Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices 10831

The petitions were submitted

pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341). Consequently,

the United States Department of

Commerce has initiated separate

investigations to determine whether

increased imports into the United States

of articles like or directly competitive

with those produced by each firm

contributed importantly to total or

partial separation of the firm’s workers,

or threat thereof, and to a decrease is

sales or production of each petitioning

firm.

Any party having a substantial

interest in the proceedings may request

a public hearing on the matter. A

request for a hearing must be received

by the Trade Adjustment Assistance

Division, Room 7023, Economic

Development Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230, no later than the close of

business of the tenth calendar day

following the publication of this notice.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance official program number and

title of the program under which these

petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Lewis R. Podolske,

Acting Director, Trade Adjustment Assistance

Division.

[FR Doc. 95–4899 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–24–M

International Trade Administration

[A–201–806]

Steel Wire Rope From Mexico;

Affirmative Final Determination of

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty

Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of affirmative final

determination of circumvention of

antidumping duty order.

SUMMARY: On June 3, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) preliminarily determined

that imports into the United States of

steel wire strand from Mexico, which

are assembled in the United States into

steel wire rope for sale in the United

States, were circumventing the

antidumping duty order on steel wire

rope from Mexico. The inquiry into the

possible circumvention of this order

covers one Mexican manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise, and

a related party in the United States. This

inquiry covers the period October 1,

1992, through September 30, 1993.

Interested parties were invited to

comment on the preliminary affirmative

determination of circumvention. We

received comments from only one party,

supporting the Department’s

preliminary affirmative determination of

circumvention. The findings of the

preliminary determination remain

unchanged; as a result, we have

determined that the respondent, Grupo

Camesa S.A. de C.V. and its United

States affiliate, Camesa Inc.

(collectively, Camesa), are

circumventing the order and that steel

wire strand produced in Mexico by

Camesa and imported into the United

States for use in the production of steel

wire rope falls within the scope of the

antidumping duty order on steel wire

rope from Mexico.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Frankel, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone:

(202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 3, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 29176) a preliminary affirmative

determination that imports into the

United States of steel wire strand from

Mexico were circumventing the order

on steel wire rope within the meaning

of section 781(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), and

19 CFR 353.29(e), and a subsequent

finding that the imported product

subject to the inquiry, steel wire strand

manufactured in Mexico, fell within the

order. Pursuant to this determination,

the Department instructed the U.S.

Customs Service (Customs) to suspend

liquidation of, and require cash deposits

on entries of, the imported product,

steel wire strand, manufactured in

Mexico. Interested parties were invited

to comment on this preliminary

determination. We received comments

from the petitioner, the Committee on

Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty

Cable Manufacturers (the Committee),

on July 5, 1994, supporting the

Department’s preliminary affirmative

determination of circumvention. No

other party submitted comments.

In accordance with section 781(e) of

the Tariff Act, the Department also

notified the International Trade

Commission (ITC) of its preliminary

determination that the imported product

fell within the scope of the order. In

response, the ITC notified the

Department that consultations between

the Department and the ITC regarding

the Department’s preliminary

determination were unnecessary.

The Department has now completed

this inquiry in accordance with section

781(a) of the Tariff Act.

Scope of Antidumping Duty Order

The product covered by the order is

steel wire rope, which is defined in the

Department’s antidumping duty order

on steel wire rope from Mexico as:

‘‘ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or

carbon steel, other than stranded wire,

not fitted with fittings or made up into

articles, and not made up of plated

wire.’’

During the period of this inquiry

(POI), such merchandise was

classifiable under subheadings

7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and

7312.10.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and for

Customs purposes. The Department’s

written description of the scope of the

order remains dispositive.

Scope of the Circumvention Inquiry

Products subject to this

circumvention inquiry are entries of

strand, which are defined as stranded

wire having a lay or twist of not more

than one revolution for a length equal to

the strand diameter multiplied by 8.5.

During the inquiry, such merchandise

was classifiable under subheading

7312.10.3020 of the HTS. The HTS

subheading is provided for convenience

and for Customs purposes. The

Department’s written description of the

scope of the inquiry remains

dispositive.

Nature of the Circumvention Inquiry

As set forth in our preliminary

determination, we examined whether

(A) steel wire rope sold in the United

States is of the same class or kind as

merchandise that is subject to the order;

(B) such steel wire rope sold in the

United States is completed or assembled

in the United States from parts or

components (i.e., steel wire strand)

produced in Mexico, the foreign country

with respect to which such order

applies; and (C) the difference between

the value of such steel wire strand

reffered to in (B) above, is small. Section

781(a)(2) of the Tariff Act further

provides that, in determining whether to

includes parts or components in an

antidumping duty order, the

Department shall take into account such

factors as (A) pattern of trade; (B)

whether the manufacturer or exporter of

the parts or components is related to the
10832 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Notices

person who assembles or completes the

merchandise sold in the United States

from the parts or components produced

in the foreign country with respect to

which the order applies; and (C)

whether imports into the United States

of the parts or components produced in

such foreign country have increased

after issuance of such order.

