392 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Notices

[C–549–401]

Certain Apparel From Thailand;

Determination to Amend Revocation,

in Part, of Countervailing Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination to

amend revocation, in part, of

countervailing duty order.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) has determined to

amend the effective date of the

revocation of the countervailing duty

order on Certain Apparel from Thailand,

with respect to the products classified

under the item numbers of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

listed in Appendix D to this notice, from

January 1, 1995 to January 1, 1991. In

addition, the Department has

determined not to amend the effective

date of revocation with respect to the

products classified under the HTS item

numbers listed in Appendix B to this

notice. As a result of this determination

not to amend the effective date of

revocation, we will now complete the

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order, covering the

period January 1, 1991 through

December 31, 1991, with respect to the

Appendix B items.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Mermelstein or Robert Copyak,

Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

During the original certain textile

products and certain apparel

investigations from various countries,

including Thailand, the Department

reviewed issues concerning the standing

of petitioners with respect to apparel

and explained its determinations in

Final Negative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Textile Mill

Products and Apparel from Malaysia

(50 FR 9852; March 12, 1985) (Malaysia

Final Determination). No injury

investigations were required for the

countries involved, and the Department

relied upon a list of 86 like products

both for determining the standing of

petitioners and for establishing the

corresponding scope of the certain

apparel order. See Letter from Wilmer,

Cutler & Pickering, Dec. 3, 1984, Annex

3, on file in the Central Records Unit,

Room B–099, Department of Commerce

(CRU).

With respect to the investigation on

certain apparel, the Department

determined that the Amalgamated

Clothing and Textile Workers Union

(ACTWU) was an interested party with

respect to 52 of the 86 apparel like

products covered by the petition. The

Department also determined that the

standing requirement for the remaining

apparel products covered by the petition

was satisfied by the International

Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union

(ILGWU). Together, these petitioners

had filed the petition ‘‘on behalf’’ of the

apparel industry.

On March 13, 1992, the Department

announced its intent to revoke the

countervailing duty order on certain

apparel from Thailand pursuant to

section 355.25(d)(4)(i) of the

Department’s regulations because no

interested party had requested an

administrative review for at least four

consecutive review periods. Notice of

Intent to Revoke Countervailing Duty

Orders, 57 FR 8860 (March 13, 1992)

(Intent to Revoke Notice). Pursuant to

the Department’s regulations, if no

interested party objects to the

Department’s intended revocation or

requests an administrative review of the

countervailing duty order, the

Department will revoke the order. 19

CFR § 355.25(d)(4)(iii)(1993).

On March 16, 1992, ACTWU objected

to the intended revocation and

requested an administrative review,

covering the period January 1, 1991

through December 31, 1991. The review

was initiated on April 13, 1992.

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 57 FR 12797 (April 13, 1992).

On April 24, 1992, the Royal Thai

Government (RTG) challenged the

standing of ACTWU to object to the

Department’s intended revocation and

to request an administrative review. The

RTG argued that, to the extent that

ACTWU lacked standing with respect to

any of the many like products covered

by the order, the Department should

revoke the countervailing duty order

with respect to those products and

conduct the administrative review of

only the merchandise which remained

in the scope of the order. On June 19,

1996, the Department issued its

preliminary findings with respect to the

standing of ACTWU. See Memorandum

from Barbara E. Tillman to Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, June 19, 1996 (Analysis

Memorandum). Comments on the

Department’s preliminary findings were

filed by the RTG. The Department’s final

determinations with respect to this issue

are fully discussed in the sections

Interested Party Status of ACTWU and

Analysis of Comments, below.

Revocation Under Section 753 of the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

This countervailing duty order was

revoked effective January 1, 1995,

pursuant to section 753 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (60 FR 40568).

The Department is conducting an

administrative review only to determine

the appropriate assessment rate for

entries made during the period January

1, 1991 through December 31, 1991.

Scope Conversion

The scope of the certain apparel order

was originally defined in terms of the

item numbers listed under the Tariff

Schedule of the United States

Annotated (TSUSA). See Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination and Countervailing Duty

Order: Certain Apparel from Thailand

(50 FR 9819; March 12, 1985) (Thailand

Final Determination). On January 1,

1989, the United States fully converted

from TSUSA to the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). At that time, the

Customs Service prepared a list which

included all of the HTS numbers

necessary to cover the items previously

identified by the TSUSA. However,

because the two tariff schedules use

different classification systems which

do not produce a one-to-one product

correlation, this list also included some

items not included in the like product

list relied upon by the Department in

the investigation. On July 26, 1993, the

Department published Certain Apparel;

Notice of Proposed Scope Amendment

(58 FR 39789), which contained the

proposed HTS scope and invited

comments. The conversion became final

on May 17, 1994, with the publication

of Certain Apparel from Thailand;

Scope Amendment (59 FR 25699)

(Scope Notice), in which the comments

submitted were addressed. The analysis

undertaken as a result of the RTG’s

challenge of ACTWU’s standing is based

on the item numbers of the HTS listed

in the Scope Notice; these HTS item

numbers have now been separated into

those for which we determine that

ACTWU has standing (Appendix B) and

those for which we determine ACTWU

does not have standing (Appendix D).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department has made this

determination in accordance with

sections 751 (a) and (c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Notices 393

1An 87th like product, flatbags, handbags and

luggage, was subject to investigation and was

classified as within the scope of the apparel order

when certain textile mill products and certain

apparel were separated into two countervailing

duty orders. There is no information in the record

which indicates that ACTWU had standing with

respect to this product.

