2378 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices

Houston, Texas, at the location

described in the application, subject to

the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations,

including § 400.28, and subject to a

restriction requiring that privileged

foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be

elected on all foreign merchandise

admitted to the subzone, as indicated in

the application.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of

December 1994.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–453 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On February 11, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

porcelain-on-steel cooking ware (POS

cooking ware) from Mexico. The review

covers two manufacturers/exporters of

this merchandise to the United States

and the period December 1, 1990

through November 30, 1991.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received and the corrections

of certain clerical and computer

program errors, we have changed the

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorenza Olivas or Rick Herring, 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 February 11, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 6616) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order (51 FR 43415)

on POS cooking ware from Mexico for

the period December 1, 1990 through

November 30, 1991. The review covers

two manufacturers/exporters, Acero

Porcelanizado, S.A. de C.V. (APSA) and

CINSA, S.A. de C.V. (CINSA). The

Department has now completed that

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of POS cooking ware,

including tea kettles, which do not have

self-contained electric heating elements.

All of the foregoing are constructed of

steel and are enameled or glazed with

vitreous glasses. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number

7323.94.00. Kitchenware currently

entering under HTS item number

7323.94.00.30 is not subject to the order.

The HTS item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. At the request of the

respondents, we held a hearing on

March 28, 1994. We received comments

and rebuttals from both respondents and

the petitioner, General Housewares

Corporation (GHC).

Comment 1: CINSA contends that the

Department incorrectly calculated

depreciation on a revalued cost basis.

CINSA states that since the Department

only uses revalued depreciation for

hyperinflationary economies, and

Mexico was not experiencing

hyperinflation during the review period,

the Department should use depreciation

expenses on an historical basis.

Petitioner responds that the

Department’s use of depreciation

expenses on a revalued basis in cases

involving hyperinflationary economies

does not mean that its practice is to

limit the use of depreciation expenses

based on a revalued basis to only those

cases involving hyperinflationary

economies. Petitioner furthermore

argues that, since CINSA reported its

depreciation on a revalued basis, as

required by the Mexican Generally

Accepted Accounting Principles

(GAAP), for its audited financial

statements, CINSA should also report

cost of production (COP) and

constructed value (CV) in this manner.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. The Department

followed Mexican GAAP and adjusted

CINSA’s COP data to reflect the

revalued depreciation. This approach

coincided with CINSA’s financial

statements which were also prepared in

accordance with Mexican GAAP. It is

the Department’s policy to adhere to the

home market GAAP as long as the home

market GAAP reasonably reflects actual

costs. Thus, Commerce has determined

that when a foreign country allows a

company to revalue its assets, as

opposed to relying upon historical cost,

and when a company reflects the

revalued basis in its financial

statements, it is appropriate to accept

the financial statements as reflecting

actual cost. See, Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular

Welded Nonalloy Steel Pipe From the

Republic of Korea (57 FR 42942;

September 17, 1992). See also, POS

Cooking Ware From Mexico; Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review (58 FR 43327; August 16, 1993)

(Mexican Cooking Ware Fourth Review

Final Results).

Comment 2: Assuming that the

Department should continue to rely on

the revalued depreciation expense as a

component of fixed overhead costs,

CINSA claims that the Department

incorrectly calculated its preliminary

COP adjustment. CINSA believes that

the ‘‘best information available’’ (BIA)

methodology used by the Department

grossly overstates the amount of

revalued depreciation expense, and is

not appropriate since the Department

can derive a suitable fixed overhead

expense factor from available

information provided in CINSA’s

responses of May 18, 1992 and June 18,

1993.

Petitioner, on the other hand,

contends that the use of BIA for

CINSA’s unreported depreciation is

justified and reasonable. The petitioner

asserts that CINSA did not provide the

Department with a complete and

accurate response to the COP

questionnaire.

Department’s Position: The

Department has reviewed the

information contained in CINSA’s

responses and found that adequate data

was available for a more accurate

calculation of COP. Therefore, BIA was

not required since the COP

questionnaire responses provided the

necessary information for calculating an

appropriate fixed overhead factor.

Accordingly, the Department has

revised the calculation of fixed

overhead based on information

contained in CINSA’s responses.

