Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Notices 7167

person in the third country who

completes or assembles the merchandise

that is subsequently imported into the

United States, and (c) whether imports

into the third country of the

merchandise from the order country

have increased after the issuance of

such order.

After taking into account any advice

provided by the International Trade

Commission (ITC), the Department may

include such imported merchandise

within the scope of such order at any

time such order is in effect.

Our analysis of petitioners’

submission according to the above

criteria leads the Department to

conclude that: (1) There is evidence that

leaded steel rod imported into the

United States from the Netherlands is of

the same class or kind as that covered

by the German antidumping duty order;

(2) the leaded steel rod imported into

the United States is completed from

leaded steel billets produced in

Germany, the country subject to the

antidumping duty order; (3) the

difference in value is arguably ‘‘small’’.

Petitioners’ evidence on the third factor,

combined with other evidence on the

record, provides a reasonable basis to

initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. In

the context of the inquiry, the

Department will determine whether

inclusion of such imported products

within the order is appropriate to

prevent evasion of the order.

Our analysis of the information in

petitioners’ submission leads us to

conclude that: (1) U.S. import statistics

evidence a shift in the pattern of trade

subsequent to issuance of the order; (2)

Nedstahl, the entity in the third country

who completes or assembles the

merchandise that is subsequently

imported into the United States, is 100

percent owned by Thyssen, the

manufacturer or exporter of the

merchandise from the country subject to

the order, and therefore, is related; and

(3) the data with respect to imports of

subject merchandise into the

Netherlands from Germany evidences

such an increase. Consideration of the

other factors identified above

strengthens petitioners’ position that the

order is being circumvented. For further

analysis, see Memorandum from Joseph

A. Spetrini for Susan G. Esserman,

dated January 29, 1995. Based on this

information, we are initiating an

anticircumvention inquiry of the

antidumping duty order on certain hotrolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from Germany, case number

A–428–811.

The Department will not suspend

liquidation at this time. However, the

Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to suspend liquidation

in the event of an afirmative preliminary

determination of circumvention.

This notice is published in

accordance with 781(b) of the Tariff Act

(19 U.S.C. 1677j(b)) and 19 CFR 353.29.

Dated: January 30, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–3001 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

The Ohio 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 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: 94–126. Applicant:

The Ohio State University, Columbus,

OH 43210. Instrument: Mass

Spectrometer, Model 215-50.

Manufacturer: Mass Analyser Products

Limited, United Kingdom. Intended

Use: See notice at 59 FR 59212,

November 16, 1994.

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) resolution to 600 daltons,

(2) abundance sensitivity of less than 1

ppm of 40Ar detected at 39Ar with an

analyzer pressure of 10-7 torr, (3) a

background M/e=36 of less than 5x10-14

cm3 STP and (4) an adjustable Faraday

collector for simultaneous ion

collection.

This capability is 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.

Pamela Woods,

Acting Director, Statutory Import Programs

Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–2999 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

University of Chicago, 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 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 94–135. Applicant:

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

60637. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model CM120. Manufacturer: NV

Philips, The Netherlands. Intended Use:

See notice at 59 FR 63762, December 9,

1994. Order Date: August 2, 1994.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as this

instrument is intended to be used, was

being manufactured in the United States

at the time the instrument was ordered.

Reasons: The foreign instrument is a

conventional transmission electron

microscope (CTEM) and is intended for

research or scientific educational uses

requiring a CTEM. We know of no

CTEM, or any other instrument suited to

these purposes, which was being

manufactured in the United States at the

time of order of the instrument.

Pamela Woods,

Acting Director, Statutory Import Programs

Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–3000 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

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), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instruments

shown below are intended to be used,

are being manufactured in the United

States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Applications may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
7168 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Notices

Docket Number: 94–153. Applicant:

University of Washington, Department

of Zoology, NJ-15, Seattle, WA 98195.

Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model

CM 100. Manufacturer: Philips, The

Netherlands. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used by three

departments to conduct various studies

of biological and other organisms. These

studies will include by are not limited

to the following: (1) analysis of

membrane biogenesis induced by

increased HMG-CoA reductase levels,

(2) analysis of embryonic and

regenerative neural development in

insects, (3) several studies of 5S RNATFIIIA and 42S RNP particles in the

oocyte, (4) research of extracts from

purified germ cells and mouse mutants,

(5) assessment of mechanisms that

coordinate cell cycle functions, (6)

questions concerning the

morphogenesis of glial cells and

neurons, (7) determination of whether

strain non-uniformities arise in muscle

cells subject to rapid length

perturbations, and (8) tracking of cells

in mitotic specific domains. Application

Accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

January 10, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–002. Applicant:

Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California, Water Quality Lab, 700

Moreno Avenue, La Verne, CA 91750.