statute and to Department’s regulations

are in reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Interested Party Status of ACTWU

In April 1992, the RTG challenged the

standing of ACTWU both to object to the

Department’s intended revocation and

to request an administrative review of

the countervailing duty order on certain

apparel from Thailand. The RTG argued

that, to the extent ACTWU lacked

standing with respect to any of the

many like products covered by the

order, the Department should revoke the

order with respect to those products and

conduct the administrative review of

only the merchandise which remained

in the scope of the order. The RTG cited

to the original investigation, noting that

ACTWU was found to have standing for

only 52 of the 86 like products

investigated (standing for the remaining

like products was satisfied by copetitioners). Furthermore, the RTG

noted that declining union membership

had been documented in the course of

the investigation. Thus, the RTG urged

the Department to examine anew

whether ACTWU had standing with

respect to all of the like products

covered by the order.

During the 1985 countervailing duty

investigations of apparel and textile mill

products, which involved many

countries, including Thailand and

Malaysia, the Department determined

that ACTWU was an interested party

with respect to 52 of the original 86

apparel like products covered by the

petition. Final Negative Countervailing

Duty Determination; Certain Textile Mill

Products and Apparel from Malaysia, 50

FR 9852 (March 12, 1985) (Malaysia

Final Determination). The Department

determined that the standing

requirement for the remaining apparel

products covered by the petition was

satisfied by the International Ladies’

Garment Workers’ Union (ILGWU).

Together, these petitioners had filed the

petition ‘‘on behalf of’’ the apparel

industry and had standing with respect

to the 86 apparel like products at issue.

Id. at 9854; Thailand Final

Determination.

The RTG contested ACTWU’s

standing as an interested party after the

objection by ACTWU to the

Department’s intent to revoke the order.

The Department determined, based on

information collected in the course of

this proceeding, that there was no basis

to reexamine ACTWU’s standing for the

52 like products for which it was found

to have standing during the

investigation. See Memorandum from

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of

Countervailing Compliance to Joseph A.

Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, on the

Interested Party Status of a Domestic

Interested Party With Respect to the

Countervailing Duty Order on Apparel

from Thailand, October 14, 1992

(October 1992 Memorandum), on file in

the Central Records Unit, Room B–099,

Department of Commerce (CRU).

The Department examined ACTWU’s

status as an interested party, within the

meaning of section 771(9)(D) of the Act,

with respect the 34 remaining like

products covered by this order. See

Analysis Memorandum. The

Department asked ACTWU to indicate

which of these products were produced

by its members.1 Regarding unions,

section 771(9)(D) defines ‘‘interested

party’’ as ‘‘a certified union or

recognized union or group of workers

which is representative of an industry

engaged in the manufacture, production

or wholesale in the United States of a

like product. . . .’’

After examining the information

provided by ACTWU, and considering

the arguments submitted by the RTG

over the course of this proceeding, the

Department issued its preliminary

findings on June 19, 1996. See Analysis

Memorandum. Of the remaining 34 like

products, the Department determined

that ACTWU had standing as an

interested party with respect to five.

Combined with the 52 like products for

which ACTWU was found to have

standing during the investigations (see

Malaysia Final Determination), the total

number of like products for which

ACTWU was found to have standing is

57. The Department invited comments

on this determination. We address the

RTG’s arguments in the Analysis of

Comments section below. No other

party submitted comments.

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: The RTG argues that the

Department’s determination that

ACTWU has standing with respect to 57

like products is based upon a legal

standard that is contrary to the plain

language of the statute. The RTG cites

section 355.2(i)(4) of the Department’s

regulations, which specifies that to be

an interested party, a union must be

‘‘representative of the industry or of

sellers (other than retailers) in the

United States of the like product

produced in the United States.’’ The

RTG also cites section 771(4)(D) of the

Act, which defines ‘‘industry’’ as ‘‘the

domestic producers as a whole of a like

product, or those producers whose

collective output of the like product

constitutes a major proportion of the

total domestic production of that

product * * *.’’ The RTG concludes

that in order to be representative of

those producers whose collective output

represents a major proportion of total

domestic production of the like product,

a union must demonstrate that it

represents workers in each facility

included in such a determination.

The RTG argues that it is

inappropriate for the Department to

presume that a union is representative

of an industry producing the like

product when it represents only one or

a small number of the workers in that

industry. Had Congress intended such a

result, the RTG argues, it would not

have required that a union be

‘‘representative of an industry’’ (which

clearly encompasses more than just one

worker or more than just one

enterprise); rather, Congress would

simply have required the union to be

representative of a ‘‘producer’’ of the

‘‘like product.’’

In conclusion, the RTG notes that

ACTWU, like all unions, is engaged in

efforts to increase its membership by

enrolling workers at factories that are

not yet unionized; if ACTWU has not

succeeded in enrolling workers at

companies whose collective output

represents a major proportion of total

domestic production of a particular like

product, then, the RTG argues, the

union cannot simply be deemed

representative of the industry producing

that product. The RTG urges the

Department to arrive at an interpretation

of the statute that gives full meaning to

the term ‘‘industry’’ in the specifications

of the standing requirements for unions.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the RTG’s assertion that we

applied the incorrect legal standard to

determine whether ACTWU is an

interested party, and we continue to

find that ACTWU has standing to object

to revocation and request an

administrative review for each of the

like products for which the union

ultimately claimed interested party

status, in accordance with section

355.25(d)(4)(iii) of the Department’s

regulations.

