Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15897

Peaks Purchase Unit, 404 acres, more or

less, Monterey County, California; also

924.59 acres, more or less, were added

to the existing Sur Sur Purchase Unit,

Monterey County, California. Copies of

the establishment documents, which

include the legal description of the

lands within these purchases units,

appear at the end of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of

these purchase units was March 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the maps showing

these purchase units are on file and

available for public inspection in the

Office of the Director of Lands, Forest

Service, Auditor’s Building, 201 14th

Street, SW, Washington, DC. 20090–

6090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ralph Bauman, Lands Staff, Forest

Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090,

Washington, DC. 20090–6090, (202)

205–1248.

Sterling J. Wilcox,

Acting Associate Deputy Chief.

Leeds Island Purchase Unit

Douglas County, Oregon

Pursuant to the Secretary of

Agriculture’s authority under Section

17, P.L. 94–588 (90 Stat. 2949), the

Leeds Island Purchase Unit is being

created in Douglas County, Oregon. The

lands within the purchase unit are

described as follows:

Douglas County, Oregon, Willamette

Meridian

T. 21 S., R. 12 W.

Sec. 27: Pt. W1⁄2; SW1⁄4SE1⁄4

Sec. 28: E1⁄2E1⁄2

Sec. 34: E1⁄2W1⁄4; Lots 1, 2, 3

The area described contains 283 acres,

more or less.

These lands are well suited for

watershed protection and meet the

requirements of the Act of March 1,

1911, as amended.

Twin Peaks Purchase Unit, Monterey

County, California

Pursuant to the Secretary of

Agriculture’s authority under Section

17, P.L. 94–588 (90 Stat. 2949) a

purchase unit is being established and

is described as follows:

Monterey County, California, Mount Diablo

Meridian

T.18S., R.1E.

Sec. 2 N1⁄2

The area described aggregate 404 acres,

more or less, and are adjacent to the Los

Padres National Forest, California.

These lands are well suited for

watershed protection and meet the

requirements of the Act of March 1,

1911, as amended.

Sur Sur Purchase Unit Addition,

Monterey County, California

Pursuant to the Secretary of

Agriculture’s authority under Section

17, P.L. 94–588 (90 Stat. 2949) the

following described lands are being

added to the Sur Sur Purchase Unit

which was created May 21, 1993 (58 FR

35427):

Mount Diablo Meridian, Monterey County,

California

T. 24 S., R. 5 E.

Sec. 4: SE1⁄4SE1⁄4;

Sec. 9: Lot 2 except the westerly 700′

thereof measured at right angles to the

westerly line of said lot, Lot 3, Lot 4, Lot

5, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4

Sec. 10: NW1⁄4NW1⁄4; (215.93 ac)

Sec. 14: Lot 2, Lot 3, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4W1⁄2SE1⁄4

Sec. 23: Lot 1; (182.62 ac)

T. 24 S., R. 6 E.,

Sec. 31: Lot 5, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; (77.81 ac)

Sec. 32: Lot 1, Lot 2, W1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4,

NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; (448.23 ac)

The area described aggregates 924.59 acres,

more or less, and the lands are adjacent to

the Los Padres National Forest, California.

These lands are well suited for

watershed protection and meet the

requirements of the Act of March 1,

1911, as amended.

Dated: March 9, 1995.

Adela Backiel,

Deputy Under Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7614 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–428–810]

High-Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn

From Germany; 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 June 22, 1994, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of review of the

antidumping duty order on rayon

filament yarn from Germany. The

review covers the subsidiaries of one

producer/importer, Akzo Faser N.V. Its

subsidiaries are Akzo Fibers, Inc., in the

United States, and Akzo Faser A.G., in

Germany.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, and

the correction of clerical errors, we have

changed the final results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor,

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) 482–5831/

4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 29, 1993, Akzo Faser N.V.

and its subsidiaries (Akzo) requested

that the Department of Commerce (the

Department) conduct an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on high-tenacity rayon filament yarn

from Germany. We initiated the review,

which covers the period February 20,

1992 through May 31, 1993, on July 21,

1993 (58 FR 39007). On June 22, 1994,

the Department published the

preliminary results of the administrative

review (59 FR 32181). The Department

has now completed the administrative

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act).