Comment 3: CINSA claims that the

Department incorrectly increased the

COP to account for mandatory profit
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices 2379

sharing payments made to its

employees. CINSA contends that these

payments are not related to the COP.

CINSA explains that these payments are

determined based upon the amount of

profit earned by the company and,

therefore, should be treated in the same

manner as income taxes and excluded

from COP. CINSA states that the

Department’s administrative precedent

excludes from COP and CV nonoperating expenses unrelated to the

production of the subject merchandise.

CINSA cites Television Receivers from

Japan (56 FR 56189 (1991)) where the

Department stated that ‘‘[I]n

determining the cost of the subject

merchandise, the Act does not provide

us with the authority to include income

or expenses that are unrelated to the

product’s manufacture.’’ CINSA further

states that if the Department does

include profit sharing in COP and CV,

the adjustment should be based on

information derived from the financial

statement of CINSA’s corporate parent

rather than information derived from

the financial statement of the operating

division.

Petitioner, on the other hand, states

that the Department correctly included

the profit sharing payments in its

calculated COP. Petitioner contends the

profitability of the company is derived

from production and is directly related

to production efficiency. Petitioner also

states that these payments are part of the

total compensation paid to employees

and should be treated no differently

than salaries and other employee

benefits that are directly related to

production.

Petitioner further contends that the

Department should base the profit

sharing expenses on CINSA’s financial

statements and not on CINSA’s parent

company, Grupo Industrial Saltillo, S.A.

de CV (GIS), since CINSA’s experience

more accurately reflects the profit

sharing expenses of the entity producing

the products. Furthermore, according to

petitioner, Mexican law requires that

certain companies make payments to

employees based on the profit of the

company. CINSA reported these

payments in its financial statements, but

excluded them in its COP and CV.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. Mexican GAAP

requires that the profit sharing costs be

reflected in a company’s financial

statement. The profit sharing payments

are mandatory according to Mexican

law. The payments represent

compensation to employees involved in

the production of the merchandise and

administration of the company.

Therefore, these payments are labor

costs related to the product’s

manufacture and are part of CINSA’s

COP for the subject merchandise. We

agree with petitioner that the

calculation should be based on CINSA’s

financial statements and not the parent

company’s financial statement in order

to capture the profit sharing costs most

closely attributable to the subject

merchandise. See, Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Market Value;

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Canada (58 FR

37099; July 9, 1993).

Comment 4: CINSA claims that the

Department improperly limited CINSA’s

short-term interest income that was

used to offset interest expense incurred

by its corporate parent. CINSA contends

that the Department’s current

administrative practice of limiting the

net short-term interest expense does not

reflect the economic reality of the

information in the financial statement.

Petitioner argues that the Department

correctly excluded net financial income

from CINSA’s COP and CV. The

petitioner contends that interest income

does not directly relate to the

manufacturing cost associated with the

production of the product. Petitioner

further states that using CINSA’s

methodology results in higher margins

for companies with long term

investments than for companies with

short-term investments.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. It is the Department’s

normal practice to allow short-term

interest income to offset financing costs

only up to the amount of such financing

costs. See, Frozen Concentrated Orange

Juice from Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review

(55 FR 26721; June 29, 1990); Brass

Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review (55 FR 31414; August 2, 1990);

and Final Determination of Sales at less

than Fair Market Value; Sweaters from

Taiwan (55 FR 34585; August 23, 1990).

The Department reduces interest

expense by the amount of short-term

income to the extent finance costs are

included in COP. Using total short-term

interest income in excess of interest

expense to reduce production cost, as

suggested by CINSA, would permit

companies with large short-term

investment activity to sell their products

below the COP. Accordingly, we limited

the amount of the offset to the amount

of the expense from the related activity.

Comment 5: CINSA and APSA argue

that the Department’s new methodology

of adjusting U.S. price and foreign

market value (FMV) for home market

value added tax (IVA) is contrary to law.

Respondent contends that by statute, the

Department is directed to add to U.S.

price ‘‘the amount of any taxes imposed

in the country of exportation’’ which

have not been collected by reason of

exportation of the merchandise to the

United States. 19 U.S.C. 1677a(d)(1)(C).