The RTG correctly notes that to

qualify as an interested party pursuant

to section 771(9)(D) of the Act, a union

must be ‘‘representative of an industry

engaged in the manufacture, production,

or wholesale in the United States of a

like product.’’ However, the RTG

incorrectly links this requirement
394 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Notices

directly to the definition of the term

‘‘industry’’ under section 771(4)(A). The

RTG concludes that, to meet this

requirement, a union must at least

demonstrate that it represents workers

in each facility producing the like

product. We disagree. Such a narrow

interpretation of the phrase

‘‘representative of an industry’’ would

unduly limit the rights of a union to

qualify as an interested party, object to

revocation, and otherwise participate in

a proceeding.

Section 771(9) of the Act defines

several categories of domestic interested

parties. In each case, the key to

qualifying is for the party to

manufacture, produce or wholesale the

like product in the United States. For

instance, under section 771(9)(C), to

qualify as a ‘‘manufacturer or producer’’

of the like product, the Court of

International Trade has held that a party

must actually manufacture the product

in the United States. See Brother Indus.

(USA) v. United States, 801 F. Supp.

751, 757 (CIT 1992).

However, the language of the

legislative history describing the

standing requirements ‘‘is broad and

unqualified.’’ Id. (citing S. Rep. No. 249,

96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90 (1979)). Where

Congress intended to further limit a

party’s ability to qualify as an interested

party, Congress made that intention

explicit. In particular, sections 771(9)

(E) and (F) explicitly limit the rights of

a trade or business association in just

this manner. The legislative history

explains:

The provision also provides that a trade or

business association may be considered an

interested party only when a majority of its

members are importers of merchandise under

investigation, or manufacture, produce, or

wholesale a like product, as the case may be.

This limitation is believed to fairly delimit

those groups with sufficient interest to

always be considered interested parties. An

association representative of importers

generally, or business generally, would not

be considered an interested party under this

limitation, although a sub-group of such an

association may qualify.

S. Rep. No. 249, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 90

(1979). By contrast, with regard to

section 771(9)(D), the legislative history

states that the provision ‘‘clarifies that a

union may file a petition and participate

in proceedings under Title VII as added

by the bill. The union or group of

workers must represent workers in the

relevant U.S. industry.’’ Id. Congress

gave no indication that by requiring a

union to be ‘‘representative of an

industry,’’ it intended to limit the rights

of unions which ‘‘represent workers in

the relevant U.S. industry’’ to

participate in proceedings as interested

parties. The legislative history makes

clear that Congress intended unions

which represent workers in the relevant

U.S. industry to be ‘‘representative’’ of

the industry. For these reasons, we find

that the phrase ‘‘representative of an

industry’’ requires no more than that a

union ‘‘represent workers in the

relevant U.S. industry.’’

This is the same determination

reached by the Department in the

original apparel and textile mill product

investigations. See Malaysia Final

Determination at 9854. Contrary to the

claim of the RTG, we have not

determined that a union representing

just one worker at just one facility

producing the like product necessarily

qualifies as an interested party. We have

determined that when a union certifies,

as ACTWU has done, that it represents

workers in the relevant U.S. industry,

we will not investigate the matter

further, absent actual evidence calling

the union’s certification into question.

This determination is further explained

in the Department’s Position on

comment 2, below.

Having found that ACTWU qualifies

as an interested party, the next issue is

whether the union may object to

revocation and request an

administrative review for those like

products for which it has claimed

standing. Section 355.25(d)(4)(iii) of the

Department’s regulations provides

simply that if no interested party objects

to revocation or requests a review, the

Department will conclude that the order

(or suspended investigation) is no

longer of interest to domestic interested

parties, as provided for by section

355.25(d)(1)(i). Conversely, if a domestic

interested party does object, and no

other party expresses its support for

revocation, the Department will not

revoke the order. In this situation, the

Department effectively presumes that

the order, whether in whole or in part,

is of interest to domestic interested

parties and that revocation is not

appropriate.

The Department indicated in the

commentary to the regulations that

when ‘‘parties which account for a

significant proportion of domestic

production’’ either affirmatively oppose

or support revocation, we will make a

case-by-case determination of whether

revocation is appropriate. 53 FR 52,306,

52,333 (1988). Accordingly, the

Department has revoked an order over

the objection of one or more domestic

interested parties, and we have refused

to revoke despite receiving support for

revocation from part of the domestic

industry. See Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v.

United States, 862 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir.

1988) (affirming revocation); Certain

Round-Shaped Agricultural Tillage

Tools From Brazil; Preliminary Results

of Changed Circumstances CVD Review

and Intent Not To Revoke Order, 55 FR

41,265 (1990) (declining to revoke). In

this case, however, no domestic

interested party has expressed support

for the order. ACTWU’s objection to

revocation is the only indication we

have received regarding the domestic

industry’s position. As described above,

ACTWU has certified that it represents

workers producing each of the

remaining 57 like products, which

qualifies the union as an interested

party. Given that no domestic interested

party has supported revocation, it is

reasonable to presume that the

remainder of the industry favors or at

least acquiesces in ACTWU’s position.

This is similar to the presumption

adhered to by the Department for

determining whether a petition for

initiating an antidumping or

countervailing duty investigation is

filed ‘‘on behalf of an industry,’’ in

accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the

Act. In that situation, the Department

presumes that the petitioner filed on

behalf of the domestic industry, unless

a majority of the domestic industry

affirmatively opposes the petition. The

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

has upheld this interpretation of the

statute as being reasonable. Minebea

Co., Ltd. v. United States, 984 F.2d

1178, 1180 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Suramerica

de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v.

