Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Notices 2739

S.A., et al. (Slip Op. 94–74, May 5,

1994). On September 14, 1994, the CIT

affirmed our redetermination (Slip Op.

94–142). In accordance with that

affirmation, we are hereby amending the

final results of the countervailing duty

administrative review of ceramic tile

from Mexico, covering the period

January 1, 1986, through December 31,

1986. During the above period, the

country-wide rate for ceramic tile for the

companies that are not de minimis is

4.02 percent ad valorem.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone:(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 9, 1989 (54 FR 19930), the

Department published the final results

of administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on ceramic

tile from Mexico, covering the period

January 1, 1986, through December 31,

1986. For purposes of the final results,

the Department calculated the ‘‘all

others’’ countervailing duty rate by

weight averaging the benefits received

by companies, excluding zero rate and

de minimis firms. The resultant

countervailing duty rate applicable to

non-de minimis firms was 4.28 percent

ad valorem.

On May 5, 1994, the CIT, in Ceramica

Regiomontana S.A. v. United States

(Slip Op. 96–74, May 5, 1994),

remanded to the Department for

redetermination the final results of this

review. The CIT ordered the Department

to ‘‘recalculate the country-wide

countervailing duty rate applicable to

non-de minimis firms by weight

averaging the benefits received by all

companies by their proportion of

exports to the United States, inclusive of

zero rate firms and de minimis firms

pursuant to the methodology set forth in

Ipsco v. United States, 899 F.2d 1192

(Fed. Cir. 1990).’’

Final Remand Results

On August 8, 1994, the Department

filed with the CIT its final results of

redetermination upon remand, in which

the Department complied with the CIT’s

order and recalculated the ‘‘all others’’

countervailing duty rate by weight

averaging the benefits received by all of

the 42 companies, including 36 de

minimis or zero rate firms subject to the

1986 review. The resultant ‘‘all others’’

rate of 4.02 percent ad valorem, which

included de minimis and zero rate

firms, was assigned to the remaining six

non-de minimis firms—Barros

Tlaquepaque, Ceramica Regiomontana,

Ceramica y Pisos Industriales de

Culiacan, Ima Regiomontana, Industrias

Intercontinental and O.H. Internacional.

Final Results of Redetermination

On September 14, 1994, the CIT

affirmed the Department’s

redetermination upon remand (Slip Op.

94–142). In accordance with that

affirmation, we are hereby amending the

final results of the administrative review

for the period January 1, 1986, through

December 31, 1986. We determined that

the ‘‘all others’’ countervailing duty rate

for companies that are not de minimis

is 4.02 percent ad valorem.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

countervailing duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

This notice is in accordance with

section 516(a)(e) of the Act.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–688 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

U.S. Geological Survey, 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: 94–124. Applicant:

U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO

80225. Instrument: Open Split Interface

Attachment for Mass Spectrometer.

Manufacturer: Finnigan MAT, Germany.

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: This is a compatible accessory

for an instrument previously imported

for the use of the applicant. The

accessory is pertinent to the intended

uses and we know of no domestic

accessory which can be readily adapted

to the previously imported instrument.

Pamela Woods,

Acting Director, Statutory Import Programs

Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–691 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

University of California, 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 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: 94–125. Applicant:

University of California, San Diego, CA

92121. Instrument: Seasor System.

Manufacturer: Chelsea Instruments Ltd.,

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 an instrument platform that

can be towed to depths of 400 m at

speeds to 10 knots with a dive/climb

rate to 2.5 m/second. A university

research department advised December

14, 1994 that (1) these capabilities are

pertinent to the applicant’s intended

purpose and (2) it knows of no domestic

instrument or apparatus of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument for the applicant’s intended

use.

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. 95–692 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F