Furthermore, the statute expressly sets

the additions and subtractions that are

to be made and does not authorize

additional adjustment to those

adjustments. Respondents further argue

that Court of International Trade (CIT)

has ruled that the Department must

‘‘add the full amount of VAT [such as

IVA] paid on each sale in the home

market FMV without adjustment.’’ See,

Torrington Co. v. United States, 824 F.

Supp. 1095, 1101 (1993). Respondents

also argue that an adjustment to the

amount of IVA charged by CINSA on its

home market sales to parallel the

Department’s further adjustment to the

imputed IVA on the U.S. price is not a

circumstance-of-sale adjustment and,

therefore, is outside the scope of the

circumstance-of-sale provision, which,

according to respondents, is strictly

limited to differences in selling terms or

conditions. To support their argument,

respondents cite Zenith Electronics

Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573,

1581 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Zenith), where

the CIT held that the circumstances-ofsale adjustment does not encompass

adjustments for commodity taxes

specifically covered by section 1677A

(d)(1)(C). Respondents contend that,

although the Department claims to be

following Zenith by applying a

methodology that will not create

margins where none exist, the

Department’s tax adjustment is nothing

less than another attempt to achieve tax

neutrality. Respondents suggest that the

Department should not try to achieve

tax neutrality and should only add to

U.S. price the amount of the IVA tax

rate multiplied by the U.S. price, net of

discounts and rebates.

Petitioner does not oppose the

Department’s new methodology.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondents. Respondents’

suggested methodology would lead to

margin creation where none would

otherwise exist. Recent case law makes

it clear that there should be no margin

creation where no margin would exist

but for the imposition of a value added

tax in the home market. See, FederalMogul Corporation v. United States, 813

F. Supp 856, 864–5 (1993). While the

new methodology may not be

specifically authorized by the Act, the

Department has determined that it is

neither contrary to the spirit of the case

law, nor prohibited by the language of

the Act. As such, the methodology is

within the Department’s discretion.
2380 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices

The Department disagrees with

respondents’ assertion that this

methodology is contrary to Zenith. We

have acted reasonably in adopting the

methodology set forth in Federal-Mogul,

which was found by the CIT in FederalMogul to be consistent with Zenith, the

higher court holding. (See also, The

Torrington Co. v. United States Slip Op.

94–51 (CIT March 31, 1994), wherein

the CIT upheld the new methodology

for the value added tax adjustment

without comment). See also, Avesta

Sheffield, et al, v. United States, Slip

Op. 94–53 (CIT March 31, 1994).

Comment 6: CINSA states that the

Department failed to properly calculate

the amount of IVA in COP. CINSA

claims that the Department added the

IVA collected by CINSA on HM sales to

cost rather than the IVA incurred by

CINSA on the purchase of direct raw

materials, variable overhead and

packaging materials and reported in its

COP response.

Petitioner does not oppose the

Department’s methodology but suggests

that it would achieve the same

objectives by comparing the home

market sales with COP, exclusive of

IVA, as used in the prior administrative

review of this case. In the event the

Department adjusts the amount of tax

included in COP, petitioner notes that

the difference in the tax treatment

would yield a corresponding increase in

CINSA’s profit on home market sales.

Therefore, if the Department makes the

COP change requested by CINSA, the

Department must also increase profit for

CV to reflect CINSA’s reduced COP.

Department’s Position: Value added

taxes are paid on inputs and, therefore,

are costs incurred in production. Upon

the sale of the product, value added

taxes are reimbursed to CINSA by the

ultimate consumer. Any amount of tax

which is in excess of the amount

reimbursed is payable to the Mexican

government. The Department’s

calculations must reflect the economic

reality that CINSA does not receive a

benefit from collecting and paying IVA.

Therefore, because COP is compared to

home market price which includes the

entire IVA paid, to be neutral, our

calculations of COP must take into

account the entire IVA paid (a portion

of which is paid on the inputs, and the

remainder of which is due to the

government). The amount of tax is based

upon information reported in the home

market sales tape which includes both

components. See, Mexican Cooking

Ware Fourth Review Final Results.

