Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 13961

Service to continue to suspend

liquidation of all entries of fresh cut

roses from Colombia and Ecuador, as

defined in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’

section of this notice, that are entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond on all entries equal to the

estimated weighted-average amount by

which the foreign market value of the

merchandise subject to this

investigation exceeds United States

price as shown in the table below. The

following is a list of all the final

margins, including the amended final

margins, in these investigations.

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin

percent

Colombia

Flores Mocari S.A. (and its related farms Cultivos Miramonte and Devor Colombia) ............................................................................ 2.86

Rosex (and its related farms Rosex Ltda. La Esquina and Paraiso Farms), Induflora Ltda., and Rosas Sausalito Ltda.) ................... 2.44

Grupo Prisma (and its related farms Flores del Campo Ltda., Flores Prisma S.A., Flores Acuarela S.A., Flores el Pincel S.A.,

Rosas del Colombia Ltda., Agropecuaria Cuernavaca Ltda.) ............................................................................................................. 0.00

Grupo Bojaca (and its related farms Agricola Bojaca Ltda., Universal Flowers, and Plantas y Flores Tropicales Ltda. (Tropifora)) ... 20.66

Caicedo Group (and its related farms Agrobosque, Productos el Rosal S.A., Productos el Zorro S.A., Exportaciones Bochia S.A. -

Flora Ltda., Flores del Cauca, Aranjuez S.A., Andalucia S.A., Inverfloral S.A., and Great America Bouquet) ................................. 15.07

Grupo Intercontinental (and its related farms Flora Intercontinental and Flores Aguablanca) ............................................................... 3.92

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.53

Ecuador

Arbusta-Agritab (and its related farms Agrisabe, Agritab, and Flaris) .................................................................................................... 4.01

Guanguilqui Agro Industrial S.A. (and its related farm Indipasisa) ......................................................................................................... 14.29

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.41

These amended final determinations

are published in accordance with

section 751(f) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.28(c).

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6403 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–549–811]

Final Negative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Disposable Pocket

Lighters From Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Graham, Office of

Countervailing Investigations, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–4105.

Final Determination. The Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

determines that no benefits which

constitute subsidies within the meaning

of section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), are being

provided to manufacturers, producers,

or exporters in Thailand of disposable

pocket lighters.

Case History

Since the publication of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register, 59 FR 40525 (August

9, 1994), the following events have

occurred.

On September 13, 1994, at petitioner’s

request, we extended the final

determination in this investigation to

coincide with the final determination in

the companion antidumping

investigation (59 FR 46961).

On November 3, 1994, respondents

requested that the Department postpone

the final antidumping and

countervailing duty determinations.

Therefore, on November 16, 1994, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice postponing the final

antidumping and countervailing duty

determinations until no later than

March 8, 1995 (59 FR 59211).

We conducted verification of the

responses submitted on behalf of the

Government of Thailand (GOT) and

Thai Merry Co., Ltd. (Thai Merry) from

October 17–18, and on October 28,

1994, respectively. We received case

briefs on February 23, 1995, from

petitioner and respondent, and received

a rebuttal brief from respondent on

March 1, 1995.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are disposable pocket

lighters, whether or not refillable, whose

fuel is butane, isobutane, propane, or

other liquified hydrocarbon, or a

mixture containing any of these, whose

vapor pressure at 75 degrees fahrenheit

(24 degrees Celsius) exceeds a gauge

pressure of 15 pounds per square inch.

Non-refillable pocket lighters are

imported under subheading

9613.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Refillable, disposable

pocket lighters would be imported

under subheading 9613.220.0000.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

References to the Countervailing

Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Request for Public Comments, 54

FR 23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed

Regulations), which were withdrawn on

January 3, 1995 (60 FR 80), are provided

solely for further explanation of the

Department’s CVD practice. The subject

matter of these regulations is being

considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

Injury Test

Although Thailand is not a ‘‘country

under the Agreement’’ within the

meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff
13962 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), the

merchandise being investigated is nondutiable under the Generalized System

of Preferences and Thailand is a

contracting party to the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Thailand, therefore, is entitled to an

injury test on imports of the subject

merchandise pursuant to section

303(a)(2) of the Act. On June 20, 1994,

the ITC preliminarily determined that

imports of the subject merchandise from

Thailand materially injure, or threaten

material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Period of Investigation

For purposes of this final

determination, the period for which we

are measuring bounties or grants (the

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’)) is

calendar year 1993.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon our analysis of the

petition, the responses to our

questionnaires, verification and

comments made by interested parties,

we determine the following:

A. Programs Determined to be

Countervailable

1. Section 31 of the Investment

Promotion Act

The Investment Promotion Act of

1977 (‘‘IPA’’) provides incentives for

investment to promote the development

of the Thai economy. The IPA

authorizes an array of tax exemptions

and exclusions. The IPA is administered

by the Board of Investment (BOI)

through promotion certificates. These

certificates list the various sections of

the IPA under which a company is

eligible to receive benefits.