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this

administrative review is high-tenacity

rayon filament yarn from Germany.

High-tenacity rayon filament yarn is a

multifilament single yarn of viscose

rayon with a twist of five turns or more

per meter, having a denier of 1100 or

greater, and a tenacity greater than 35

centinewtons per tex. During the review

period, such merchandise was

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item number

5403.10.30.40. The HTS item number is

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of

the product coverage.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received

comments from North American Rayon

Corporation (the petitioner) and the

respondent on July 22, 1994. We

received rebuttal comments from the

petitioner and the respondent on July

29, 1994. At the request of the

respondent, we held a public hearing on

August 5, 1994.
15898 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices

General Comments

Comment 1

Petitioner argues that significant

issues within this review could have

been resolved during a verification, and

challenges the accuracy of the dumping

margin because of the lack of

verification. Petitioner contends that

key issues addressed in the following

comments, such as Research and

Development expenses (R&D), General

and Administrative (G&A) expenses,

and restructuring costs, could have been

reconciled through verification.

Petitioner argues that the Department

should not assume that information

relating to these issues is accurate

simply because it was verified during

the investigation, as the issues and

calculations change between

investigations and reviews.

Akzo states that the absence of

verification does not undermine the

integrity of its responses, and that

verification was not required in this

review. Referring to the statute and

regulations, Akzo claims that

verification is required only if it was not

performed in either of the two

immediately preceding reviews and it

was requested by an interested party

within 120 days from publication of the

notice of initiation of the review. Akzo

contends that neither element was

satisfied in this review. Moreover, Akzo

asserts that it submitted all of its

responses with appropriate

certifications of accuracy and

completeness as required by statute and

regulation. Akzo cities Calcium

Aluminate Cement, Cement Clinker and

Flux from France (59 FR 14,136, 14,140,

March 25, 1994), as an example of the

Department’s verification practices.

Department’s Position

The Department agrees with

respondent that, in accordance with

section 776(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, in

conducting an administrative review,

the Department will verify all

information relied upon in making a

determination (1) if verification is

timely requested and no verification

was made during the two immediately

preceding reviews, or (2) if good cause

exists for verification. This

administrative review is the first review

of the antidumping duty order in this

case, and verification was not timely

requested. The Department has

undertaken verification for good cause

only in exceptional circumstances. In

conducting this review, the Department

determined that there was not good

cause for a verification. Section

776(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, and the

Department’s regulations do not require

verification under these circumstances.

See Tapered Roller Bearings, Finished

and Unfinished, and Parts Thereof,

From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (57 FR 4953, February 11, 1992),

and Calcium Aluminate Cement,

Cement Clinker and Flux from France

(59 FR 14136, March 25, 1994).

Comment 2

Petitioner argues that Akzo did not

provide cost data maintained in the

normal course of business; rather,

petitioner contends that Akzo generated

this data solely for purposes of this

review. Petitioner maintains that, with

respect to fixed costs, Akzo claimed that

differences between actual and standard

costs were not maintained in the normal

course of business. It is the petitioner’s

viewpoint that Akzo does maintain

records of actual costs for its fixed costs,

but has not provided this information.

Also, petitioner claims that Akzo did

not provide the information necessary

for the Department to calculate an actual

per-unit cost on a product-specific or

plant basis. Petitioner asserts that Akzo

instead provided the Department with a

plant-wide ‘‘variance’’ used to calculate

cost of manufacture.

Respondent states that it reported

actual costs by calculating the productspecific per-unit costs through the

application of plant-wide variances,

according to questionnaire instructions

and Departmental practice. Therefore,

respondent argues that the costs, as

reported, are correct and valid.

Department’s Position

We agree with Akzo, in that there is

no evidence that Akzo’s costs were

incorrectly reported. Akzo stated in its

questionnaire response that it based its

costs on the standard cost system used

in its normal course of business. As

Akzo explained in its rebuttal brief and

questionnaire submission, it based its

costs on the standard costs system, and

deviated from this basis only when

necessary to comply with certain

calculations as required by the

Department’s questionnaire. The plantwide variance was calculated as the

difference between total standard costs

and total actual costs of production. The

Department has accepted the use of

plant-wide variances in similar cases.