Comment 7: CINSA argues that, in its

price-to-price comparison, the

Department incorrectly adjusted the

U.S. price to account for the assessed

countervailing duties. CINSA states that,

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677a(d)(1)(D),

the Department must add to U.S. price

any countervailing duties imposed on

the subject product to offset an export

subsidy. CINSA points out that for all

U.S. sales made between January 1,

1991 and June 5, 1991 the applicable

rate is 2.18 percent. Thus, for all U.S.

sales made between those dates, the

Department should add 2.18 percent to

U.S. price. Instead, the Department

limited the period in which that amount

was assessed from January 1, 1991 to

January 5, 1991.

Petitioner contends that the

Department is only required to add to

the U.S. price the amount of any

countervailing duty ‘‘imposed’’ to offset

an export subsidy. Petitioner states that

there has been no countervailing duty

imposed, because upon liquidation of

the entries at issue, CINSA will be

returned the ‘‘assessed amount.’’

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent and will make the

correction.

Comment 8: CINSA alleges that the

Department failed to make the several

corrections to information contained in

CINSA’s July 15, 1992, supplemental

submission, which was provided in a

timely fashion:

A. In its COP/CV computer file,

CINSA overstated the COP of certain

items by failing to divide the cost of

these items by four to reflect that four

items were contained in one package.

CINSA states that the Department

should make this division.

B. CINSA also overstated the weight

of article 1065910 by a factor of four. To

derive the per unit weight, CINSA

asserts that the Department must divide

the weight by the number of items

contained in the package.

C. Further, CINSA omitted the

weights in certain items reported in its

home market and U.S. sales tapes.

CINSA asserts that the Department

should include these corrected weights

in the computer tape, since the weights

are necessary to calculate the freight

charges attributable to both home

market and U.S. sales of these items.

D. CINSA reported the incorrect

number of units sold and the unit price

for one home market sale of item

number 1018001, and for one home

market sale of item number 1061701,

CINSA reported the incorrect unit price.

CINSA asserts that the Department

should make these corrections.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent. Since the above corrections

were submitted in a timely manner, we

will make those corrections where

appropriate.

Comment 9: CINSA asserts that the

COP data reported for item numbers

10158 and 19177 in its COP sales tape

submission were based on the cost of

producing two units and not based on

a single cost. Therefore, CINSA stated

that the Department should use the cost

information included in the submission

to derive the single unit COP for these

items.

Petitioner argues that there is no

evidence of this fact on the record to

support CINSA’s claim.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner. There is no evidence in the

administrative record satisfactorily

demonstrating that these two items were

not based on single unit costs.

Comment 10: Petitioner contends that

CINSA incorrectly weight-averaged

factory overhead included in the COP

and CV. Petitioner states that the

respondent weight-averaged using 13

months rather than the 12-month review

period.

CINSA replies that the methodology

employed for weight-averaging cost of

certain production factors is reasonable,

since any adjustment to this calculation

would have a de minimis impact on

CINSA’s COP and any final

antidumping margin.

Department’s Position: The

methodology used by the respondent is

inappropriate because the review period

covers 12 months, not 13. However, the

required adjustments to correct cost of

manufacturing would have an

insignificant impact on COP and no

impact on the margin. Therefore, the

Department did not adjust for the

miscalculation.

Comment 11: APSA claims the

antidumping duty margin reported in

the preliminary results published in the

Federal Register does not accurately

reflect the weighted-average margin

calculation released to counsel by the

Department in its disclosure documents.

Department’s Position: We agree and

have made the correction.

Comment 12: Petitioner contends

CINSA’s reported inland freight

expenses should be disallowed, since it

includes its factory-to-warehouse presale inland freight expenses. Petitioner

argues that factory-to-warehouse freight

charges incurred on home market sales

cannot be deducted as direct sales

expenses in purchase price comparisons

because those charges were incurred

prior to the date of sale. Petitioner cites

The Ad Hoc Committee of AZ–NM–TX–

FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement

v. United States, CAFC Opinion 93–

1239 (Jan 5, 1994) and Gray Portland

Cement and Clinker From Japan (59 FR

6614; February 11, 1994). The Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices 2381

held that the FMV value provision of

the antidumping statute does not

authorize a deduction from FMV for

pre-sale transportation costs within the

exporting country. According to

petitioner, if the Department cannot

separate home market direct movement

expenses from the home market indirect

expenses, then it must treat the entire

reported amount as home market

indirect expenses.

