18748 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices

On October 25, 1996, petitioners

claimed that publicly available import

data contradicted Siderca’s claims.

Petitioners contended these data

showed that Siderca was the shipper of

a substantial quantity of OCTG (drill

pipe and green tubing) during the

period August through December, 1995,

and that Siderca was listed as the

consignee of each entry. Petitioners

noted that none of these entries

appeared in official U.S. import

statistics. Petitioners also claimed those

statistics showed that a very small

quantity of seamless casing entered the

United States from Argentina in

December 1995, and requested that

Siderca be asked to explain the exact

nature, timing, and details of this

shipment.

On October 30, 1996, we sent a noshipment inquiry regarding Siderca to

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’).

Customs did not indicate that there

were records of any consumption

entries of OCTG by Siderca during the

POR. On November 13, 1996, Siderca

asserted in a letter to the Department

that none of the six entries of drill pipe

and green tubing referenced by

petitioners was a consumption entry;

rather, Siderca claimed, two of these

entries were temporary importation inbond (‘‘TIB’’) entries and four were

entries into a foreign-trade zone

(‘‘FTZ’’). Siderca argued that none of

these entries could serve as the basis for

an administrative review since they

were not imported into the United

States for consumption. Siderca also

stated that it had no knowledge of, or

involvement with, the very small

shipment of seamless casing that

allegedly entered the United States in

December 1995. Siderca surmised that

this shipment involved parties other

than itself. There is no evidence on the

record that would lead us to question

this claim by Siderca.

On April 8, 1997, we received official

confirmation from Customs that two of

the entries of drill pipe and green tubing

in question were TIB entries and that

the remaining four were FTZ entries.

Customs also confirmed that none of

these six entries entered the customs

territory of the United States during the

POR for consumption.

Because the only firm for which a

review was requested made no entries

into the customs territory of the United

States during the POR, we are

rescinding this review in accordance

with the Department’s practice. See

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

61 FR 7308, 7317, 7365 (February 27,

1996) (section 351.213(d)(3)). The cash

deposit rate for this firm will continue

to be the rate established in the most

recently completed segment of this

proceeding.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. § 1675 (1995)), and section

353.22 of the Department’s regulations

(19 CFR § 353.22 (1996)).

Dated: April 10, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement

Group III, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9967 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A489–807]

Antidumpting Duty Order: Certain

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From

Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson, Cameron Werker, or

Fabian Rivelis, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–1776, (202) 482–3874, or (202) 482–

3853; respectively.

Scope of Order

The merchandise covered by this

order is all stock deformed steel

concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight

lengths and coils. This includes all hotrolled deformed rebar rolled from billet

steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy

steel. It excludes (i) plain round rebar,

(ii) rebar that a processor has further

worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated

rebar. Deformed rebar is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

under item numbers 7213.10.000 and

7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings

are provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written

description of the scope of this order is

dispositive.

Antidumping Duty Order

In accordance with section 735(a) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act), the Department made its final

determination that rebar from Turkey is

being sold at less than fair value (62 FR

9737, March 4, 1997). On April 10,

1997, the International Trade

Commission (ITC) notified the

Department of its final determination,

pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the

Act, that a regional industry in the

United States is materially injured by

reason of imports of the subject

merchandise from Turkey.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1)

of the Act, the Department will direct

Customs officers to assess, upon further

advice by the administering authority,

antidumping duties equal to the amount

by which the normal value of the

merchandise exceeds the export price

(or the constructed export price) of the

merchandise for all entries of rebar from

Turkey. These antidumping duties will

be assessed on all unliquidated entries

of rebar from Turkey entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after October 10,

1996, the date on which the Department

published its preliminary determination

in the Federal Register (61 FR 53203).

On or after the date of publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

Customs officers must require, at the

same time as importers would normally

deposit estimated duties on this

merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the

estimated weighted-average

antidumping duty margins as noted

below. The ‘‘All Others’’ rate applies to

all exporters of rebar not specifically

listed below.

The ad valorem weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Producer/manufacturer/exporterMargin

percentage

Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. or

Colakoglu Dis Ticaret

(Colakoglu) ........................ 9.84

Ekinciler Demir Celik or

Ekinciler Dis Ticaret

(Ekinciler) .......................... 18.68

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar

Istihsal Endustrisi A.S.

