Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices 22563

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during the 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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11258 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[C–549–802]

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From

Thailand; Preliminary Results of a

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on ball

bearings and parts thereof from

Thailand. We preliminarily determine

the total bounty or grant to be 4.29

percent ad valorem for all companies for

the period January 1, 1992, through

December 31, 1992. If the final results

remain the same as these preliminary

results of administrative review, we will

instruct U.S. Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as indicated

above. We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martina Tkadlec or Kelly Parkhill,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 3, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 19130) the countervailing duty order

on ball bearings and parts thereof from

Thailand. On April 28, 1993, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ (58 FR

25802) of this countervailing duty order.

On May 28, 1993, Torrington Company,

the petitioner, requested an

administrative review of the order. On

May 28, 1993, Pelmec Thai Ltd.

(Pelmec) and NMB Thai Ltd. (NMB

Thai), the respondent companies in

prior reviews also requested an

administrative review.

On June 25, 1993 (58 FR 34414), we

initiated the review, covering the period

January 1, 1992, through December 31,

1992. The review covers nine programs

and three related producers/exporters,

NMB Thai, Pelmec, and NMB Hi-Tech

Bearings Ltd. (NMB Hi-Tech), which are

wholly owned by Minebea, Co., Ltd. of

Japan.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

ball bearings and parts thereof. Such

merchandise is described in detail in

Appendix A to this notice. The

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers listed in Appendix A are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology

In the first administrative review,

respondents claimed that the F.O.B.

value of the subject merchandise

entering the United States is greater

than the F.O.B. price charged by the

companies in Thailand (57 FR 26646;

June 15, 1992). They explained that this

discrepancy is due to a mark-up charged

by the parent company, located in a

third country, through which the

merchandise is invoiced. However, the

subject merchandise is shipped directly

from Thailand to the United States and

is not transshipped, combined with

other merchandise, or repackaged with

other merchandise. In other words, for

each shipment of subject merchandise,

there are two invoices and two

corresponding F.O.B. export prices: (1)

The F.O.B. export price at which the

subject merchandise leaves Thailand,

and on which subsidies from the Royal

Thai Government (RTG) are earned by

the companies, and upon which the

subsidy rate is calculated; and (2) the

F.O.B. export price which includes the

parent company mark-up, and which is

listed on the invoice accompanying the

subject merchandise as it enters the

United States, and upon which the cash

deposits are collected and the

countervailing duty is assessed.

Respondents argued that the calculated

ad valorem rate should be adjusted by

the ratio of the export value from

Thailand to the export value charged by

the parent company to the U.S.

customer so that the amount of

countervailing duties collected would

reflect the amount of subsidies

bestowed. The Department agreed and

made this adjustment in the first and

second administrative reviews (57 FR

26646; June 15, 1992; and 58 FR 36392;

July 7, 1993).

In the present review, we again

verified on a transaction-specific basis

the direct correlation between the

invoice which reflect the F.O.B. price on

which the subsidies are earned and the

invoice which reflects the marked-up

price that accompanies each shipment

as it enters the United States. Since the

mark-up is not part of the export value

upon which the respondents earn

bounties or grants, the Department has

followed the methodology adopted in

the first and second administrative

reviews, and calculated the ad valorem

rate as a percentage of the original

export value from Thailand and then

multiplied this rate by the adjustment

ratio—the original export value from

Thailand divided by the marked-up

value of the goods entering the United

States.

We did not calculate a separate rate

for each company because NMB Thai,

Pelmec, and NMB Hi-Tech are wholly

owned by one parent company, and are

therefore related. As a result of this

relationship, we considered the three

companies as one corporate entity in

our calculations. We calculated the

bounty or grant by first totalling the

benefits received by the three

companies for each program used.

