Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Notices 27077

show that the response in issue was

provided with the intent to comply

with, further, or support an

unsanctioned foreign boycott.

The evidentiary record in this case

shows that it is not reasonably clear that

T&C’s purpose in responding was

boycott related. The legislative history

excerpted above notes that, in such

circumstances, illegal intent should not

be inferred or presumed. OAC’s witness

testified that the fact that the inquiry

originated from Saudi Arabian Customs

would in his experience suggest that the

inquiry was probably boycott related,

but he could not testify from personal

knowledge that the specific inquiry in

question was, in fact, boycott related.

(Transcript at 13–16.)

By contrast, T&C’s witness testified

that the inquiry was simply viewed as

a routine name clarification request, and

it did not occur to T&C that the inquiry

might be boycott-related.

(Transcript, at 96–98, 106–7.)

There is the fact, as I mentioned earlier,

that there were literally dozens of requests

that we get each year that people calling up

wanting to know if we are Town and Country

Diner, Town and Country Realty, Town and

Country Hairdressers, whether we are Town

and Country Chevrolet. It is spelled in

different ways. Sometimes it is T-o-w-n-e. At

one time we had a competitor in the tank

business who was our main supplier who

had the name of County Plastics. There was

some confusion to that being somewhat

similar to Town and Country Plastics.

Transcript, at 107.

In resolving the question of whether

T&C acted with the requisite intent in

favor of T&C, the ALJ relied heavily on

the credibility of the T&C testimony.

While not absolutely binding on me, the

ALJ’s findings regarding credibility are

entitled to great weight. Todd Pacific

Shipyards v. Director, OWCP, 913 F.2d

1426, 1432 (9th Cir. 1990); Carrier Corp.

v. N.L.R.B., 768 F. 2d 778, 782 (6th Cir.

1985). See, Universal Camera Corp. v.

N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474 (1951).

The Administrative Law Judge

distinguished the two incidents, noting:

[T]he present case differs significantly from

the events in 1984. In 1984, the inquiry was

issued from the Saudi Regional Israel Boycott

Office, a division of the Saudi Customs

(Agency Ex. 5). Both the office of origin and

the content of the questionnaire affirmatively

indicated a boycott relationship. By

comparison, the 1986 inquiry referred only to

the Saudi Arabia Customs Service and the

single inquiry referenced only a confusion of

names. The evidence presented by

Respondent establishes that such confusion

was routine because of the frequency of the

Town & Country prefix in the title of many

businesses. At the hearing many pages from

the nearby New York telephone directory

were introduced which show a great

proliferation of the name ‘‘Town & Country’’

among businesses, and Respondent Mr.

Mermel testified of frequent confusion by

mail and telephone respecting the name

(Emphasis added).

Initial Decision and Order, at 12–13.

T&C’s witness testified that he was

concerned with preserving the

company’s trademark in circumstances

where companies constantly confuse

T&C with similarly named entities. He

stated that he specifically thought the

reference to Saudi Customs had

something to do with billing for duties,

as he frequently encountered similar

problems with the U.S. Customs

Service. He averred that he would never

have answered the inquiry had he

suspected it to be boycott-related, as

demonstrated by his conduct in

reporting the 1984 incident that clearly

was boycott-related to the Department of

Commerce and in not answering the

inquiry. The witness also testified

concerning profound personal and

family reasons for not wanting to do

anything to comply with such

unsanctioned boycott.

(Transcript, at 92–98; Initial Decision, at

8–10.)

OAC has failed to advance reasons

sufficient for discounting the credibility

attributed to the T&C testimony by the

ALJ.

Accordingly, I AFFIRM the ALJ’s

finding that OAC did not meet its

burden of proof on the intent element.

b. Knowledge Element

The ALJ also based his decision on a

separate finding that OAC had failed to

meet its burden of proof on another

element of the violation charged.

Specifically, the ALJ found that OAC

failed to meet its burden of proof

regarding a showing that T&C knew or

believed that TCY was restricted from

having any business relationship in a

boycotting country, hereafter referred to

as the ‘‘knowledge element’’. OAC

argues that the ALJ misconstrued the

nature of the proof required on the

knowledge element.

Having decided that the ALJ should

be affirmed on account of his decision

relative to the intent element, however,

it is unnecessary to resolve the

controversy regarding the knowledge

element. Accordingly, I have decided

not to address that issue in this case.

Should a later case turn on that issue,

however, this office will not treat the

ALJ’s decision in this case as a

precedent and will resolve the issue on

the merits as presented in any later case.

Based on review of the administrative

record and for the reasons stated above,

the order of the ALJ dismissing the

charge against T&C is hereby affirmed in

part.

Dated: May 16, 1995.

William A. Reinsch,

Under Secretary for Export Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–12497 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 23–95]

Proposed Foreign-Trade Zone—Ocala/

Marion County, Florida; Application

and Public Hearing

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the Economic Development

Council, Inc. (of Ocala/Marion County)

(a Florida non-profit corporation), to

establish a general-purpose foreign-trade

zone at sites in Ocala and Marion

County, Florida. Designation of the

Ocala Regional Airport as a Customs

user fee airport is being requested under

a separate application to the U.S.