United States, 966 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir.

1992).

Comment 2: The RTG next argues

that, even assuming the Department has

applied the correct legal standard, the

Department must still investigate

whether ACTWU meets this standard,

both with respect to the 52 like products

for which ACTWU was found to have

standing in the original investigation

and with respect to the five products for

which ACTWU first made standing

claims in this proceeding. The RTG

claims that it is incorrect for the

Department to refuse to reconsider its

original standing determination;

moreover, the Department cannot refuse

to further investigate ACTWU’s

additional claims of standing, absent

affirmative evidence that ACTWU’s

interested party status has changed.

Regarding the 52 like products for

which ACTWU originally claimed

standing, the RTG contests the

Department’s refusal during this

proceeding to reconsider its

determination in the original

countervailing duty investigation. The

RTG argues that it was documented in

the context of the original 1984–1985

investigations that union membership in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Notices 395

the apparel industry had been gradually

declining. The RTG asserts that it is

likely that this trend has continued and

that ACTWU’s membership has changed

over time. The RTG also asserts that

companies in import sensitive

industries have been moving production

facilities from the unionized Northeast

to non-unionized areas in the South, to

Mexico, and elsewhere overseas. On this

basis, the RTG concludes that there

exists public information showing

declining and changing union

membership in the apparel industry.

According to the RTG, these facts

should have caused the Department to

revisit its 1985 determination. In

addition, the RTG claims that the

information provided by ACTWU in

1984, indicating standing for 52 of the

like products, is inconsistent with

ACTWU’s ultimate claim in 1994 of

standing for five additional like

products. In claiming standing for five

additional like products, ACTWU called

attention to obvious changes in

membership over time. Such changing

membership indicates that ACTWU may

no longer represent one or more of the

like product industries it represented in

1984.

Furthermore, the RTG argues, the

Department’s determination that

ACTWU is an interested party with

respect to the original 52 like products

was based on ACTWU’s certification

during the investigation that it was an

‘‘interested party.’’ According to the

RTG, this is a legal conclusion on the

part of ACTWU, and is therefore not the

appropriate basis for the Department’s

determination. Rather, the Department

should seek a factual representation

from which to draw its own legal

conclusion.

As a matter of policy, the RTG argues

that it is inappropriate for the

Department to place the burden of

production in this instance on

respondents. ACTWU’s membership

information is not public; it would be

impossible for the RTG to determine

whether ACTWU continues to represent

workers in each of the like product

industries at issue; and, it is contrary to

the normal presumption of the conduct

of a countervailing duty investigation to

require a party to come forward with

another party’s confidential

information.

Thus, the RTG urges the Department

to solicit and examine information

regarding ACTWU’s membership, as it

relates to these like products.

Specifically, for each like product, the

RTG urges the Department to obtain the

following information: the names of the

companies in which ACTWU represents

workers, the number of unionrepresented and non-union workers in

each such facility, the names of

companies which produce the like

product whose workers are not

represented by the union, and an

estimate of the number of workers in

such facilities.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the RTG. As described in the

Analysis Memorandum, absent

affirmative evidence showing that a

party’s status has changed, we do not

reconsider our original standing

determination with respect to those like

products for which a domestic

interested party, objecting to revocation

or requesting a review, had interested

party status during the original

investigation. Moreover, ACTWU has

certified that it continues to represent

workers producing each of the 52 like

products for which it was originally

determined to have standing, and

neither the RTG nor any other party has

presented affirmative evidence

challenging ACTWU’s certification.

It is true that several years have

passed since the Department reached its

original standing determination.

However, the Department is not

required to investigate standing issues

to the same extent as it must allegations

of dumping or subsidization. See

Brother Indus., Ltd. v. United States,

Slip Op. 92–231 at 4–5 (CIT Dec. 30,

1992). For the purpose of requesting a

review or objecting to revocation, it

would not be appropriate either to

revisit our original standing

determination or to question a union’s

certification that it represents workers

producing a particular like product,

absent some evidence that the union’s

representation of those workers has, in

fact, changed.

Much the same holds true for the

remaining like products for which

ACTWU claimed standing. The union

certified that it represents workers in

each of these industries, and the RTG

has presented no evidence to the

contrary. Absent such evidence, we

consider ACTWU’s certification

sufficient. It is worth noting that the

Department did not accept ACTWU’s

initial standing claim at face value.

ACTWU originally claimed that its

members produced eighteen additional

products. ACTWU correctly qualified

this claim, however, by noting that the

products its members produced were

identical to the products covered by the

scope of the order except for vegetable

fiber content. The Department rejected

this claim on the ground that the like

product list describing the scope of the

order distinguishes among apparel

products on this very basis—according

to fiber content. See Letter from Barbara

Tillman to Mark Love, dated May 11,

1994, on file in CRU. Thereafter,

ACTWU withdrew this claim, and

submitted another claim with respect to

five different like products, which

ACTWU certified as being identical to

those covered by the scope of the order.

We examined the claim and the

certification, and deemed the

certification sufficient to support the

claim, absent evidence to the contrary.

No such evidence was provided.

