Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21065

ACTION: Cancellation to notice of intent

to prepare environmental impact

statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service is cancelling

preparation of an environmental impact

statement (EIS) for pest management at

the Humboldt Nursery, McKinleyville,

California; Placerville Nursery, Camino,

California; and Chico Tree Improvement

Center, Chico, California (Federal

Register of September 7, 1990, 55 FR

36844, and (Federal Register of August

25, 1988, 53 FR 32417).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Fiske, Program Manager, Reforestation,

Pacific Southwest Region, 630 Sansome

Street, San Francisco, California 94111.

Telephone (415) 705–2697.

Date: April 24, 1995.

Gilbert J. Espinosa,

Acting Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 95–10649 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

Control of Diseases, Insects, Other

Animals, and Unwanted Vegetation at

the Placerville Nursery

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare

an environmental impact statement

(EIS) for pest management at the

Placerville Nursery, Camino, California.

Initial public scoping is underway; a

public meeting will occur during the

DEIS comment period. The draft EIS is

expected to be filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and be available for public review by

June, 1995. The final EIS is expected to

be filed with EPA by August, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Frankel, Pathologist, Pacific

Southwest Region, 630 Sansome St., San

Francisco, CA 94111. Telephone (415)

705–2651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

preparing the EIS, the Forest Service has

identified and is considering a range of

alternatives for this project. One of those

is no action. Other alternatives consider

a range of methods for the prevention

and control of diseases, insects, other

animals, and unwanted vegetation at the

Placerville Nursery. The methods under

consideration include biological,

chemical, manual, and mechanical

techniques. The activities that require

prevention and controls include cover

cropping, seed pre-treatment, nursery

seedbed and greenhouse preparation,

sowing, seedling growth from

germination to lifting, and seedling

storage.

Patricia Trimble, Nursery Manager,

Placerville Nursery is the responsible

official.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and be available for

public review by June, 1995. The final

EIS is expected to be filed with EPA by

August, 1995.

The comment period on the draft EIS

will be 45 days from the date in the

EPA’s notice of availability appears in

the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this

early stage, it it important to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft environmental impact

statement stage but that are not raised

until after completion of the final

environmental impact statement may be

waived or dismissed by the courts. City

of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016,

1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp.

1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of

these court rulings, it is very important

that those interested in this proposed

action participate by the close of the 45-

day comment period so that substantive

comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningfully consider them

and respond to them in the final

environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concerns on the proposed action,

comments on the draft environmental

impact statement should be as specific

as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

statement. Reviewers may wish to refer

to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Dated: April 24, 1995.

Gilbert J. Espinosa,

Acting Regional Forester.

[FR Doc. 95–10650 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–843]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Bicycles From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shawn Thompson or Cameron Werker

at (202) 482–1776 or (202) 482–3874,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

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).

The Petition

On April 5, 1995, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by Huffy

Bicycle Company, Murray Ohio

Manufacturing Co., and Roadmaster

Corporation (the petitioners), three U.S.

producers of bicycles. Supplements to

the petition were filed on April 20 and

24, 1995.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of bicycles from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) are being, or

are likely to be, sold in the United States

at less than fair value within the

meaning of section 731 of the Act, and

that such imports are materially

injuring, or threatening material injury

to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioners state that they have

standing to file the petition because they

are interested parties, as defined under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act.
21066 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 732(c) of the Act, as amended

by the URAA, requires that the

Department determine, prior to the

initiation of an investigation, that a

minimum percentage of the domestic

industry supports an antidumping

petition. A petition meets those

minimum requirements if (1) domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for at least 25 percent

of the total production of the domestic

like product; and (2) those domestic

producers or workers expressing

support account for more than 50

percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

A review of production data provided

in the petition reveals that the

petitioners, three known domestic

producers of the domestic like product

as defined in the petition, account for

more than 25 percent of the total

production of the domestic like product

and for more than 50 percent of that

produced by companies expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition. Accordingly, the Department

determines that this petition is

supported by the domestic industry.

