Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 1995 / Notices 17053

BACKGROUND: Each year during the

anniversary month of the publication of

an antidumping or countervailing duty

order, finding, or suspension of

investigation, an interested party, as

defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended, may request,

in accordance with § 353.22 or 355.22 of

the Department of Commerce (the

Department) Regulations (19 CFR

353.22/355.22 (1933)), that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of that antidumping or

countervailing duty order, finding, or

suspended investigation.

OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST A REVIEW: Not

later than April 30, 1995, interested

parties may request administrative

review of the following orders, findings,

or suspended investigations, with

anniversary dates in April for the

following periods:

Period

Antidumping duty proceedings:

Canada: Sugar and Syrups, (A–122–085) ....................................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

France: Sorbitol, (A–427–001) ......................................................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Greece: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide, (A–484–801) .................................................................................................. 04/01/94–03/31/95

Japan: Calcium-Hypochlorite, (A–588–401) ..................................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Japan: Cyanuric Acid, (A–588–019) ................................................................................................................................ 04/01/94–03/31/95

Japan: Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide, (A–588–806) .................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Japan: Lenses, (A–588–819) ........................................................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Japan: 3.5′′ Microdisks and Media Thereof, (A–588–802) .............................................................................................. 04/01/94–03/31/95

Japan: Roller Chain, other than Bicycle, (A–588–028) .................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Kazakhstan: Ferrosilicon, (A–823–804) ........................................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Kenya: Standard Carnations, (A–779–602) ..................................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Korea: Color Television Receivers, (A–580–008) ............................................................................................................ 04/01/94–03/31/95

Mexico: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers, (A–201–601) ........................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Norway: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon, (A–403–801) ............................................................................................. 04/01/94–03/31/95

Taiwan: Color Television Receivers, (A–583–009) .......................................................................................................... 04/01/94–03/31/95

Ukraine: Ferrosilicon, (A–834–804) .................................................................................................................................. 04/01/94–03/31/95

Countervailing duty proceedings:

Argentina: Wool, (C–357–002) ......................................................................................................................................... 01/01/94–12/31/94

Argentina: Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat-Rolled Products, (C–357–005) ...................................................................... 01/01/94–12/31/94

Brazil: Pig Iron, (C–351–062) ........................................................................................................................................... 01/01/94–12/31/94

Malaysia: Carbon Steel Wire Rod, (C–557–701) ............................................................................................................. 01/01/94–12/31/94

Mexico: Leather Wearing Apparel, (C–201–001) ............................................................................................................. 01/01/94–12/31/94

Norway: Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon, (C–403–802) ............................................................................................. 01/01/94–12/31/94

Peru: Pompon Chrysanthemums, (C–333–601) .............................................................................................................. 01/01/94–12/31/94

Thailand: Rice, (C–549–503) ........................................................................................................................................... 01/01/94–12/31/94

In accordance with §§ 353.22(a) and

355.22(a) of the regulations, an

interested party as defined by § 353.2(k)

may request in writing that the

Secretary conduct an administrative

review. For antidumping reviews, the

interested party must specify for which

individual producers or resellers

covered by an antidumping finding or

order it is requesting a review, and the

requesting party must state why it

desires the Secretary to review those

particular producers or resellers. If the

interested party intends for the

Secretary to review sales of merchandise

by a reseller (or a producer if that

producer also resells merchandise from

other suppliers) which were produced

in more than one country of origin, and

each county of origin is subject to a

separate order, then the interested party

must state specifically which reseller(s)

and which countries of origin for each

reseller the request is intended to cover.

Seven copies of the request should be

submitted to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, Room B–099,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC 20230. The Department

also asks parties to serve a copy of their

requests of the Office of Antidumping

Compliance, Attention: John Kugelman,

in room 3065 of the main Commerce

Building. Further, in accordance with

§ 353.31(g) or 355.31(g) of the

regulations, a copy of each request must

be served on every party on the

Department’s service list.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Initiation

of Antidumping (Countervailing) Duty

Administrative Review,’’ for requests

received by April 30, 1995. If the

Department does not receive, by April

30, 1995, a request for review of entries

covered by an order or finding listed in

this notice and for the period identified

above, the Department will instruct the

Customs Service to assess antidumping

or countervailing duties on those entries

at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or

bond for) estimated antidumping or

countervailing duties required on those

entries at the time of entry, or

withdrawal from warehouse, for

consumption and to continue to collect

the cash deposit previously ordered.