Dividing these sums by total Thai export

value for the three companies, we

calculated the adjusted bounty or grant

for each program used. As described

above, we adjusted these rates by

multiplying them by the ratio of the

original export price from Thailand to

the marked-up price of the goods

entering the United States. Finally, we

summed the adjusted bounty or grant

for each program, to arrive at the total

country-wide bounty or grant.
22564 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices

Analysis of Programs

1. Investment Promotion Act of 1977—

Sections 31, 28 and 36(1)

The Investment Promotion Act of

1977 (IPA) is administered by the Board

of Investment (BOI) and is designed to

provide incentives to invest in

Thailand. In Order to receive IPA

benefits, each company must apply to

the BOI for a Certificate of Promotion

(license), which specifies goods to be

produced, production and export

requirements, and benefits approved.

These licenses are granted at the

discretion of the BOI and are

periodically amended or reissued to

change benefits or requirements. Each

IPA benefit for which a company is

eligible must be specifically stated in

the license.

The BOI licenses for Pelmec, NMB

Thai and NMB Hi-Tech all originally

included export requirements. In the

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination and Countervailing Duty

Order: Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof

from Thailand (54 FR 19130; May 3,

1989), we determined that because the

receipt of benefits under the IPA

licenses was contingent upon export

performance, these benefits were

countervailable. However, effective

January 1, 1990, producers of electronic

parts (BOI Category 4.6) became eligible

to apply to have export requirements

eliminated from their BOI licenses. Most

of the subject merchandise is classified

by BOI under Category 4.6, and

consequently, NMB Thai, NMB Hi-Tech,

and Pelmec all applied for eliminations

of their export requirements. NMB

Thai’s export requirements were lifted

effective October 16, 1992, for one

license, and effective November 9, 1992,

for its three remaining licenses. The

export requirements for NMB Hi-Tech’s

two licenses were lifted effective

February 26, 1990, and November 19,

1990. Export requirements were

eliminated from two of Pelmec’s three

licenses, effective November 9, 1992.

However, because the BOI considers

some of the subject merchandise

produced by Pelmec under one of its

BOI licenses to be ‘‘ball bearings and

parts for general industry,’’ the export

requirement has not been eliminated

completely from its remaining license.

During the period of review, export

requirements were specified in most of

the companies’ licenses. Furthermore,

the subject merchandise constitutes one

class or kind of merchandise and export

requirements remain in place for certain

ball bearings subject to the

countervailing duty order.

Consequently, we preliminarily

determine that IPA benefits continued

to be tied to export performance for

manufacturers of subject merchandise

during the review period and are,

therefore, countervailable.

Pelmec, NMB Thai and NMB Hi-Tech

received benefits under three sections of

the IPA during the review period: IPA

Sections 31, 28, and 36(1).

Section 31: IPA Section 31 allows

companies an exemption from payment

of corporate income tax on profits

derived from promoted exports. Pelmec,

NMB Thai, and NMB Hi-Tech all

claimed an income tax exemption under

Section 31 on the income tax return

filed during the review period.

Section 28: Prior to the review period,

IPA Section 28 allowed companies to

import fixed assets free of import duties,

the business tax and the local tax.

However, effective January 1, 1992, the

RTG eliminated both the business and

the local tax and instituted a value

added tax (VAT) system.

According to Section 21(4) of the VAT

Act, if Section 28 benefits were granted

by BOI to a company before January 1,

1992, that company, when importing

fixed assets under Section 28, would

continue to be subject to the business

tax provisions under Chapter IV, Title II,

of the Revenue Code before being

amended by VAT Act. In accordance

with Section 21(4), the company would

be required to pay the business and

local taxes only if its BOI license

requirements were violated. Section

21(4) of the VAT Act applies to Pelmec,

NMB Thai, and NMB Hi-Tech because

all of their licenses were granted before

January 1, 1992, and contain Section 28

benefits. The respondents argued in

their questionnaire response that given

the provisions of the VAT Act and,

specifically Section 21(4), their

exemption from the business and local

taxes no longer constitutes a benefit to

the companies because: (1) No other

companies are required to pay the

business and local taxes, and (2) under

Section 21(4), payment of the business

and local taxes serves only as a penalty

for noncompliance with BOI license

requirements. We verified that under

the new VAT law, companies are no

longer required to pay business and

local taxes with the exception of the

noncompliance penalty noted above.