This standard does not place an

undue burden on respondents to

produce evidence to challenge a union’s

standing to object to revocation or

request a review. The Department found

at the time of the original investigation

that ACTWU represented workers

producing 52 like products, and

ACTWU has certified that it continues

to produce these and the other five like

products for which it has claimed

standing. It is not too much to require

that a party challenging this assertion do

more than point to the passage of time

and shifts in demographics as support.

Like the standard for filing a petition,

the standing requirements for objecting

to revocation are to be construed

liberally. See Brother Indus., Slip Op.

92–231 at 4 (citing S. Rep. 249 at 63);

Brother Indus., 801 F.Supp. At 757. We

determine that ACTWU has met these

requirements.

Comment 3: The RTG argues that the

Department should revoke the order

with respect to those products at the

HTS ten-digit level that do not fall

within the 57 like products for which

ACTWU has claimed standing. The RTG

notes that examination of standing at

the ten-digit level is consistent with the

standing analysis used by the

Department in the suspended

investigation of certain textile mill

products from Thailand. The RTG is

concerned that at the eight-digit level,

the HTS item numbers cover several

products, some of which are represented

among the list of 86 like products

originally covered by this countervailing

duty order and some of which are not.

Thus, the Department should revoke the

order for these products at the ten-digit

level.

Department’s Position: Beginning

with the conversion from the TSUSA to

the HTS tariff schedule, the Department

has conducted its standing analysis in

this proceeding at the ten-digit HTS

level. See Scope Notice, 59 FR at 25610.

This is the same approach we took in

the suspended investigations involving

textile mill products from Thailand and

various other countries. See, e.g.,

Certain Mill Products From Thailand;

Notice of Termination in Part, 60 FR

20258 (April 25, 1995); Certain Textile
396 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Notices

Mill Products From Colombia and

Thailand; Notice of Proposed

Conversion, 59 FR 16101 (April 15,

1994). If only the eight-digit HTS item

number is listed for a particular product

category, either the category does not

break down into additional ten-digit

HTS levels, or all of the products

included in that category (at the eightdigit or greater level) are covered by the

scope of the order.

Where the qualifications of coverage

corresponded to the breakdown of

products at the ten-digit level, we have

now included the appropriate HTS

numbers at the ten-digit level to identify

both HTS items for which the order

remains in effect for the 1991 review

period and the HTS items for which the

effective date of revocation will be

amended (as indicated in Appendix B

and Appendix D). Further, in drawing

up the HTS list, we included

annotations for the first time in the

Scope Notice to clarify the limits of

coverage under particular item numbers

which identified merchandise outside of

the scope of the order as well as

merchandise within the scope. In the

course of this proceeding, the

Department has added a number of

annotations, and other annotations have

been clarified as a result of the RTG’s

arguments in Comment 4 below.

Comment 4: The RTG urges the

Department to reexamine some of the

products for which it found ACTWU to

have standing and to revise the

footnotes which annotate certain of the

HTS item numbers for which it found

ACTWU to have standing. Basically, the

RTG takes issue with some of the

Department’s categorizations of the

numerous HTS item numbers according

to the list of 86 like products which has

been the basis for standing

determinations throughout the history

of this case. Specifically, the

Department categorized HTS number

6111.3050 (babies’ garments and cloth

accessories, sunsuits, blanket sleepers

(synthetic, knit)) under the like products

for nightwear (like product 58), other

apparel (60), or playsuits (45).

According to the RTG, there is no

indication that these like product

categories were ever intended to include

baby apparel, and that only those like

product categories which carry the

designation ‘‘WGI,’’ for women’s, girls’,

and infants’ apparel, should be used for

determining ACTWU’s standing with

regard to baby apparel. Since ACTWU

made no standing claims with respect to

many WGI like products made from

synthetic fabric, it is reasonable to

conclude that ACTWU lacked standing

with respect to babies’ garments and

clothing accessories. Thus, the

Department should revoke the order

with respect to HTS 6111.3050.

In addition, the Department found

ACTWU to have standing for HTS

6112.1200, men’s and boys’ synthetic

track suits, based on ACTWU’s standing

for the like products for other coats (42),

knit shirts (46), and trousers (54) of

man-made fiber. According to the RTG,

there is no indication that track suits or

other warm-up style suits were ever

intended to fall within these particular

like products, and therefore, the order

with respect to this HTS item number

should also be revoked.

The RTG argues that the Department

also incorrectly classified the products

included under HTS 6209.2050, babies’

sunsuits, washsuits, clothing sets and

diapers (non-knit, cotton), under the

like products for playsuits (8) and other

apparel (21) of cotton, and found

ACTWU to have standing with respect

to all products within this HTS

subheading. The RTG takes issue with

the Department’s determination that

diapers constitute ‘‘other apparel,’’ and

notes that there is no indication that

ACTWU represents workers making

diapers. Thus, the order should be

revoked with respect to HTS 6209.2050.

With respect to ‘‘trousers, breeches,

and shorts,’’ the RTG’s argues that the

like product categories for ‘‘trousers’’

necessarily exclude breeches and shorts,

and therefore although ACTWU was

found to have standing with respect to

‘‘trousers,’’ it cannot be said to have

standing with respect to breeches and

shorts. Because the HTS numbers which

identify trousers also include breeches

and shorts, and there is no indication,

according to the RTG, that ACTWU’s

standing for trousers extends to

breeches and shorts, the RTG argues for

an annotation which notes the limits of

coverage under any HTS item numbers

which cover ‘‘trousers breeches, and

shorts’’ together. Alternatively, the RTG

argues for revocation of the HTS

numbers at the ten-digit level.