CINSA argues that petitioner

misinterprets the CAFC decision in Ad

Hoc Committee, claiming that the

CAFC’s decision was based solely upon

the Department’s stated rationale for its

decision, i.e.; the Department’s inherent

authority to fill gaps in the statutory

framework and to make ex-factory

comparisons in order to achieve an

‘‘apples to apples’’ comparison. Thus,

the CAFC’s decision did not decide if

any alternative authority existed under

which the Department could have

adjusted FMV for the pre-sale

transportation expense, including the

circumstance-of sale adjustment, which

is specifically authorized by statute and

regulation. Therefore, the Department

should not simply exclude pre-sale

transportation expenses from the FMV

calculation as suggested by petitioner,

but should be deducted from FMV

because such expenses are directly

related to the sale of the subject

merchandise in the home market.

According to CINSA, petitioner also

misstates the Department’s current

treatment of pre-sale selling expenses.

By assuming that CINSA’s pre-sale

transportation expenses to the

warehouses are indirect selling

expenses, petitioner asserts that the

entire transportation expense should be

disallowed because CINSA’s combined

indirect and direct transportation

expenses cannot be separated.

According to CINSA, its reported presale and post-sale transportation

expenses are both directly related

selling expenses and both equally

qualify as a circumstance-of-sales

adjustment.

Department’s Position: We have

concluded that, in light of the CAFC’s

decision in Ad Hoc Committee, the

Department no longer can deduct home

market movement charges from foreign

market pursuant to its inherent power to

fill in gaps in the antidumping statute.

We instead will adjust for those

expenses under the circumstance-of-sale

provision of 19 CFR 353.56 and the

exporter’s selling price (ESP) offset

provision of 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and

(2), as appropriate, in the following

manner.

When U.S. price is based on purchase

price, we only adjust for home market

movement charges through the

circumstance-of-sale provision of 19

CFR 353.56. Under this adjustment, we

capture only direct selling expenses,

which include post-sale movement

expenses. We will treat pre-sale

movement expenses as direct expenses

if those expenses are directly related to

the home market sales of the

merchandise under consideration. In

order to determine whether pre-sale

movement expenses are direct in this

case, the Department will examine the

respondent’s pre-sale warehousing

expenses, since the pre-sale movement

charges incurred in positioning the

merchandise at the warehouse are, for

analytical purposes, inextricably linked

to pre-sale warehousing expenses. If

pre-sale warehousing constitutes an

indirect expense, the expense involved

in getting the merchandise to the

warehouse also must be indirect.

Conversely, a direct pre-sale

warehousing expense necessarily

implies a direct pre-sale movement

expense. We note that although pre-sale

warehousing expenses in most cases

have been found to be indirect

expenses, these expenses may be

deducted from FMV as a circumstanceof-sale adjustment in a particular case if

the respondent is able to demonstrate

that the expenses are directly related to

the sales under consideration.

When U.S. price is based on ESP, the

Department uses the circumstance-ofsale adjustment in the same manner as

in purchase price situations.

Additionally, under the ESP offset

provision set forth in 19 CFR

353.56(b)(1) and (2), we will adjust for

any pre-sale movement charges which

are treated as indirect selling expenses.

Therefore, we requested that

respondent provide separate factory-towarehouse transportation expenses.

Based on the information provided, in

the final results, we deducted only the

post-sale transportation expenses in the

home market from FMV, since the presale warehousing and, thus, pre-sale

inland freight were not shown to be

directly related to the sales in question.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

determine the margins to be:

Manufacturer/

exporter Time period Margin(percent)

APSA .............. 12/01/90–

11/30/91

4.66

CINSA ............ 12/01/90–

11/30/91

27.96

The Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between U.S.

price and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit

rate for the reviewed companies will be

as outlined above; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a prior review, or the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV), but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be the rate established for the

most recent period for the manufacturer

of the merchandise; and (4) the cash

deposit rate will be 29.52 percent, the

‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation. See, Floral Trade Council

v. United States, Slip Op. 93–79, and

Federal Mogul Corp. v. United States,

Slip Op. 93–83.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

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 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 administrative review and notice

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

of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
2382 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices

Dated: December 21, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–450 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 123094A]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council’s Comprehensive

Management Committee will hold a

public workshop on January 24 and 25,

1995, at the Hyatt Regency Baltimore (at

the Inner Harbor), 300 Light Street,

Baltimore, MD 21202; telephone: (410)

528–1234. The workshop will take place

from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on

January 24, and from 8:30 a.m. until

12:00 noon on January 25.

