7166 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 1995 / Notices

by a foreign exporter, U.S. importers

must provide a certification to the U.S.

government that specific commodities

will be imported into the U.S. and will

not be reexported except in accordance

with U.S. regulations. Once such

representations have been made, BXA

provides a copy of the certification to

both the foreign exporter and foreign

government. Should a violation occur,

this documentation can be used against

the violator.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for–profit organizations.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Don Arbuckle

(202) 395–7340.

Agency: Bureau of Export

Administration (BXA)

Title of Survey: Notification of

Commercial Invoices That Do Not

Contain A Destination Control

Statement.

Agency Form Number: N/A.

Requirements are found at 786.6 of

Export Administration Regulations.

OMB Approval Number: 0694–0038.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Burden: 21 hours.

Number of Respondents: 40.

Avg Hours Per Response: 30 minutes

for the reporting requirement and 1

minute for recordkeeping.

Needs and Uses: Commercial

invoices, bills of lading, and ther

shipping documentation contain

destination control statements that

indicate the appropriate disposition of

the goods or technical data. When a

forwarding agent finds the

documentation lacking, the agent is

required to notify the exporter of the

problem so that corrective action can be

taken.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for–profit organizations.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Don Arbuckle,

(202) 395–7340.

Agency: Bureau of Export

Administration (BXA).

Title: Defense Diversification Needs

Assessment.

Agency Form Number: None.

OMB Approval Number: 0694–0083.

Type of Request: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Burden: 4,200 hours.

Number of Respondents: 4,200.

Avg Hours Per Response: 1 hour.

Needs and Uses: Commerce is

conducting an assessment of defense

subcontractors in order to match

appropriate government resource

programs to the firm’s needs, that would

assist them in diversifying their

operations.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for–profit organizations.

Frequency: One time.

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Don Arbuckle,

(202) 395–7340.

Copies of the above information

collection proposals can be obtained by

calling or writing Gerald Tache ́, DOC

Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 482–

3271, Department of Commerce, Room

5327, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collections should be sent

to Don Arbuckle, OMB Desk Officer,

Room 10202, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

Dated February 1, 1995.

Gerald Tache ́,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 95–2997 Filed 2–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–CW–F

International Trade Administration

[A–428–811]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From Germany;

Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry

of Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of

anticircumvention inquiry.

SUMMARY: On the basis of a petition filed

with the Department of Commerce (the

Department), we are initiating an

anticircumvention inquiry to determine

whether imports of certain hot-rolled

lead and bismuth carbon steel products

from the Netherlands are circumventing

the antidumping duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from Germany (58 FR 15324

(March 22, 1993)).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas O. Barlow or Wendy J. Frankel,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 23, 1994, Inland Steel Bar

Company and USS Kobe Steel Company

(hereafter, petitioners) filed a petition,

pursuant to section 781(b) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended, (the Tariff Act)

and 19 CFR 353.29 (b) and (f),

requesting the Department to investigate

whether imports of certain leaded steel

products from the Netherlands are

circumventing the antidumping duty

order issued against certain hot-rolled

lead and bismuth carbon steel products

from Germany.

Petitioners allege that Thyssen AG, a

German steel producer, is shipping

leaded steel billets to its wholly-owned

subsidiary Nedstahl BV (Nedstahl),

located in the Netherlands, hot-rolling

the billets into bars and rods and then

exporting them from the Netherlands to

the United States. Petitioners assert that

Thyssen’s actions warrant an affirmative

determination of circumvention under

the Tariff Act.

On August 29, 1994, the law firm of

Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt filed

a letter of appearance on behalf of

Thyssen, and an application for

administrative protective order.

On December 9, 1994, petitioners

submitted additional information in

support of its allegation of

circumvention.

Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry

Section 781(b) of the Tariff Act and 19

CFR 353.29(f) authorize the Department

to include merchandise within the

scope of an existing antidumping duty

order if: (A) The merchandise imported

into the United States is of the same

class or kind as the merchandise subject

to the order; (B) before importation into

the United States, such imported

merchandise is completed or assembled

in a third country from merchandise

which (i) is subject to an order, or (ii)

is produced in the foreign country with

respect to which such order applies; (C)

the difference between the value of such

merchandise imported into the United

States and the value of the merchandise

from the country subject to the order

which was completed or assembled in

the third country is small, and (D) the

Department determines that action is

appropriate to prevent evasion of such

order.

In determining whether to include

merchandise assembled or completed in

a third country in an order, the

Department must take into account such

factors as; (a) the pattern of trade, (b)

whether the manufacturer or exporter of

the merchandise from the country

subject to the order is related to the
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.