The RTG also noted a number of

additional HTS item numbers for which

they recommend the Department modify

the annotations to clarify the limits of

the coverage under those item numbers.

Department’s Position: With respect

to HTS item numbers 6111.3050,

6112.1200, and 6209.2050, the RTG’s

concern that the Department has

misclassified these HTS items in terms

of the listing of like products which are

subject to the order is misplaced. As a

general matter, in classifying these items

using the like product list, the

Department consulted with the United

States Customs Service and received

confirmation that the classifications

were reasonable. See Memorandum for

The File on Certain Apparel from

Thailand—Like Products and HTS

Numbers, dated February 20, 1996, on

file in the CRU.

We reject the RTG’s argument that

ACTWU’s standing with respect to

babies’ apparel on the whole is

questionable based on the fact that

ACTWU lacks standing with respect to

several items of babies’ apparel

included among the like products. The

Department determined ACTWU’s

standing for these HTS item numbers

after first classifying them according to

like products. Because ACTWU was

determined to have standing for all of

the like products under which these

HTS items were classified, their

standing for this HTS item number

needs no qualification.

We also reject the RTG’s conclusion

that track suits were never intended to

be included among the 87 like products

covered by the countervailing duty

order. This conclusion is unsupported

by record evidence. This issue, like so

many of the issues raised by the RTG,

actually concerns the Department’s

conversion of the tariff schedule from

the TSUSA to the HTS listing. As noted

above, ACTWU represents workers

producing the like products ‘‘other

coats,’’ ‘‘knit shirts,’’ and ‘‘trousers’’ of

man-made fiber. In conducting the

original investigation, the Department

determined that those like products

corresponded to a certain TSUSA item

number or numbers. Thereafter, in

making the conversion from TSUSA to

HTS, the Department concluded that

those TSUSA item number or numbers

corresponded in part to the HTS item

number 6112.1200.10, for men’s and

boys’ synthetic track suits. At the same

time, we determined that of the like

products corresponding to the coverage

of the order, the closest match to track

suits are the like products mentioned

above. Thus, we based our standing

determination for track suits on the fact

that ACTWU has standing for the

individual like products which

comprise track suits.

This is a reasonable determination.

While synthetic track suits do constitute

a single item for HTS purposes, a track

suit actually consists of two separate

components, a relatively light-weight

synthetic coat and trousers. Indeed, the

HTS listing for track suits is broken

down into coats, shirts, and trousers; in

the case of coats, the HTS then crossreferences the separate HTS listings for

those items. This confirms that it is

reasonable to classify track suits under

the like products for their components.

Similarly, many of the other standing

determinations questioned by the RTG

concern HTS item numbers which cover
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Notices 397

‘‘ensembles,’’ which we have classified

under the like products for their

components. In reviewing our

determinations, we agree with the RTG

that certain of these classifications

should be clarified. In many cases,

ACTWU was found to have standing for

some of the components and not for

others. ACTWU’s standing with respect

to the HTS item is limited by the like

products for the ensemble components

for which it was found to have standing.

Thus, we have clarified the annotations

as appropriate, or resorted to the use of

the ten-digit HTS item number, as

explained in Comment 3 above and as

indicated in Appendix B.

We disagree, however, that the like

product category ‘‘trousers’’ excludes

breeches and shorts. We determine that

breeches and shorts are types of

trousers. Therefore ACTWU’s standing

with respect to ‘‘trousers’’ extends to all

types of trousers, including breeches

and shorts. Thus, we will neither be

adding the annotation desired by the

RTG nor revoking at the ten-digit level

the HTS numbers for breeches and

shorts.

Determination to Amend Revocation, in

Part

For the reasons stated above, the

Department has determined that the

ACTWU does not have standing as an

interested party with respect to 30 of the

like products covered by this

countervailing duty order, as listed in

Appendix C this notice. The HTS item

numbers corresponding to the like

products listed in Appendix C are listed

in Appendix D. The Department is now

amending the effective date of the

revocation of the order with respect to

these HTS item numbers to make it

effective January 1, 1991. Accordingly,

for the merchandise identified in

Appendix D, the Department will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

liquidate without regard to

countervailing duties all unliquidated

entries made on or after January 1, 1991.

The Department determines that

ACTWU does have standing as an

interested party, in accordance with 19

U.S.C. 1677(9)(D) and 19 C.F.R.

§ 355.2(i)(4), with respect to 57 like

products. These like products are listed

in Appendix A. The HTS item numbers

which correspond to these like products

are listed in Appendix B, with

appropriate annotations as discussed

above. Thus, the Department will

conduct the administrative review of

entries of the merchandise listed in

Appendix B, made during the period

January 1, 1991 through December 31,

1991, and will issue appropriate

instructions to Customs with respect to

these entries upon completion of the

review.

This countervailing duty order was

subject to section 753 of the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act. See

Countervailing Duty Order; Opportunity

to Request a Section 753 Injury

Investigation, 60 FR 27,963 (May 26,

1995). Because no domestic interested

parties exercised their right under

section 753(a) of the Act to request an

injury investigation, the International

Trade Commission made a negative

injury determination with respect to this

order, pursuant to section 753(b)(4) of

the Act. As a result, the Department

revoked the order, effective January 1,

1995, pursuant to section 753(b)(3)(B) of

the Act, and ordered Customs to

terminate suspension of liquidation and

to refund all cash deposits made after

January 1, 1995. Revocation of

Countervailing Duty Orders, 60 FR

40568 (August 9, 1995). Accordingly, for

the merchandise listed in Appendix B

for which the Department is not

amending the effective date of

revocation, the Department intends to

order Customs to liquidate shipments

exported on or after January 1, 1991 and

entered on or before December 31, 1991,

in accordance with the final results of

the administrative review. We will not

issue further instructions with respect to

suspension of liquidation or cash

deposits of estimated countervailing

duties.