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation is bicycles of all types,

whether assembled or unassembled,

complete or incomplete, finished or

unfinished, including industrial

bicycles, tandems, recumbents, and

folding bicycles. For purposes of this

investigation, the following terms are

defined as follows irrespective of any

different definition that may be found in

Customs rulings, U.S. Customs law, or

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS): (1) The term

‘‘unassembled’’ means fully or partially

unassembled or disassembled; (2) the

term ‘‘incomplete’’ means lacking one or

more parts or components with which

the complete bicycle is intended to be

equipped; and (3) the term ‘‘unfinished’’

means wholly or partially unpainted or

lacking decals or other essentially

aesthetic material. Specifically, this

investigation is intended to cover: (1)

Any assembled complete bicycle,

whether finished or unfinished; (2) any

unassembled complete bicycle, if

shipped in a single shipment, regardless

of how it is packed and whether it is

finished or unfinished; and (3) any

incomplete bicycle, defined for

purposes of this investigation as a frame

and fork set, assembled or unassembled,

finished or unfinished, and imported in

the same shipment with any two of the

following components, whether or not

assembled together with the frame and

fork set: (a) The rear wheel; (b) the front

wheel; (c) a rear derailleur; (d) a front

derailleur; (e) any one caliper or

cantilever brake; (f) an integrated brake

lever and shifter, or separate brake lever

and click stick lever; (g) crankset; (h)

handlebars, with or without a stem; (i)

chain; (j) pedals; and (k) seat (saddle),

with or without seat post and seat pin.

The scope of this investigation is not

intended to cover bicycle parts except to

the extent that they are attached to or in

the same shipment as an unassembled

complete bicycle or an incomplete

bicycle, as defined above.

Complete bicycles are classifiable

under subheadings 8712.00.15,

8712.00.25, 8712.00.35, 8712.00.44, and

8712.00.48 of the 1995 HTSUS.

Incomplete bicycles, as defined above,

may be classified for tariff purposes

under any of the aforementioned

HTSUS subheadings covering complete

bicycles or under HTSUS subheadings

8714.91.20–8714.99.80, inclusive

(covering various bicycle parts). The

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Export Price and Normal Value

Export price was based on retail

prices observed in the United States in

mid-1994. The petitioners adjusted the

starting prices for retail gross margin,

the importer’s selling expenses (used as

a surrogate for importer’s mark-up),

foreign inland freight, CIF movement

charges, and U.S. customs duty.

The petitioners assert that the PRC is

a non-market economy (NME) within

the meaning of sections 771(18) of the

Act and in accordance with section

773(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the

normal value of the product should be

based on the producer’s factors of

production, valued in a surrogate

market economy country. In previous

investigations, the Department has

determined that the PRC is an NME, and

the presumption of NME status

continues for the initiation of this

investigation. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Pure Magnesium and Alloy

Magnesium from the People’s Republic

of China, 60 FR 16437 (March 30, 1995).

It is our practice in NME cases to

construct normal value from the factors

of production of those factories that

produced bicycles sold to the United

States during the period of

investigation.

In the course of this investigation, all

parties will have the opportunity to

provide relevant information related to

the issues of the PRC’s NME status and

the granting of separate rates to

individual exporters. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).

The petitioners based the PRC

producers’ factors of production (i.e.,

raw materials, labor, and energy) for

bicycles on research conducted by a

private consulting firm in the PRC. The

petitioners valued these factors, where

possible, on a publicly available

published Indonesian government

survey of the bicycle manufacturing

and/or bicycle component industries in

Indonesia, the surrogate country

selected. Indonesia was selected as the

surrogate country because (1) its level of

economic development is comparable to

that of the PRC, and (2) it is a significant

producer of bicycles.

For each of the bicycle models used

in the fair value comparisons, certain

components are imported from the

market-economy countries where they

are produced. In those instances, the

petitioners valued the components in

question based on the F.O.B. foreign

port prices that the petitioners pay, as

they state their prices are equal to or

less than the prices paid by any other

bicycle manufacturer in the world.

The petitioners also based factory

overhead, and selling, general, and

administrative expenses on data

published by the Indonesian

government on the bicycle

manufacturing industry.

The petitioners based profit on a

publicly available published study of

the Indonesian bicycle industry.

Based on a comparison of the export

prices to the factors of production, the

average calculated dumping margin is

74.95 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioners, there is reason to believe

that imports of bicycles from the PRC

are being, or likely to be, sold at less

than fair value. If it becomes necessary

at a later date to consider the petition as

a source of facts available, we may

review the calculations.

Initiation of Investigation

We have examined the petition on

bicycles and have found that it meets

the requirements of section 732 of the

Act, including the requirements

concerning the material injury or threat

of material injury to the domestic

producers of a domestic like product by

reason of the complained-of imports,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Notices 21067

allegedly sold at less than fair value.