This notice is not required by statute,

but is published as a service to the

international trading community.

Dated: March 29, 1995.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–8197 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–588–836, A–580–826, A–570–842, A–583–

824]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations: Polyvinyl Alcohol From

Japan, the Republic of Korea, the

People’s Republic of China, and

Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louis Apple or John Brinkmann at (202)

482–1769 or (202) 482–5288, Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
17054 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 1995 / Notices

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA).

The Petition

On March 9, 1995, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) received a

petition filed in proper form by Air

Products and Chemicals, Inc. (the

petitioner), one of three U.S. producers

of polyvinyl alcohol. Supplements to

the petition were filed on March 21 and

24, 1995.

In accordance with section 732(b) of

the Act, the petitioner alleges that

imports of polyvinyl alcohol from Japan,

the Republic of Korea (Korea), the

People’s Republic of China (PRC), and

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value within the meaning of section 731

of the Act, and that such imports are

materially injuring, or threatening

material injury to, a U.S. industry.

The petitioner states that it has

standing to file the petition because it is

an interested party, as defined under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 732(c) of the Act, as amended

by the URAA, requires that the

Department determine, prior to the

initiation of an investigation, that a

minimum percentage of the domestic

industry supports an antidumping

petition. A petition meets those

minimum requirements if (1) domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for at least 25 percent

of the total production of the domestic

like product; and (2) those domestic

producers or workers expressing

support account for more than 50

percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

The petitioner, one of three known

domestic producers of the domestic like

product, accounts for more than 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product as defined in the

petition. One producer has informed the

Department that it takes no position

regarding this antidumping petition.

Although the petition identified only

two U.S. producers of polyvinyl alcohol,

on March 29, 1995, the Department

received a statement from another

company indicating that it is a producer

of polyvinyl alcohol and that it opposes

the petition. A review of production

data reveals that the petitioner accounts

for more than 25 percent of the total

production of the domestic like product

and for more than 50 percent of that

produced by companies expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition. Accordingly, the Department

determines that this petition is

supported by the domestic industry.

Scope of the Investigations

The merchandise under investigation

is polyvinyl alcohol. Polyvinyl alcohol

is a dry, white to cream-colored, watersoluble synthetic polymer, usually

prepared by hydrolysis of polyvinyl

acetate. This product includes polyvinyl

alcohols hydrolyzed in excess of 85

percent, whether or not mixed or

diluted with defoamer or boric acid.

The merchandise under investigation

is currently classifiable under item

3905.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Export Price and Normal Value

Japan

Export price was based on a price

offered by a Japanese trading company

in late September 1994. The petitioner

adjusted the price for foreign inland and

ocean freight, storage and handling, U.S.

duties, and U.S. inland freight.

The petitioner based normal value on

the low end of a range of prevailing

domestic invoice pricing obtained from

a Japanese trading company. The

petitioner made adjustments to normal

value for home market inland freight,

trading company mark-ups and

differences between home market and

U.S. credit.

Based on a comparison of the export

price to normal value, the calculated

dumping margin is 77.49 percent.

Korea

Export price was based on the average

c.i.f. unit value of U.S. imports from the

Korea during November 1994. The

petitioner adjusted this price for foreign

inland and ocean freight expenses.

The home market price was based on

a letter from a Korean producer to a

home market customer, announcing an

increase from the price in effect during

the fourth quarter of 1994. The

petitioner adjusted the price in effect

prior to the increase for home market

inland freight.

The petitioner based the normal value

on constructed value (CV) because it

asserts that the Korean home market

price provided in the petition

represented sales that were made below

the cost of production (COP) and,

therefore, was not an appropriate basis

for calculating normal value.

The two components of COP are the

cost of manufacture (COM) and selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A). The petitioner calculated COM

on the basis of its own cost and

production experience and published

prices in trade publications for certain

chemical inputs, adjusted for known

differences in Korean costs. For SG&A,

including financial expenses, the

petitioner relied upon the financial

statements of the Korean producer of

polyvinyl alcohol.

The allegation that the Korean

producer is selling the foreign like

product in its home market at prices

below its COP is based upon a

comparison of the adjusted home

market price with the calculated COP.