This determination and notice are in

accordance with sections 751 (a) and (c)

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

1675(c)).

Dated: December 9, 1996.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix A—C–549–401

Countervailing Duty Order on Certain

Apparel From Thailand Like Products

for Which ACTWU Has Standing

Like product code

No.

Like product description

Cotton:

1 ........... Handkerchiefs.

2 ........... Gloves.

Like product code

No.

Like product description

3 ........... Hosiery.

4 ........... Suit-type coats, M&B.

5 ........... Other Coats, M&B.

8 ........... Playsuits.

9 ........... Knit Shirts, M&B.

10 ......... Knit Shirts & Blouses, WGI.

11 ......... Shirts, Not Knit, M&B.

14 ......... Sweaters.

15 ......... Trousers, M&B.

19 ......... Nightwear.

20 ......... Underwear.

21 ......... Other Apparel.

Wool:

22 ......... Gloves.

23 ......... Hosiery.

24 ......... Suit-type Coats, M&B.

25 ......... Other Coats, M&B.

26 ......... Coats, WGI.

28 ......... Knit Shirts & Blouses.

29 ......... Shirts & Blouses, Not Knit.

30 ......... Skirts.

31 ......... Suits, M&B.

33 ......... Sweaters, M&B.

35 ......... Trousers, M&B.

36 ......... Trousers, WGI.

37 ......... Other Wool Apparel.

Man-Made

Fiber:

38 ......... Handkerchiefs.

39 ......... Gloves.

40 ......... Hosiery.

41 ......... Suit-type Coats, M&B.

42 ......... Other Coats, M&B.

45 ......... Playsuits.

46 ......... Knit Shirts, M&B.

48 ......... Shirts, Not Knit, M&B.

51 ......... Suits, M&B.

52 ......... Suits, WGI.

53 ......... Sweaters.

54 ......... Trousers, M&B.

58 ......... Nightwear.

59 ......... Underwear.

60 ......... Other Apparel.

Other Fabric:

61 ......... Handkerchiefs.

62 ......... Gloves.

63 ......... Hosiery.

64 ......... Suit-type Coats, M&B.

65 ......... Other Coats, M&B.

68 ......... Playsuits.

69 ......... Knit Shirts M&B.

71 ......... Shirts, Not Knit, M&B

74 ......... Suits, M&B.

76 ......... Sweaters, M&B.

78 ......... Trousers, M&B.

82 ......... Nightwear.

83 ......... Down-filled Coats, M&B.

85 ......... Underwear.

86 ......... Other Apparel.

Appendix B—C–549–401

Countervailing Duty Order on Certain

Apparel From Thailand Harmonized

Tariff Schedule Numbers

HTS No. Annotation

6101.2000 ........................................................... Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the

outer surface.

6101.3020
398 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Notices

HTS No. Annotation

6102.1000

6103.1920 ........................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6103.2200 ........................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6103.2300 ........................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6103.2910 ........................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6103.4210 ........................................................... Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the

outer surface.

6103.4315 ........................................................... Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the

outer surface.

6103.4910 ........................................................... Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the

outer surface.

6104.1320

6104.1915

6104.2100.10

6104.2100.30

6104.2100.40

6104.2100.60

6104.2100.80

6104.2200.10

6104.2200.60

6104.2200.80

6104.2200.90

6104.2300.22

6104.2910.60

6104.5100 ........................................................... Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the

outer surface.

6104.5310 ........................................................... Coverage limited to wool skirts.

6104.5910 ........................................................... Coverage limited to wool skirts; coverage excludes girls’ skirts or divided skirts NOT having

embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.

6104.6920 ........................................................... Coverage limited to wool trousers.

6105.1000

6105.2020

6106.1000

6109.1000

6109.9010.07

6109.9010.09

6109.9010.13

6109.9010.25

6109.9010.47

6109.9010.49 ...................................................... Coverage excludes garments having embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the

outer surface.

6110.2020 ........................................................... Coverage excludes men’s or boys’ garments having embroidery or permanently affixed applique work on the outer surface.

6110.3030.05

6110.3030.10

6110.3030.15

6110.3030.20

6110.3030.25

6110.3030.40

6110.3030.50

6111.3040 ........................................................... Coverage limited to sweaters; coverage excludes garments having embroidery or permanently

affixed applique work on the outer surface.

6111.3050

6111.9040 Coverage limited to sweaters.

6111.9050

6112.1200.10

6112.1200.30

6112.1200.50

6112.1910.10 ...................................................... Coverage limited to men’s and boys’ garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6112.1910.30 ...................................................... Coverage excludes men’s or boys’ garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6112.1910.50 ...................................................... Coverage excludes men’s or boys’ garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6112.2010.10 ...................................................... Coverage excludes men’s or boys’ garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6112.2010.30 ...................................................... Coverage limited to men’s and boys’ garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6112.2010.50 ...................................................... Coverage excludes men’s or boys’ garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6112.2010.60 ...................................................... Coverage excludes men’s or boys’ garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6112.2010.80 ...................................................... Coverage limited to men’s and boys’ garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6114.2000

6114.3010.10

6114.3030

6201.1220

6201.1340

6201.9220

6203.1910 ........................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6203.2230 ........................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 1997 / Notices 399

HTS No. Annotation

6203.2300 ........................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6203.2920 ........................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6203.4240

6203.4340

6203.4920

6204.2300 ........................................................... Coverage limited to woolen garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6204.2920.10

6204.2920.30

6204.2920.40

6204.2920.50 ...................................................... Coverage limited to garments that would be covered if separately entered.