See Tapered Roller Bearings, Finished

and Unfinished, and Parts Thereof,

From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (57 FR 4956, February 11, 1992).

General and Administrative Expenses

Comment 3

Petitioner argues that the

extraordinary costs incurred by Akzo

Faser N.V. due to plant closure are not

fully reflected in the cost of

manufacture. Petitioner believes that the

Department handled these expenses

correctly when it reallocated all of the

industrial rayon-specific shutdown

expenses to the product under review.

The petitioner contends that Akzo has

two facilities in Germany which

produce the subject merchandise, and

that one of them was in the process of

closing during the period of review

(POR). Petitioner adds that such a

dramatic change in operations results in

higher product-specific costs. Petitioner

also contends that the methodology

used by the respondent virtually

eliminates these costs by allocating

them over all of the production of Akzo

Faser N.V.

Akzo states that it included the

extraordinary loss associated with the

plant closure in its reported G&A

expenses, using the methodology it used

in the less than fair value (LTFV)

investigation. See High Tenacity Rayon

Filament Yarn from Germany (57 FR

21773, May 22, 1992). Akzo argues that

it is inappropriate to allocate all of the

expenses of a plant closure solely to

industrial rayon yarn when such

expenses relate to the operations of the

entire corporation. Akzo also contends

that an expense can be applied solely to

rayon yarn operations only if it is not

extraordinary and, as a plant closure has

not occurred in years, this expense

qualified as ‘‘extraordinary.’’ Akzo cites

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from the Federal Republic of

Germany (54 FR 18992, 1976, May 5,

1989), as an example of the

Department’s practice regarding

extraordinary expenses.

Department’s Position

We disagree with Akzo’s

characterization of the plant closing

costs as extraordinary losses and with

the company’s contention that

extraordinary losses cannot be charged

specifically to the subject merchandise.

The fact that plant closings are

infrequent in occurrence does not

necessarily make the costs associated

with such events extraordinary. Nor

does it dictate how the Department will

treat these costs for purposes of

computing COP and CV.

Nonetheless, after further examination

of the record, it is not evident that the

plant closing losses reported by Akzo

relate solely to the company’s rayon
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15899

yarn production. Consequently, the

Department regards these costs as

general in nature rather than specific to

the subject merchandise. For the final

results, the Department has, therefore,

accepted Akzo’s plant closing cost

calculation which was based on an

allocation across all products

manufactured by the company.

Comment 4

Akzo disagrees with the Department’s

re-allocation of its G&A expenses in the

preliminary results. Akzo argues that

the Department should not have

disregarded Akzo’s submitted G&A

costs, which were allocated to different

groups based on specific allocation

methodologies.

Akzo states that the Department’s reallocation of G&A expenses across all

operations was not in accordance with

Departmental practices, and that the

ratios, as submitted by Akzo, are in

accord with Departmental practice and

case precedent. Akzo states that,

because of the organizational structure

and the integrated nature of its

operations across national borders, the

reported ratios are clearly more accurate

than any overall average ratios for Akzo

Faser. Akzo also states that the G&A

expense ratios it reported are in accord

with the audited financial statements of

Akzo N.V., and have been reconciled to

the audited financial statements.

Akzo argues further that the expenses

accumulated at each organization unit

do not relate to operations outside that

unit. According to Akzo, the

Department’s allocation methodology

attributes to Akzo Faser itself G&A

expenses incurred solely by Akzo Fibers

B.V. (an affiliate of Akzo Faser not

involved in the review). Akzo also

argues that if the Department follows its

position in Certain Hot Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Japan (58 FR 37154, July

9, 1993), it should reject Akzo’s

methodology only if the facts specific to

the situation indicate that the divisional

G&A expenses are not accurate.

Petitioner argues that the

Department’s recalculation of the G&A

expenses is the most accurate and

transparent method, and is in accord

with Akzo’s financial statement and the

Department’s standard practices.