Under section 31, companies may

obtain a three-to-eight year exemption

from payment of corporate income tax

on profits derived from promoted

activities, as well as deductions from

net profits for losses incurred during the

tax exemption period. The 1977 IPA Act

has been amended several times and, in

1991, the GOT passed the Investment

Promotion Act No. 2 of 1991. This 1991

Act was the law in effect during the POI.

Section 16 of this law states that eligible

activities for this exemption include

‘‘ * * * activities which involve

production for export.’’

We verified that Thai Merry applied

for and received section 31 income tax

exemptions during the POI. The

approval certificate received by Thai

Merry for participation in this program

states that ‘‘the company has received a

promoted status in the business for

production of gas lighters for export.’’

Because Thai Merry received these

benefits for exported lighters, we

determine that this program confers an

export bounty or grant. To calculate the

benefit for the POI, we divided the tax

savings by the total value of export

sales, pursuant to 355.47(c)(1)(ii) of the

Proposed Regulations (Countervailing

Duties: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Request for Public Comments, 54

FR 23366 (May 31, 1989)). On this basis,

we calculated a net bounty or grant of

0.23 percent ad valorem.

Because this is the only

countervailable program and the rate is

de minimis, pursuant to 19 CFR 355.7

(1994), we determine that no benefits

which constitute bounties or grants

within the meaning of the

countervailing duty law are being

provided to manufacturers, producers,

or exporters of disposable pocket

lighters in Thailand.

B. Programs Determined to be Not Used

We established at verification that the

following programs were not used

during the POI.

A. Industrial Estates/Export Processing

Zones

B. Preferential Short-term Loans Under

the Export Packing Credit Program

C. Tax and Duty Exemptions Under the

Investment Promotion Act (sections

28, 33, 34, 36(1), 36(2), 36(3) and

36(4)

D. Tax Certificates for Exporters

E. Rediscount of Industrial Bills

F. International Trade Promotion Fund

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Petitioner asserts that the

Department should countervail

government subsidies provided to two

plants which provide assembly services

under subcontract to Thai Merry. These

assembly plants are not owned by Thai

Merry, although the materials processed

in these facilities are the property of

Thai Merry. These assembly plants were

discussed in the course of the

antidumping (AD) verification, not in

the CVD verification. Petitioner believes

that because one of these plants

assembles safety-lock lighters, which are

only sold in the United States, the

facility may be benefitting from being

located in an export processing zone.

Petitioner asserts that unless respondent

can provide proof that these facilities

are not located in an export processing

zone, the Department should presume

that these plants receive subsidies and

that Thai Merry benefits from such

subsidies, and should apply a

countervailing duty rate to Thai Merry

based on BIA.

Respondent contends that petitioner’s

brief should be rejected due to the

inclusion of arguments based on

information not on the record of the

CVD investigation. (The fact that Thai

Merry subcontracted some assembly

operations to unrelated firms was only

raised in the AD investigation.)

Respondent emphasizes that the

Department verified that Thai Merry is

not located in an export processing zone

and that the company did not benefit

from this program during the POI.

Additionally, respondent asserts that

since the Department chose not to verify

the location of the subcontractor’s

assembly plants in connection with the

CVD verification, it would be unfair to

assign a margin to Thai Merry based on

BIA.

DOC Position: We consider

petitioner’s allegation untimely and,

therefore, have not considered its

allegation in this investigation. Pursuant

to § 353.31(c)(i) of the Proposed

Regulations, ‘‘the Secretary will not

consider any subsidy allegation

submitted by the petitioner or other

interested party, as defined in paragraph

(i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), or (i)(6) of section

355.2, later than: (i) In an investigation,

40 days prior to the scheduled date of

the Secretary’s preliminary

determination.’’ Petitioner first alleged

that subsidies could have been provided

to Thai Merry’s unrelated assembly

plants in its case briefs, 13 days prior to

the final determination.

We further note that section 355.39 of

the Proposed Regulations does not

apply in this case. Section 355.39

provides that if ‘‘the Secretary discovers

a practice which appears to provide a

subsidy with respect to the merchandise

and the practice was not alleged or

examined in the proceeding, the

Secretary will examine the practice if

the Secretary concludes that sufficient

time remains before the scheduled date

for the Secretary’s final determination or

final results of review.’’ In the context

of the companion AD investigation, the

Department verified that Thai Merry

subcontracts certain of its assembly

operations. The Department then

verified the location and function of

these plants, and the fact that Thai

Merry did not own these assembly

plants. However, in the context of this

proceeding, we did not discover ‘‘a

practice which appears to provide a

subsidy.’’ Therefore, the Department

would not have been obligated to

conduct an examination of the situation,

even had there been ‘‘sufficient time’’ to

do so.

We agree with respondents that it is

inappropriate to apply BIA to Thai

Merry based on an unsupported

allegation that subsidies may have been

granted to the assembly plants owned

by its unrelated subcontractor(s).