For these reasons, we preliminarily

determine that the business and local

tax exemptions under Section 28 no

longer constitute a countervailable

benefit for companies subject to Section

21(4) of the VAT Act.

However, under provisions of Section

21(4) of the VAT Act, companies that

were granted Section 28 benefits under

the IPA before January 1, 1992, are not

required to pay VAT on imports of fixed

assets. The respondents argued in their

supplementary questionnaire that this

exemption from VAT on imports of

fixed assets did not constitute a benefit

to the companies because all companies

are effectively exempted from VAT on

their imports of fixed assets. According

to the Section 82 of the VAT Act, the

VAT liability is computed by

subtracting the ‘‘input tax’’ (the VAT

paid) from the ‘‘output tax’’ (the VAT

collected). Consequently, companies

that pay VAT on imports of fixed assets

are effectively exempted from this VAT

payment as they receive a credit for the

VAT they paid on purchases of all

inputs, including imports of fixed

assets, when their monthly VAT

liability is computed. We examined this

issue at verification and through

questionnaires. We confirmed that

under the VAT system, companies

receive credit for the VAT paid on the

purchases of inputs and, as a result, no

VAT is effectively paid by companies on

these purchases. Since VAT liability is

computed on a monthly basis, any

possible time-value-of-money benefit

under Section 21(4) of the VAT Act in

the review would be insignificant. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine at

this time that the exemption of the VAT

on imports of fixed assets under Section

21(4) of the VAT Act does not constitute

a countervailable benefit to the

companies specified in Section 21(4). In

future administrative reviews, however,

the Department will continue to

examine provisions of the VAT Act,

including Section 21(4), to ascertain that

no countervailable benefits are being

provided to manufacturers of subject

merchandise.

Since the business and local tax

exemptions under Section 28 of the IPA

and the VAT exemption under Section

21(4) of the VAT Act do not confer

countervailable benefits to companies

subject to Section 21(4) of the VAT Act,

we preliminarily determine that only

the exemptions of import duties on

fixed assets under Section 28 of IPA

continue to provide countervailable

benefits to the respondent companies

which were all subject to Section 21(4)

of the VAT Act during the review

period.

Section 36(1): IPA Section 36(1)

allows companies to import essential

materials (nonfixed assets that are not

physically incorporated into the

exported good) free of import duties.

Pelmec, NMB Thai, and NMB Hi-Tech

all claimed such exemptions during the

review period.

To calculate the benefit from Sections

31, 28, and 36(1) of the IPA, we

followed the same methodology that has

been used in past administrative
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices 22565

reviews (see, e.g., 58 FR 16174, March

25, 1993; 57 FR 9413, March 18, 1992).

For Section 31, we calculated the

benefit by calculating the difference

between what each company paid in

corporate income tax during the review

period and what it would have paid

absent the exemption. We did this by

multiplying the corporate income tax

rate in effect during the review period

by the amount of each company’s

income that was exempted from income

tax. For Sections 28 and 36(1), we

calculated the benefit by obtaining the

amount of import duties that would

have been paid on the imports absent

the exemption. We then added all duty

and tax savings under all the IPA

programs and divided this aggregat

benefit by the total export value of the

subject merchandise. We then made the

adjustment for the parent company

mark-up discussed in the ‘‘Calculation

Methodology’’ section above. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine the

bounty or grant from IPA Sections 31,

28 and 36(1) to be 4.27 percent ad

valorem during the review period.

2. Electricity Discounts for Exporters

Electricity discounts for exporters

were terminated effective January 1,

1990. However, because government

authorities can defer action on company

applications for up to five years,

residual benefits are possible up to five

years after termination of the program.