The main objective of this workshop

is to present a framework of the

conceptual issues which must be

addressed in designing a multi-species/

multi-purpose fleet management plan,

i.e., define the problem so that all

stakeholders can discuss/debate it from

a common, agreed-upon point of view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David R. Keifer, Executive Director,

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE

19901; telephone: (302) 674–2331.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

meeting is physically accessible to

people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

Joanna Davis on (302) 674–2331, at least

5 days prior to the meeting date.

Dated: January 3, 1995.

David S. Crestin,

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries

Conservation and Management, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–408 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION

REFORM

Central Texas Roundtables

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on

Immigration Reform.

ACTION: Announcement of Commission

Roundtables.

This notice announces two

roundtables to be held by the U.S.

Commission on Immigration Reform in

Austin, TX on January 18, 1995. The

Commission, created by Section 141 of

the Immigration Act of 1990, is

mandated to review the implementation

and impact of U.S. immigration policy

and report its findings to Congress. An

interim report, U.S. Immigration Policy:

Restoring Credibility, was issued on

September 30, 1994; the final report is

due in 1997.

The roundtable participants will

include the Commissioners, researchers,

government officials, representatives of

local organizations, and other experts.

The first roundtable will examine the

economic and labor impacts of

immigration on Texas, with a focus on

the Austin-San Antonio area. The

Commission seeks to gain greater

understanding of the effects of

immigrants on the region’s labor market

(both high- and low-skill labor), the

impact of employment-based

immigration on high-tech industry, and

immigration in the context of NAFTA.

The second roundtable will focus on

the effects of immigration on social and

community relations in central Texas.

Issues involving absorption of

immigrants into the local community,

naturalization and civic participation of

immigrants, and the effect of immigrants

on public services will be addressed.

DATES: January 18, 1995.

TIME: 9:00 am–12:30 pm (Economic and

Labor Impacts); 2:00 pm–5:00 pm

(Social and Community Relations).

ADDRESSES: Hyatt Regency Austin on

Town Lake, Texas Rooms 6 and 7, 208

Baron Springs Drive, Austin, TX 78704,

512–480–2038.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Donnelly (202) 673–5348.

Dated: January 3 1995.

Susan Martin,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95–431 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–97–M

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Announcement of Import Restraint

Limits for Certain Cotton, Wool, ManMade Fiber, Silk Blend and Other

Vegetable Fiber Textiles and Textile

Products Produced or Manufactured in

the People’s Republic of China;

Correction

January 3, 1995.

In Vol. 59, No. 244 of the Federal

Register published on December 21,

1994 announcing levels for 1995, make

the following change:

On page 65761, column 3, add a

sublevel in Group III for Category 224–

V at a level of 3,310,294 square meters.

Rita D. Hayes,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 95–395 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

CNO Executive Panel; Closed Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given

that the Chief of Naval Operations

(CNO) Executive Panel will meet on

January 19, and 20, 1995, from 9:00 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., on each day at 4401 Ford

Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia. These

sessions will be closed to the public.

The purpose of the meeting is to

conduct discussions on strategies for an

uncertain future to include current

intelligence, information warfare, and

special access programs. These matters

constitute classified information that is

specifically authorized by Executive

order to be kept secret in the interest of

national defense and are, in fact,

properly classified pursuant to such

Executive order. Accordingly, the

Secretary of the Navy has determined in

writing that the public interest requires

that all sessions of the meeting be closed

to the public because they will be

concerned with matters listed in section

552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

For further information concerning

this meeting, contact: Timothy J. Galpin,

Assistant for CNO Executive Panel

Management, 4401 Ford Avenue, Suite

601, Alexandria, VA 22302–0268,

Phone: (703) 756–1205.