Petitioner argues further that there are

discrepancies between Akzo’s threetiered G&A expense levels and Akzo’s

financial statements. Petitioner asserts

that the best methodology of measuring

G&A expenses is using Akzo’s financial

statements and not the tier methodology

that Akzo used for the response.

Department’s Position

We agree with the petitioner. Akso

submitted company-specific G&A

expenses based on a three-tiered

calculation methodology consisting of

the company’s business, divisional, and

corporate levels. Akzo’s G&A

calculation, however, did not reconcile

to Akzo Faser AG’s audited financial

statements. Nor did the Akzo’s

submitted G&A expense include

amounts for certain miscellaneous items

that were treated as G&A in the

company’s annual report. Because of

these inconsistencies, for the final

results, the Department computed

Akzo’s G&A expenses using the

company’s unconsolidated audited

financial statements and including an

amount representing an allocated share

of G&A incurred by companies related

to Akzo and involved in the production

of the subject merchandise. The

Department calculated per unit G&A

expenses for the subject merchandise

based on a factor derived as the ratio of

Akzo’s total G&A to the company’s cost

of sales. This method is consistent with

our past practice. See Certain Hot Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold

rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Japan; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value (58 FR 37154, July 9, 1993), and

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From

Brazil; Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value (52 FR 8329,

March 17, 1987).

Research and Development

Comment 5

Akzo disagrees with the Department’s

allocation of its R&D expenses over all

of its product lines, and asserts that a

product-specific breakdown of R&D

expenses would be more accurate and in

accordance with prior Department

decisions. Akzo allocates R&D expenses

on a product-specific or product-line

basis, according to the nature of the

research being performed. Akzo

explains that the vast majority of R&D

expenses listed in Akzo Faser AG’s

annual report are specifically related to

products other than industrial rayon,

and thus are not general in nature and

do not relate to all operations. Akzo

contends that it acted properly and in

accordance with precedent by not

allocating these R&D costs to subject

merchandise. Akzo cites Certain Hot

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Cold Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Flats From

France (58 FR 37125, July 9, 1993), and

Antifriction Bearings (Other than

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden,

Thailand, and United Kingdom (58 FR

39729, July 26, 1992).

Petitioner argues that the

Department’s recalculation of R&D

expenses in the preliminary results of

review was the most accurate and

transparent, and is in accord with

Akzo’s financial statement and the

Department’s standard practices.

Department’s Position

The Department agrees with Akzo.

The R&D expenses submitted by Akzo

were allocated on a product-specific or

product line basis, according to the

nature of the research being performed.

The methodology used to allocate the

R&D is that used in Akzo’s normal

course of business and reconciles to the

financial statements. Further, the

Department has accepted the submitted

methodology in similar cases. See

Certain Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products, Certain Cold Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products, Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products,

and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from France (58 FR 37125, July 9,

1993), and Antifriction Bearings (Other

than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Romania, Singapore, Sweden,

Thailand, and United Kingdom (58 FR

19729, July 26, 1992).

Foreign Market Value Adjustments

Comment 6

Petitioner disagrees with the

Department’s decision in the

preliminary results to allow an

adjustment to FMV for a third-party

payment. Petitioner contends that this

payment is based on the sale of a

further-manufactured product, rather

than the subject merchandise,

unprocessed yarn, which Akzo sells to

a converter. In the petitioner’s

viewpoint, the payment appears to have

no impact on the price of the

unprocessed yarn.

According to Akzo, it sells rayon in

the home market to a converter, who

alters the rayon yarn for a specific use

and then sells the rayon to a third party.

Akzo provides a rebate directly to this

third party. Akzo argues that, in the

preliminary results, the Department

treated the third-party payments in a

manner consistent with the final

determination of sales at LTFV in the

original investigation. Akzo asserts that

there can be no other purpose for the

third-party payment except to encourage

certain third parties to use the
15900 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices

respondent’s merchandise. Therefore,

Akzo contends that the third-party

payment represents a price decrease for

the third party, and that the payment

does have an impact on the price of the

yarn when sold to the first unrelated

party.

Department’s Position

We agree with respondent. Based

upon the record evidence for this

review, the Department has concluded

that these expenses should be

considered direct expenses to be

deducted from the FMV.

