. Rulmenti S.A. Suceava

did not export to the United States

during the POR. We received no

responses to our questionnaire from

Universal Automotive Trading

Company, Ltd., Euro Precision Bearings

and Commodities, Inc., Thompson,

Russel & Ulrich Semiconductor

Technologies Inc., and Accord Shipping

Pte Ltd. We were unable to locate

Madison Bearing Company, Madison

Metals Corporation, and Destrex Dora

AFV SA DE CV AVE.

We confirmed that none of the

aforementioned companies shipped

TRBs to the United States with the

United States Customs Service.

Therefore, we are treating all of these

companies as non-shippers for this

review.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

Tehnoimportexport, S.A ...... 6/1/95–5/31/96 8.05

Non-shippers ... 6/1/95–5/31/96 *7.67

*No shipments during the POR, but never

determined to merit a separate rate. Therefore, we applied the Romania-wide rate established in the most recent segment of the proceeding.

Parties to the proceedings may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication.

The Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices 11155

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of TRBs from Romania entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for TIE will be the rate we

determine in the final results of review;

(2) for the other companies named

above which had no shipments during

the POR and which were not found to

have separate rates,

Tehnoforestimportexport, Alexandria,

Brasov, Barlad, Ploiesti, Slatina, and

Suceava, and for all other Romanian

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

7.67%, the Romania-wide rate

established in the most recent segment

of the proceeding; and (3) for nonRomanian exporters of subject

merchandise from Romania, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate applicable

to the Romanian supplier of that

exporter. These deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 of

the Department’s regulations to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties. This administrative review and

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 3, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–5895 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention; 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 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

D.C.

Docket Number: 96–116. Applicant:

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, Mailstop F17, 4770 Buford

Hwy, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30341–3724.

Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model

VG AutoSpec. Manufacturer:

Micromass, Ltd., United Kingdom.

Intended Use: See notice at 61 FR

66017, December 18, 1996.

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) High sensitivity and

resolving power, continuously variable

to 80 000 (10% valley definition) in El

mode and (2) extended mass range to

2000 at 8keV accelerating potential. The

National Institutes of Health advises in

its memorandum dated November 25,

1996 that (1) these capabilities are

pertinent to the applicant’s intended

purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic

instrument or apparatus of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument for the applicant’s intended

use.

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. 97–6041 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Federal Highway Administration;

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 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC.

Docket Number: 96–124. Applicant:

Federal Highway Administration,

McLean, VA 22101–2296. Instrument:

ACFM Crack Microgauge, Model U9.

Manufacturer: Technical Software

Consultants, Ltd., United Kingdom.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR 979,

January 7, 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 a 5 KHz drive coil and two

directionally sensitive pickup coils

employing alternating current field

measurement to detect and size

structural defects. A U.S. Department of

Energy laboratory advised on February

11, 1997 that: (1) This capability is

pertinent to the applicant’s intended

purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic

instrument or apparatus of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument for the applicant’s intended

use.

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. 97–5892 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, et al.;

Consolidated Decision on Applications

for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instruments

This is a decision consolidated

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 p.m. in Room

4211, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instruments described below, for such

purposes as each is intended to be used,

is being manufactured in the United

States.

Docket Number: 96–127. Applicant:

U. S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO

80225. Instrument: SIR Mass

Spectrometer with Automated Sample

Peripherals, Model Optima.

Manufacturer: Micromass, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 62

FR 2133, January 15, 1997. Reasons: The

foreign instrument provides: (1) An

absolute sensitivity of 1 mass 44 ion per

1000 molecules of CO2 and (2) an

external precision of 0.02 for 10 bar μl

of CO2.

Docket Number: 96–130. Applicant:

State University of New York, Stony

Brook, NY 11794. Instrument: Mass

Spectrometer, Model Deltaplus.