Instrument: Mass Spectrometer, Model

Autospec. Manufacturer: Fisons, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument

will be used to identify unknown

organic compounds that are formed at

very low concentrations in drinking

water during disinfection processes and

to study the precursors that when

disinfected form the disinfection byproducts. While the main use of the

instrument will be in research

applications, it will be used periodically

for the education and training of

postdoctoral assistants and

undergraduate cooperative-education

students who are working on

disinfection by-product studies.

Application Accepted by Commissioner

of Customs: January 6, 1995.

Pamela Woods,

Acting Director, Statutory Import Programs

Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–2998 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 941244–4344]

International Standards and Trade

Support Program

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) plans

to set up a service to help U.S. industry

avoid or overcome non-tariff, technical

barriers to trade in many foreign

markets. Such barriers to trade are

caused by normative standards,

measurement standards, conformity

testing, and related practices. NIST has

operated such a program with great

success in Saudi Arabia for the past four

years. NIST plans to (1) support ITA,

USTR and voluntary standards

organizations such as ISO, IEC, ANSI,

and to cooperate with regulatory

agencies, certifiers, etc.; (2) place NIST

standards experts in critical markets; (3)

train and place local-hire NIST

standards representatives in developing

markets; (4) develop close contacts with

key authorities in foreign markets

through training, etc.; and (5) align its

program with the International Trade

Administration’s, where the Foreign

Commercial Counselors at U.S.

Embassies assist U.S. companies to

overcome specific standards-related

non-tariff trade barriers. NIST is

interested in industry cooperation and

invites responses about countries and

types of technical barriers to trade to be

addressed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please address all communications to

Dr. Peter L.M. Heydemann, Director,

Technology Services, National Institute

of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899; phone (301)

975–4500; FAX (301) 975–2183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST

plans to address problems in the

European Union, the ten ‘‘big emerging

markets’’ (BEMs) defined by Under

Secretary Jeffrey Garten, Russia and

certain of the Newly Independent States

(NIS). The ten BEMs are Mexico, China,

Indonesia, India, South Korea,

Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey,

and Poland.

The strategy of the program will be to

develop close, personal contacts

between NIST staff and key officials in

foreign markets who can influence

standards-related non-tariff trade

barriers. These contacts will help NIST

to negotiate changes from a basis of

mutual trust and confidence. One means

to develop these contacts are training/

information courses that NIST will

present in the United States and in

foreign markets. NIST will involve a

variety of federal authorities, ANSI and

other voluntary standards organizations,

State Weights and Measures offices, and

selected private enterprises in these

efforts. NIST standards experts and

standards representatives placed in the

foreign markets will follow up and help

to further develop and maintain these

contacts. Their range of contacts will be

different but complementary to that of

the Foreign Commercial Counselors.

They will be able to collect additional

information on these markets, on

planned standards and test methods,

and on newly appointed officials.

The purpose of the program is to

enhance U.S. exports by assisting U.S.

manufacturers to overcome or avoid

standards-related, non-tariff trade

barriers (NTBs), especially technical

barriers to trade (TBTs), and by

facilitating negotiation of mutual

recognition agreements for conformance

testing. TBTs, whether or not

established intentionally by our trading

partners, limit U.S. manufacturers’

access to export markets and often cause

large expenses to exporters when testing

of conformance to the standards of one

or more receiving countries is required,

when tests need to be performed in the

buyer’s country, or, more generally,

through the inevitable delay connected

with conformance testing and

certification. TBTs result from

disparities between standards and

conformity assessment practices in the

United States and in its trading partners:

Foreign national, regional, or international

standards may not reflect the latest U.S.

technology and technical practice. In some

cases, this is due to lack of U.S. influence in

the development of international standards,

where European practice prevails in certain

technical areas due to the extensive

participation of European Authorities and, in

some cases, due to bloc voting by European

national standards bodies. In many cases, the

United States has had limited opportunity to

influence standards development of

importing countries or regions.

Differences in testing and certification

requirements in other countries frequently

pose obstacles to U.S. exports. If Mutual

Recognition Agreements (MRA) for

conformance testing are not in place and test

data generated in the United States are not

accepted in a foreign country, U.S. exporters

must duplicate costly and time-consuming

approval and certification procedures in the

foreign country to meet regulatory

requirements for product acceptance.

Agreements on the mutual recognition of

conformance testing are often difficult to

obtain and even more difficult to enforce.

Foreign standards and conformity assessment

rules are often complex and detailed, and