When making adjustments

attributable to differences in

circumstances of sale, it is incumbent

upon the Department to ensure that

such adjustments account only for those

expenses that have a direct impact upon

any existing U.S. and home market price

differentials. Section 773(a)(4) of the

Tariff Act states that an adjustment shall

be made only ‘‘if it is established to the

satisfaction of the administering

authority that the amount of any

difference between United States price

and foreign market value’’ is due to

differences in circumstances of sale.

Since Akzo’s third party payments

qualify as variable and reasonably

attributable to the subject merchandise,

Akzo met the Department’s criteria for

identifying whether an expense can

have a direct impact upon price.

Therefore, Akzo’s payments can qualify

as a circumstance of sale adjustment.

In the LTFV verification report, the

Department, indicated that:

Akzo makes payments to tire

manufacturers based upon their purchases of

Akzo-sourced yarn from converter-customers

of Akzo’s. The converters provided

additional finishing to the Akzo yarn.

Given that those expenses fluctuate

depending on a tire company’s

purchases from a converter and

correspondingly, such expenses would

not have been incurred were it not for

certain sales of the subject merchandise,

those payments are then considered

variable. Furthermore, the Department

is in agreement with Akzo’s assertion

that the third party payments are

primarily made as an inducement to

purchase responsent’s merchandise. In

this regard, these expenses are

promotional in nature and thereby have

a direct relationship to Akzo’s sales to

the converter.

As the respondent established its

claim to the adjustments with record

evidence, the Department will adjust

FMV for this expense in the final

results.

Differences in Merchandise

Comment 7

Petitioner argues that, if the third

party payment for the converted rayon

yarn (as discussed above in Comment 6)

is allowable, then a difference-inmerchandise calculation should be

conducted in order to compare the

converted rayon yarn (and not the

unprocessed rayon yarn) to similar U.S.

sales.

Akzo argues that a difference-inmerchandise calculation is not

warranted, as the merchandise, when

sold to the first unrelated party, is

subject merchandise; Akzo maintains

that it is only after sale to the first

unrelated party that the merchandise

undergoes further manufacturing.

Department’s Position

We agree with Akzo in that a

difference-in-merchandise calculation

would be necessary, in this case, only

when the product sold to the first

unrelated purchaser in the home market

differs physically from the product sold

in the United States. (See 19 CFR

353.57.) However, as the Department

determined that the third party payment

expense was directly attributable to the

subject merchandise and applicable as a

deduction to the FMV, a difference-inmerchandise calculation is unnecessary.

Ministerial Errors

Comment 8

The respondent asserts that the

Department made a clerical error with

respect to the extraordinary expenses of

Akzo N.V., in that the Department

calculated a ratio of extraordinary

expenses, denominated in guilders, to

the cost of sales, which is denominated

in Deutschemarks. Further, the

respondent asserts that the Department

should capture these costs at the

corporate level using the methodology

submitted in the response, and not at

the company level as the Department

did for the preliminary results. The

respondent states these costs relate to

the operations of the entire corporation

and not solely to industrial yarn.

While petitioner does not specifically

address this clerical error, petitioner

does state that it supports the

Department’s position of allocating the

plant closure expenses directly to the

product under review. Petitioner further

states that the Department has not fully

applied the actual cost of restructuring

Akzo’s yarn production facilities to

Akzo’s actual costs, and that the

calculations for G&A expenses

presented by Akzo were not useable.

Department’s Position

We agree with Akzo that we

calculated the ratio in two different

currencies. However, as discussed in

our response to Comment 3, we have

disregarded this ratio for these final

results, and have instead used Akzo’s

submitted plant closure costs and

extraordinary losses. Therefore,

although we agree with respondent, this

issue is moot.

We also agree with Akzo that its

extraordinary expenses should be

captured at the corporate level because,

as discussed in our response to

Comment 3, there is no evidence on the

record to indicate that the extraordinary

losses, as reported, relate solely to rayon

yarn. Therefore, we adjusted for the

expenses at a corporate level, and not at

a product-specific level. As Akzo

submitted its expenses at a corporate

level, no adjustment to its reported

plant closure and extraordinary losses

was deemed necessary.