Pelmec and NMB Thai received such

residual benefits during the review

period. We calculated the benefit

attributable to these residual benefits by

dividing the amount of the electricity

discount by the total F.O.B. export value

of subject merchandise. We then made

the adjustment for the parent company

mark-up discussed in the ‘‘Calculation

Methodology’’ section above. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine the

bounty or grant from residual electricity

discounts to be 0.02 percent ad valorem

during the review period.

3. Tax Certificates for Exporters

The RTG issues tax certificates to

exporters of record which are

transferable and which rebate indirect

taxes and import duties levied on inputs

used to produce exports. This rebate

program is provided for in the ‘‘Tax and

Duty Compensation of Exported Goods

Produced in the Kingdom Act’’ (Tax and

Duty Act).

The Thai Ministry of Finance

computes the value of the rebate rates

under the Tax and Duty Act based on

the Basic Input-Output Table of

Trailand (I–O table). Using this table,

the Ministry computes the value of total

inputs (both imported and domestic) at

ex-factory prices, and the import duties

and indirect taxes on each input. As

determined in the Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination and

Countervailing Duty Order: Ball

Bearings and Parts Thereof from

Thailand (54 FR 19130; May 3, 1989),

these rebates are countervailable only to

the extent that the remissions of duties

and taxes exceed those actually levied

on physically incorporated inputs.

Prior to 1992, there were two rates for

tax certificates, the ‘‘A’’ rate, which

rebated import duties and business

taxes, and the ‘‘B’’ rate, which rebated

only business taxes. Exporters of the

subject merchandise were eligible for

the ‘‘B’’ rate only. Because of their IPA

benefits, they were ineligible to receive

the ‘‘A’’ rate.

Effective January 1, 1992, as a result

of the adoption of the VAT, the ‘‘B’’ rate

was terminated and the ‘‘A’’ rate was

revised to rebate only import duties.

Accordingly, none of the companies

under review were eligible to apply for

or earn rebates under this program

during the review period. Based on

prior Department practice, we

countervailed the benefits under the Tax

Certificates program at the time the tax

certificates were earned. See, e.g., Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld

Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 55 FR

1695, 1699 (January 18, 1990). All tax

certificates received during the 1992

review period were earned in prior

years and were countervailed in prior

review periods.

At verification, we examined the

official announcement that terminated

the ‘‘B’’ rebate rate and we examined

individual company documentation

showing that none of the companies

earned ‘‘B’’ rate tax certificates.

Additionally, we confirmed with RTG

officials that the companies under

review are not eligible for the ‘‘A’’ rate

rebate. As no tax certificates were

earned during the review period, we

preliminarily determine that producers

of the subject merchandise received no

bounty or grant from the tax certificate

program during the review period.

4. Other Programs

We also examined the following

programs and preliminarily determine

that the exporters of the subject

merchandise did not apply for or

receive benefits under these programs

during the review period:

• Export Packing Credits

• Rediscount of Industrial Bills

• Export Processing Zones

• IPA Sections 33 and 36(4)

• Reduced Business Taxes for

Producers of Intermediate Goods for

Export Industries

• International Trade Promotion

Fund

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine the total bounty

or grant to be 4.29 percent ad valorem

for the period January 1, 1992, through

December 31, 1992. If the final results

of this review remain the same as the

preliminary results, the Department

intends to instruct the Customs Service

to assess countervailing duties of 4.29

percent of the F.O.B. invoice price on all

shipments from Thailand of the subject

merchandise exported on or after

January 1, 1992, and on or before

December 31, 1992. The Department

also intends to instruct the Customs

Service to collect a cash deposit of

estimated countervailing duties of 4.29

percent of the F.O.B. invoice price on all

shipments from Thailand of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of the final

results of this review.

Interested parties may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology and may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Case briefs or other

written comments from interested

parties may be submitted not later than

30 days after the date of publication of

this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal

comments, limited to issues raised in

the case briefs, may be filed not later

than 37 days after the date of

publications of this notice. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held seven days

after the scheduled date for submission

of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs

and rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with

section 355.38(e) of the Department’s

regulations.