Therefore, we are initiating an

antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of bicycles

from the PRC are being, or are likely to

be, sold in the United States at less than

fair value. Unless extended, we will

make our preliminary determination by

September 12, 1995.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, copies of the

public version of the petition have been

provided to the representatives of the

PRC.

ITC Notification

We have notified the International

Trade Commission (ITC) of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 22,

1995, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of bicycles from

the PRC are causing material injury, or

threaten to cause material injury to, a

U.S. industry. A negative ITC

determination will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, this investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 732(c)(2) of the Act.

Dated: April 25, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–10647 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–429–601]

Solid Urea From the German

Democratic Republic; Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Review and Initiation of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

changed circumstances review and

initiation of changed circumstances

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 12, 1992, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register (57 FR 5130) a notice of

initiation of a changed circumstances

review to examine the effect, if any, that

the reunification of Germany (by

combination of the former German

Democratic Republic (GDR) and the

Federal Republic of Germany (FRG))

had on the antidumping duty order

covering solid urea from the former GDR

(53 FR 2636). Specifically, we reviewed

the order’s applicability to postunification shipments of the subject

merchandise from producers located in

the pre-unification territory of the FRG.

The Department preliminarily

determines to maintain the order on

solid urea from the five German states

(Brandenburg, MecklenburgVorpommern, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt,

and Thuringia (plus any other territory

included in the former GDR)) that

formerly constituted the GDR

(hereinafter ‘‘the Five States’’) and to

allow entry of shipments from the preunification territory of the FRG (the

remaining German states) without

regard to antidumping duties. We have

also determined that there is good cause

for conducting a second changed

circumstances review to calculate a new

cash deposit rate using a market

economy analysis for any shipments of

solid urea from the Five States occurring

after October 2, 1990 and before the

effective date of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Frankel, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,

D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 14, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register (53

FR 2636) an antidumping duty order on

solid urea from the GDR that established

a cash deposit rate of 44.80 percent. On

October 3, 1990, the GDR and the preunification territory of the FRG were

unified into the single jurisdiction of the

Federal Republic of Germany. On

October 1, 1990, the U.S. Customs

Service issued instructions that it would

be appropriate to treat goods that would

have been considered products from the

former GDR, and were entered or

withdrawn from warehouse for

consumption on or after October 3,

1990, as products of the unified FRG for

customs purposes. In response, on

October 10, 1990, the Department

instructed the U.S. Customs Service to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

solid urea from the unified FRG but not

to collect cash deposits on solid urea

from any company located in what was

the pre-unification territory of the FRG.

Thus, entries of solid urea from the preunification territory of the FRG were

suspended at what was in effect a zero

cash deposit rate. We further instructed

U.S. Customs officials to continue

collecting cash deposits from

manufacturers located in what had been

the GDR.

On February 12, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 5130) the initiation of a changed

circumstances review on solid urea from

the former GDR (Notice of Initiation). At

the time of initiation, companies

producing solid urea in the preunification territory of the FRG were

shipping to the United States.

Accordingly, the Department initiated

its review to determine whether the

order on solid urea from the former GDR

is applicable to shipments from

producers located in the pre-unification

territory of the FRG.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

those of solid urea. At the time of the

publication of the antidumping duty

order, such merchandise was

classifiable under item 480.30 of the

Tariff Schedules of the United States

Annotated (TSUSA). This merchandise

is currently classified under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) item number

3102.10.00. These TSUSA and HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes only. The written

description remains dispositive.

Analysis

Although the Department normally

administers antidumping proceedings

on a country-by-country basis, neither

the statute, the regulations, nor the

GATT expressly require such an

approach. Indeed, as the Department

stated in connection with the special

circumstances surrounding the breakup

of the Soviet Union and its potential

effect on the then-pending antidumping

duty investigation concerning uranium,

the focus of the law is on merchandise,

not countries. See Postponement of

Preliminary Antidumping Duty

Determination; Uranium from the

Former Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics (USSR), 57 FR 11064 (1992)

(incorporating by reference,

memorandum from F. Sailer to A. Dunn

dated March 24, 1992); see also

Techsnabexport, Ltd. v. United States,

802 F. Supp. 469, 471–72 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1992).

In the present case, there are special

circumstances that justify maintaining

the subject order on the Five States, but

not on the remaining German states. The

geopolitical entity that was known as