(Habas) .............................. 18.54

Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi

A.S. (IDC) .......................... 41.80

Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk

A.S. (Metas) ...................... 30.16

All Others .............................. 16.06

In the final determination, the

Department found that critical

circumstances exist with respect to

exports of rebar from Turkey by all

exporters except Colakoglu. However,

on April 10, 1997, the ITC notified the

Department of its negative

determination regarding critical

circumstances. As a result of the ITC’s

determination, pursuant to section

735(c)(3) of the Act, we shall order

Customs to terminate the retroactive

suspension of liquidation and to release

any bond or other security and refund
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Notices 18749

any cash deposit required under section

733(e)(2) of the Act with respect to

entries of subject merchandise entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption prior to October 10, 1996.

This notice constitutes the

antidumping duty order with respect to

rebar from Turkey. Interested parties

may contact the Central Records Unit,

Room B–099 of the Main Commerce

Building, for copies of an updated list

of antidumping duty orders currently in

effect.

This order is published in accordance

with section 736(a) of the Act.

Dated: April 11, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–9968 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Tennessee, et al.; Notice

of 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 5:00 P.M. in

Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

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: 96–142. Applicant:

University of Tennessee, Knoxville,

Knoxville, TN 37996–1200. Instrument:

Energy Analyzer and Power Supply,

Model SES–200. Manufacturer: Scienta

Instrument AB, Sweden. Intended Use:

See notice at 62 FR 5619, February 6,

1997. Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides an energy resolution of 5 meV

(Xe gas phase) using a Gammadata VUVsource and nine predefined pass

energies of 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 75, 150, 300

and 500 eV. Advice received from: A

domestic manufacturer of electron

analyzers, March 27, 1997.

Docket Number: 96–143. Applicant:

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL

35487–0209. Instrument: Auger XPS

Spectrometer. Manufacturer: Kratos

Analytical Inc., United Kingdom.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR 5620,

February 6, 1997. Reasons: The foreign

instrument provides: (1) A combination

of magnetic and electrostatic lenses

providing a peak sensitivity of 500 000

cps at 10–9 A beam current, (2) charge

neutralization and (3) digital control of

transfer optics, analyzer, and other

instrument functions. Advice received

from: A U.S. Department of Energy

laboratory, March 19, 1997.

Docket Number: 96–145. Applicant:

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,

GA 30322–0834. Instrument: IonAssisted Deposition System, Model APS

1104. Manufacturer: Leybold AG,

Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 62

FR 6215, February 11, 1997. Reasons:

The foreign instrument provides: (1) A

proprietary plasma source for ionassisted deposition, (2) uniform

deposition over an area as large as one

meter in diameter and (3) ability to

operate with lower substrate

temperatures than conventional electron

beam deposition systems. Advice

received from: Brookhaven National

Laboratory, March 14, 1997.

A domestic manufacturer of electron

analyzers, a U.S. Department of Energy

laboratory and Brookhaven National

Laboratory advise that (1) The

capabilities of each of the foreign

instruments described above are

pertinent to each applicant’s intended

purpose and (2) they know 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. 97–9964 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Washington University; 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, NW., Washington,

DC.

Docket Number: 96–136. Applicant:

Washington University, St. Louis, MO

63130–4899. Instrument: Mass

Spectrometer, Model MAT 252.

Manufacturer: Finnigan MAT, Germany.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR 5619,

February 6, 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) Automated preparation

and isotopic analysis of carbonate, CO2

and O2 microsamples, (2) an ion

collection system with 460 mm

deflection radius and (3) mass range of

1–150 at 10 kV. 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. 97–9965 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–815]

Pure and Alloy Magnesium From

Canada; Final Results of the Third

(1994) Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

countervailing duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: On October 7, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on pure and

alloy magnesium from Canada for the

period January 1, 1994 through

December 31, 1994 (see Pure

Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From

Canada; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews (Preliminary Results), 61 FR

52435. We have completed these

reviews and determine the net subsidy

to be 4.48 percent ad valorem for Norsk

Hydro Canada, Inc. (NHCI) and all other

producers/exporters except Timminco

Limited, which has been excluded from

these orders. We will instruct the U.S.