Petitioner has not made a sufficiently
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 1995 / Notices 13963

detailed allegation either that the

assembly plants received

countervailable benefits, or how such

countervailable benefits might be

accruing to Thai Merry through either of

these plants.

Petitioner has acknowledged that

these assembly plants are not owned by

Thai Merry. Petitioner has provided no

argument as to why the Department

should countervail alleged subsidies

provided to an unrelated subcontractor

of a company under investigation.

Therefore, we conclude that Thai Merry

did not benefit from this program.

Verification

In accordance with section 776(b) of

the Act, we verified the information

used in making our final determination.

We followed standard verification

procedures, including meeting with

government and company officials,

examination of relevant accounting

records and examination of original

source documents. Our verification

results are outlined in detail in the

public versions of the verification

reports, which are on file in the Central

Records Unit (Room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 705(d) of

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our

determination. Since we have

determined that no bounties or grants

are being provided to manufacturers,

producers or exporters of disposable

pocket lighters in Thailand, the

investigation will be terminated upon

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Hence, the ITC is not required

to make a final injury determination

with respect to this countervailing duty

proceeding.

Return of Destruction of Proprietary

Information

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

Administrative Protective Order (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 355.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act

and 19 CFR 355.20(a)(4).

Dated: March 8, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–6400 Filed 3–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 95–0222054–5054–01; I.D.

021495A]

RIN 0648–ZA15

Financial Assistance for Chesapeake

Bay Stock Assessments to Encourage

Research Projects for Improvement in

the Stock Conditions of the

Chesapeake Bay Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of funds.

SUMMARY: A total of $540,000 in Fiscal

Year (FY) 1995 funds is available

through the NOAA/NMFS Chesapeake

Bay Office to assist interested state

fishery agencies, academic institutions,

and other nonprofit organizations

relating to cooperative research units, in

carrying out research projects to provide

information for Chesapeake Bay Stock

Assessments through cooperative

agreements. About $180,000 of the base

amount is available to initiate new

projects in FY 1995, as described in this

announcement. NMFS issues this notice

describing the conditions under which

eligible applications will be accepted

and how NMFS will determine which

applications will be selected for

funding.

DATES: Applications for funding under

this program will be accepted until May

1, 1995, 6 p.m. eastern standard time.

Applications received after that time

will not be considered for funding. No

applications will be accepted by

facsimile machine submission.

Successful applicants generally will

be selected approximately 90 days from

the date of publication in the Federal

Register of this notice. The earliest date

for awards will be approximately 180

days after the date of publication in the

Federal Register of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Send applications to: M.

Elizabeth Gillelan, Division Chief,

NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, NMFS,

410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107A,

Annapolis, MD 21403.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M.

Elizabeth Gillelan, 410/267–5660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Authority. The Fish and Wildlife

Act of 1956, as amended, at 16 U.S.C.

753 (a), authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary), for the purpose

of developing adequate, coordinated,

cooperative research and training

programs for fish and wildlife resources,

to continue to enter into cooperative

agreements with colleges and

universities, with game and fish

departments of the several states, and

with nonprofit organizations relating to

cooperative research units. The

Departments of Commerce (DOC),

Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act of 1995

makes funds available to the Secretary.

B. Catalog of Federal assistance. The

research to be funded is in support of

the Chesapeake Bay Studies (CFDA

11.457), under the Chesapeake Bay

Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC).

C. Program description. The CBSAC

was established in 1985 to plan and

review Bay-wide resource assessments,

coordinate relevant actions of state and

Federal agencies, report on fisheries

status and trends, and determine, fund

and review research projects. The

program implements a Bay-wide plan

for the assessment of commercially,

recreationally, and selected ecologically

important species in the Chesapeake

Bay. In 1988, CBSAC developed a Baywide Stock Assessment Plan, in

response to provisions in the

Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987. The

plan identified that key obstacles to

assessing Bay stocks were the lack of

consistent, Bay-wide, fishery-dependent

and fishery-independent data. Research

projects funded since 1988 have focused

on developing and improving fisheryindependent surveys and catch statistics

for key Bay species, such as striped

bass, oysters, blue crabs, and alosids.

Stock assessment research is essential,

given the recent declines in harvest and

apparent stock condition for many of

the important species of the Chesapeake

Bay.

II. Areas of Special Emphasis

A. Proposals should exhibit

familiarity with related work that is

completed or ongoing. Where

appropriate, proposals should be

multidisciplinary. Coordinated efforts

involving multiple eligible applicants or

persons are encouraged. Eligible women

and minority owned and operated nonprofit organizations are encouraged to

apply.

Consideration for funding will be

given to applications that address the

following stock assessment research and

management priorities for the

Chesapeake Bay. These are listed in

priority order:

1. Design and development of a Baywide recreational survey for blue crabs.

This study should provide not only

estimates of blue crab harvest by

category (eg., hard, soft, peeler) and

associated effort, but also biological