6205.2020

6208.2200

6208.9200.30

6208.9200.40

6209.2050

Appendix C—C–549–401

Countervailing Duty Order on Certain

Apparel From Thailand Like Products

for Which ACTWU Does Not Have

Standing

Like product code

No.

Like product description

Cotton:

6 ........... Coats, WGI.

7 ........... Dresses.

12 ......... Blouses, Not Knit, WGI.

13 ......... Skirts.

16 ......... Trousers, WGI.

17 ......... Brassieres, etc.

18 ......... Dressing Gowns.

Wool:

27 ......... Dresses.

32 ......... Suits, WGI.

34 ......... Sweaters, WGI

Man-Made

Fiber:

43 ......... Coats, WGI.

44 ......... Dresses.

47 ......... Knit Shirts & Blouses, WGI.

49 ......... Blouses, Not Knit, WGI.

50 ......... Skirts.

55 ......... Trousers, WGI.

56 ......... Brassieres, etc.

57 ......... Dressing Gowns.

Other Fabric:

66 ......... Coats, WGI.

67 ......... Dresses.

70 ......... Knit Shirts & Blouses, WGI.

72 ......... Blouses, Not Knit, WGI.

73 ......... Skirts.

75 ......... Suits, WGI.

77 ......... Sweaters, WGI.

79 ......... Trousers, WGI.

80 ......... Brassieres, etc.

81 ......... Dressing Gowns.

84 ......... Down-filled Coats, WGI.

Other Like:

87 ......... Flatgoods, handbags, and luggage.

Appendix D—C–549–401

Countervailing Duty Order on Certain

Apparel From Thailand Harmonized

Tariff Schedule Numbers

(For which revocation will be amended

from January 1, 1995 to January 1, 1991)

4202.1240 6104.2910.70 6112.2010.90

4202.1260 6104.3100 6113.0000.30

4202.1280 6104.3310 6114.3010.20

4202.2245 6104.3320 6202.1220

4202.2260 6104.3910 6202.1340

4202.2270 6104.4200 6202.9220

4202.2280 6104.4320 6202.9345

4202.3240 6104.4420 6202.9350

4202.3295 6104.5200 6204.1200

4202.9215 6104.5320 6204.2230

4202.9220 6104.6220 6204.2920.15

4202.9230 6104.6320 6204.2920.20

4202.9260 6106.2020 6204.2920.25

4202.9290 6109.9010.50 6204.3220

6102.3010 6109.9010.60 6204.3350

6102.3020 6109.9010.65 6204.3930

6104.1200 6109.9010.70 6204.4230

6104.2100.70 6109.9010.75 6204.4340

6104.2200.30 6109.9010.90 6204.4440

6104.2200.40 6110.3030.30 6204.5220

6104.2200.50 6110.3030.35 6204.5330

6104.2300.10 6110.3030.45 6204.5930

6104.2300.14 6110.3030.55 6204.6240

6104.2300.16 6111.3010 6204.6335

6104.2300.20 6111.3020 6204.6925

6104.2300.24 6111.3030 6206.3030

6104.2300.26 6111.9010 6206.4030

6104.2300.30 6111.9020 6208.9200.10

6104.2300.32 6111.9030 6208.9200.20

6104.2300.34 6112.1200.20 6209.2010

6104.2300.36 6112.1200.40 6209.2020

6104.2300.40 6112.1200.60 6209.2030

6104.2300.42 6112.1910.20 6210.3010

6104.2910.10 6112.1910.40 6210.501020

6104.2910.20 6112.1910.60 6212.1050*

6104.2910.30 6112.2010.20 6212.1090*

6104.2910.40 6112.2010.40

6104.2910.50 6112.2010.70

*In the amended HTS list, published May

17, 1994, 6212.1050 and 6212.1090 were not

listed. These two numbers replaced

6212.1010 and 6212.1020 in early 1995.

[FR Doc. 97–72 Filed 1–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Headquarters Air Force

Services Agency, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

In compliance with Section

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, the Headquarters

Air Force Services Agency (HQ AFSVA)

announces a proposed format change to

the existing Air Force Form 3211,

Customer Comments card and seeks

public comment of the provisions

thereof. Comments are invited on: (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the proposed

information collection; (c) ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the information to be collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

information collection on respondents,

including through the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all

comments received by March 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

HQ AFSVA, Lodging and Laundry

Branch (HQ AFSVA/SVOHL, 10100

Reunion Place, Ste 401, San Antonio TX

78216–4138, ATTN: Lt Col Deb

Kuennen or SMSgt Denise Knebel).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To

request more information on this

proposed information collection or to

obtain a copy of the proposal and

associated collection instruments,

please write to the above address, or call

HQ AFSVA/SVOHL, at (210) 652–8875.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB

Number: Customer Comments, AF Form

3211, OMB Number 0701–XXX.

Needs and Uses: Each lodging guest is

provided an AF Form 3211. The AF

Form 3211 gives each guest the

opportunity to comment on facilities