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in event later than

the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR

355.38(c)(1994), are due. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal

brief, or at a hearing.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)(1994))

and 19 CFR 355.22(1994).
22566 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices

Dated: April 27, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix A

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review, ball

bearings, mounted or unmounted, and parts

thereof, constitute the following as outlined

below.

Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted, and

Parts Thereof

These products include all antifriction

bearings which employ balls as the rolling

element. During the review period, imports

of these products were classifiable under the

following categories: antifriction balls; ball

bearings with integral shafts; ball bearings

(including radial ball bearings) and parts

thereof; ball bearing type pillow blocks and

parts thereof; ball bearing type flange, takeup, cartridge, and hanger units, and parts

thereof; and other bearings (except tapered

roller bearings) and parts thereof. Wheel hub

units which employ balls as the rolling

element are subject to the review. Finished

but unground or semiground balls are not

included in the scope of this review. Imports

of these products are currently classifiable

under the following HTS item numbers:

8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00,

8482.91.00, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.70,

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40,

8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,

8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50,

8708.99.50.

This review covers all of the subject

bearings and parts thereof outlined above

with certain limitations. With regard to

finished parts (inner race, outer race, cage,

rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.), all such

parts are included in the scope of this review.

For unfinished parts (inner race, outer race,

rollers, balls, etc.), such parts are included if:

(1) They have been heat treated, or (2) heat

treatment is not required to be performed on

the part. Thus, the only unfinished parts that

are not covered by this review are those

where the part will be subject to heat

treatment after importation.

[FR Doc. 95–11257 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

Kansas State 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, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 94–142. Applicant:

Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

66506-5501. Instrument: IR Mass

Spectrometer System, Model 20-20.

Manufacturer: Europa Scientific, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 60

FR 442, January 4, 1995.

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) dual isotope capabilities

for carbon and nitrogen, (2) trace gas

analysis for CH4, CO2, N2O and (3) 13C

analysis in areas currently hindered by

limitations on 14C based analysis. The

National Institutes of Health advises in

its memorandum dated March 20, 1995

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. 95–11256 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

Yale University, et al.; Notice of

Consolidated Decision on Application

for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instrument

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 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 94–150. Applicant:

Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520.

Instrument: Stopped Flow Adaptor for

Optical Spectrometer, Model RX.1000.

Manufacturer: Applied Biophysics Inc.,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: See

notice at 60 FR 3394, January 17, 1995.

Docket Number: 94–151. Applicant:

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

Instrument: Multicollector System for

Mass Spectrometer. Manufacturer:

Finnigan MAT, Germany. Intended Use:

See notice at 60 FR 3394, January 17,

1995.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instruments, for the purposes for which

the instruments are intended to be used,

is being manufactured in the United

States. Reasons: These are compatible

accessories for existing instruments for

the use of the applicants. The National

Institutes of Health advises in its

memoranda dated March 22, 1995 that

the accessories are pertinent to the

intended uses and that it knows of no

comparable domestic accessories.

We know of no domestic accessories

which can be readily adapted to the

existing instruments.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–11255 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Increase of Guaranteed Access Levels

for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber

Textile Products Produced or

Manufactured in Guatemala

May 2, 1995.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs increasing

guaranteed access levels.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Aldrich, International Trade

Specialist, Office of Textiles and

Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,

(202) 482–4212. For information on the

quota status of these levels, refer to the

Quota Status Reports posted on the

bulletin boards of each Customs port or

call (202) 927–5850. For information on

embargoes and quota re-openings, call

(202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854).

The United States Government has

agreed to increase the 1995 Guaranteed

Access Levels (GALs) for Categories

340/640 and 347/348.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 59 FR 65531,

published on December 20, 1994). Also

see 60 FR 14931, published on March

21, 1995.