Customs Service. The FTZ application

was submitted pursuant to the

provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones

Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u),

and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR

Part 400). It was formally filed on May

15, 1995. The applicant is authorized to

make the proposal under Section

288.36, Florida Statutes Annotated

(1993).

The proposed zone would consist of

5 sites (3,634 acres) in Ocala/Marion

County: Site 1 (Ocala Regional Airport

complex—1,532 acres)—1770 SW 60th

Avenue, Ocala; Site 2 (Ocala Airport

Commerce Center—92 acres)—

intersection of SW 60th Avenue and

Highway 40, Ocala; Site 3 (Oaks

Industrial Center—225 acres)—Highway

40, 1 mile west of I–75, Ocala; Site 4

(Dunnellon/Marion County Airport and

Commerce Center—1,706 acres)—15072

SW 111th St, Dunnellon, Marion

County; and, Site 5 (Silver Springs

Shores Industrial Park—79 acres)—

County Road 464, Marion County. Site

1 is owned and operated by the City of

Ocala. Sites 2, 3 and 5 are privately

owned, and Site 4 is owned and

operated by the Marion County

Commission.

The application contains evidence of

the need for zone services in the Ocala/

Marion County area. Several firms have

indicated an interest in using zone

procedures for warehousing/distribution

of such items as laboratory equipment,

water meters, flow measuring

instruments, furniture and electronic

products. Specific manufacturing

approvals are not being sought at this
27078 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Notices

time. Requests would be made to the

Board on a case-by-case basis.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

As part of the investigation, the

Commerce examiner will hold a public

hearing on June 15, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.,

City Council Chambers, Second Floor of

City Hall, 151 SE Osceola Avenue,

Ocala, Florida.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is July 21, 1995. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to [75 days from date of

publication]).

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

during this time for public inspection at

the following locations:

Ocala Regional Library, Reference

Section, 15 SE Osceola Avenue,

Ocala, Florida 34471.

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room

3716, U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: May 15, 1995.

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12498 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

[A–485–804, A–791–803]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Circular Welded NonAlloy Steel Pipe From Romania and

South Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Beck at (202) 482–3464 or Jennifer

Stagner at (202) 482–1673, Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS:

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 Petitions

On April 26, 1995, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received

two petitions filed in proper form by

Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation,

Sawhill Tubular Division, LTV Steel

Tubular Products Company, Sharon

Tube Company, Laclede Steel Company,

Wheatland Tube Company, and Century

Tube Corporation (the petitioners),

seven U.S. producers of circular welded

non-alloy steel pipe. A supplement to

the petitions was filed on May 8, 1995.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioners allege that

imports of circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe from Romania and South

Africa 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 petitions because

they are interested parties, as defined

under section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petitions

Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act

requires the Department to determine,

prior to the initiation of an

investigation, that a minimum

percentage of the domestic industry

supports an antidumping petition. A

petition meets these minimum

requirements if (1) the 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) the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition 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 the production data

provided in the petitions and other

information readily available to the

Department indicates that the

petitioners 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 petitions. The

Department received no expressions of

opposition to the petitions from any

interested party. Accordingly, the

Department determines that these

petitions are supported by the domestic

industry.

Scope of the Investigations

For purposes of these investigations,

circular welded non-alloy steel pipes

(standard pipes) are all pipes and tubes,

of circular cross-section, not more than

406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside

diameter, regardless of wall thickness,

surface finish (black, galvanized, or

painted), end finish (plain end, bevelled

end, threaded, or threaded and

coupled), or industry specification

(ASTM, proprietary, or other) used in,

or intended for use in, standard or

structural pipe applications.

The scope specifically includes, but is

not limited to, all pipe produced to the

ASTM A–53, ASTM A–120, ASTM A–

135, ASTM A–795, and BS–1387

specifications. It also includes any pipe

multiple-stencilled or multiple-certified

to one of the above-listed specifications

and to any other specification such as

API–5L and API–5L X–42

specifications. Pipe produced to

proprietary specifications, the API–5L,

the API–5L X–42, or to any other nonlisted specification is included within

the scope of these investigations if used

or intended for use in a standard pipe

application, regardless of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) category into

which it was classified.

Standard pipe uses include the lowpressure conveyance of water, steam,

natural gas, air, and other liquids and

gases in plumbing and heating systems,

air conditioning units, automatic

sprinkler systems, and other related

uses. Standard pipe may carry liquids at

elevated temperatures but may not be

subject to the application of external

heat. Standard or structural pipe uses

also include load-bearing applications

in construction and residential and

industrial fence systems. Standard pipe

uses also include shells for the

production of finished conduit and pipe

used for the production of scaffolding.

These investigations do not cover: API

line pipe that is used in oil or gas

pipelines; mechanical tubing, whether

or not cold-drawn, that enters the

United States classified under HTSUS

7306.30.10 or 7306.30.50; tube and pipe

hollows for redrawing that enter the

United States classified under HTSUS

7306.30.50.35; and finished electrical

conduit that enters the United States

classified under HTSUS 7306.30.50.28.

The investigation does cover conduit