I. Statutory Criteria

Class or Kind, U.S. Assembly From

Components Produced in the Foreign

Country, and Difference In Value

Neither the Committee nor Camesa

challenged our preliminary

determination that the steel wire rope

sold in the United States was of the

same class or kind of merchandise as

that subject to the order and that the

subject steel wire rope was processed in

the United States from steel wire strand

produced in Mexico, the country to

which the antidumping duty order

applies. In addition, neither the

Committee nor Camesa challenged our

preliminary determination, based on the

best information available (BIA), that

the difference between the value of the

wire strand produced in Mexico and the

value of the steel wire rope sold in the

United States is small within the

meaning of section 781(a) of the Tariff

Act. Therefore, we affirm our

preliminary determination regarding

these three criteria.

II. Factors

Subsequent to our preliminary

determination, we did not request

additional information regarding the

pattern of trade, the relationship

between the parties, and the volume of

imports of steel wire strand. Neither

party challenged our preliminary

determination regarding these factors.

Based on our analysis of these factors,

we affirm our preliminary

determinations that (A) the data on the

pattern of trade indicate a shift from

sales in the United States of steel wire

rope produced in Mexico toward sales

of steel wire rope processed in the

United States from steel wire strand

produced in Mexico; (B) respondents

are related parties; and (C) imports of

steel wire strand into the United States

increased subsequent to the issuance of

the antidumping duty order.

Final Affirmative Determination of

Circumvention

Based on the foregoing analysis, we

determine that the respondent, Camesa,

is circumventing the antidumping duty

order on steel wire rope from Mexico.

The merchandise produced in the

United States, steel wire rope, is of the

same class or kind of merchandise as

that subject to the order, and is

completed from an intermediate product

produced in Mexico, the country to

which the order applies. Further, based

on BIA, we determine that the

difference in value between the

imported and finished products is

small. We also determine that the

pattern of trade, increase in imports of

the intermediate product, and

relationship between Grupo Camesa and

Camesa Inc., are consistent with an

affirmative determination of

circumvention. We note that our

analysis of the difference in value and

resulting determination of ‘‘small’’ in

this case are not necessarily

synonymous with such determinations

that the Department will formulate in

future circumvention inquiries since

Congress has directed us to make

determinations regarding the difference

in value on a case-by-case basis.

Based on this final affirmative

determination of circumvention, we

have determined that steel wire strand,

when manufactured in Mexico by

Camesa and imported into the United

States for use in the production of steel

wire rope, falls within the scope of the

antidumping duty order on steel wire

rope from Mexico. We will inform

Customs of this decision, and will

instruct it to continue to suspend

liquidation of, and require cash

deposits, at the applicable rate, on

entries of steel wire strand

manufactured in Mexico by Camesa.

No suspension of liquidation or

collection of cash deposits is required

for steel wire strand produced by other

manufacturers in Mexico. In addition,

no suspension of liquidation or

collection of cash deposits is required

for steel wire strand produced by

Camesa in Mexico that enters with an

end-use certificate certifying that the

steel wire strand will not be used for

processing into steel wire rope.

However, if this documentation is not

presented at the time of entry, the

merchandise produced by Camesa

should be subject to the applicable cash

deposit requirement.

Interested parties should be advised

that data and statements supporting the

exclusion of steel wire strand from this

antidumping duty order are subject to

verification by the United States

Government.

Interested parties may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice.

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibilities concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This final affirmative determination of

circumvention is in accordance with

section 781(a) of the Tariff Act (19

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

Dated: February 17, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–4900 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 950124027–5027–01]

RIN 0693–AB38

Intent To Develop a Federal

Information Processing Standard

(FIPS) for a Data Standard for Record

Description Records—Request for

Comments

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: NIST is considering the

development of a Federal Information

Processing Standard (FIPS) for the data

elements which, when taken together,

will describe information objects of

many different kinds, both electronic

and non-electronic. The standard would

apply to a wide range of informationcreating software products. It would

apply also to document management

and object repository software products.

Federal agencies would use the standard

in specifying many software products

used to create documents or information

objects (e.g., electronic mail systems),

and also when specifying document or

object storage and management software

products. This notice uses the word

‘‘record’’ as a broadly-encompassing

term to include ‘‘documents’’ and

‘‘objects,’’ regardless of media or

application.

The framework for this proposed FIPS

was developed by a working group of

the interagency Integrated Services

Panel, under the Federal Information

Resources Management Policy Council.

NIST solicits comments on the scope,

purpose, background, and rationale for

the proposed standard, and on certain

technical issues. After analyzing the

comments, NIST may propose a FIPS for

review and comment.

DATES: Comments on this effort must be

received on or before May 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Director, Computer Systems