Comment 9

The respondent asserts that the

Department made a clerical error with

respect to the foreign unit price in

dollars (FUPDOL) calculations, in that

the Department treated U.S. packing

costs as a Deutschemark per pound

expense, rather than a Deutschemark

per kilogram expense, and that the

Department should divide the reported

packing costs by the pounds-tokilograms conversion rate to arrive at

the correct unit amount.

Petitioner does not contest this

clerical error.

Department’s Position

We agree that the calculation should

be corrected to reflect the metric

measurement, and have changed the

calculation accordingly.

Final Results of Review

Based on our analysis of comments

received and the correction of

ministerial errors, we have determined

that a final margin of 0.56 percent exists

for Akzo for the period February 20,

1992, through May 31, 1993.

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between United

States price (USP) and FMV may vary

from the percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise,

entered or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Notices 15901

publication date of these final results of

administrative review, as provided by

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

deposit rate for Akzo will be 0.56

percent; (2) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in the

original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the rate published in the

most recent final determination for

which the manufacturer or exporter

received a company-specific rate; (3) if

the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the original investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit

rate will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

original investigation; and (4) the ‘‘all

others’’ rate will be 24.58 percent,

established in the LTFV investigation,

and in accordance with the

Department’s practice. See Floral Trade

Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp.

766 (2993), and Federal Mogul Corp.,

822 F. Supp. (1993).

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice services as a 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 this

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 also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with regulations and

the terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 16, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–7609 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

Department of the Interior, et al.;

Notice of Consolidated Decision on

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

This is a decision consolidated

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.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instruments described below, for such

purposes as each is intended to be used,

is being manufactured in the United

States.

Docket Number: 94–141. Applicant:

Department of the Interior, Menlo Park,

CA 94025. Instrument: SIR Mass

Spectrometer, Model PRISM.

Manufacturer: Fisons Instruments,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: See

notice at 60 FR 442, January 4, 1995.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides: (1) an adjustable

multicollector with four deep Faraday

buckets, (2) an electromagnetic sector

analyzer with a 50 cm dispersion and

(3) an online elemental analyzer.

Docket Number: 94–148. Applicant:

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of

Columbia University, Palisades, NY

10964. Instrument: Isotope Ratio-Gas

Source Mass Spectrometer, Model

PRISM. Manufacturer: Fisons

Instruments, United Kingdom. Intended

Use: See notice at 60 FR 443, January 4,

1995. Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides: (1) an adjustable

multicollector with four deep Faraday

buckets, (2) an electromagnetic sector

analyzer with a 50 cm dispersion and

(3) an automatic cold finger for samples

as small as 0.2 ml.

These capabilities of each of the

foreign instruments described above is

pertinent to each applicant’s intended

purposes. We know of no instrument or

apparatus being manufactured in the

United States which is of equivalent

scientific value to either of the foreign

instruments.

Frank W. Creel

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–7610 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

[C–549–501]

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes From Thailand:

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

circular welded carbon steel pipe and

tubes from Thailand. We have

preliminary determined the net subsidy

to be 0.73 percent ad valorem for Saha

Thai Pipe and Tube Company and all

other companies for the period January

1, 1992, through December 31, 1992. If

the final results remain the same as

these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. customs to assess countervailing

duties as indicated above.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Penelope Naas and Gary Bettger, Office

of Countervailing Investigations, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room B099, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–3534 or 482–2239, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 3, 1993, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (58 FR 41239)

of the countervailing duty order on

pipes and tubes from Thailand (50 FR

32751; August 14, 1985). On August 31,

1993, the respondents, the Royal Thai

Government (RTG) and Saha Thai Pipe

and Tube Company (Saha Thai),

requested an administrative review of

this order. We initiated a review of the

period January 1, 1992, through

December 31, 1992, on September 30,

1993 (58 FR 51053). The review covers

one manufacturer/exporter of the

subject merchandise and nine programs.

The final results of the last

administrative review in this case were

published October 9, 1991 (56 FR

50852).