Based on this information, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

were made at prices below COP in

accordance with 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. Accordingly, the Department will

initiate a cost investigation with respect

to Korea.

Therefore, for purposes of this

initiation, in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we are accepting

the petitioner’s estimate of CV as the

appropriate basis for Korean normal

value. The petitioner based CV on its

COP methodology, adding an amount

for profit and export packing to arrive at

a total CV. Prior to the amendment of

the Act by the URAA, the Department

used the greater of actual profit or an

eight percent minimum profit to

calculate CV. The URAA eliminated the

statutory minimum for profit. In the

petition, therefore, profit was calculated

on the basis of the Korean producer’s

financial statements, a method that is

consistent with the URAA amendments.

Packing was based upon the petitioner’s

own cost experience.

For Korea, based on comparisons of

export price to CV, the calculated

dumping margin is 187.43 percent.

People’s Republic of China

Export price was based on the average

c.i.f. unit value of U.S. imports from the

PRC during November 1994 and on a

sales call report from the same month.

In both cases, the petitioner adjusted the

starting prices for ocean freight and U.S.

credit. Because this is an export price

calculation, and because the Department

does not deduct direct selling expenses
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 1995 / Notices 17055

from the export price, we have

recalculated the petitioner’s export price

to remove the U.S. credit adjustment.

The petitioner asserts that the PRC is

an NME within the meaning of sections

771(18)(A) and (C) of the Act and in

accordance with section 773(c) of the

Act. Accordingly, the normal value of

the product should be based on the

producer’s factors of production, valued

in a surrogate market economy country.

In previous investigations, the

Department has determined that the

PRC is an NME, and the presumption of

NME status continues for the initiation

of this investigation. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Glycine from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 5620 (Jan. 30,

1995).

It is our practice in NME cases to

construct normal value from the factors

of production of those factories that

produced polyvinyl alcohol sold to the

United States during the period of

investigation.

In the course of this investigation, all

parties will have the opportunity to

provide relevant information related to

the issues of the PRC’s NME status and

the granting of separate rates to

individual exporters. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).

With the exception of two raw

materials, the petitioner based the

factors of production (i.e., raw materials,

labor, and energy) on its own

production process and usage

experience. For the two exceptions, the

petitioner made adjustments based on

its knowledge of differences in the

manufacturing processes in the PRC and

estimated the raw material consumption

and the amount of by-product based

upon its knowledge of the production

process of the other U.S. producer.

Profit, SG&A, and factory overhead were

based on rates calculated from a

financial statement that included the

chemical sector in India, published in

the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin

(September 1994).

The petitioner valued these factors,

where possible, on publicly available

published information from the

surrogate country it selected. India was

selected for the surrogate country

because it is the only non-industrialized

country listed in the Directory of World

Chemical Producers (1995/1996

Standard Edition) that the petitioner

knows is producing the merchandise

subject to investigation. Further, India’s

gross domestic product is comparable to

the PRC’s.

Indian packing costs are not included

in the valuation of the factors of

production because the petitioner was

unable to obtain the necessary

information. Factory overhead, SG&A,

and profit are based on the financial

statement for Indian chemical

producers, as published in the

September 1994 Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin.

Based on a comparison of the export

price to the factors of production, the

calculated dumping margins range from

139.82 to 183.72 percent.

Taiwan

Export price was based on the average

c.i.f. unit value of U.S. imports from

Taiwan during October 1994. The

petitioner made adjustments for foreign

inland and ocean freight expenses.

The home market price was based on

a domestic invoice from a Taiwanese

producer to a home market customer in

October 1994. The petitioner adjusted

this price for home market inland

freight.

The petitioner based the normal value

on CV because it asserts that the

Taiwanese home market price provided

in the petition represented sales that

were made below the COP and,

therefore, was not an appropriate basis

for calculating normal value.

The components of COP are COM and

SG&A. The petitioner calculated the

COM on the basis of its own cost and

production experience and published

prices in trade publications for certain

chemical inputs, adjusted for known

cost differences in Taiwan. For SG&A,

including financial expenses, the

petitioner relied upon the financial

statements of the Taiwanese producer of

polyvinyl alcohol. This producer

manufactures and sells products in

multiple industries. Since the petitioner

had submitted financial data for a

Taiwanese chemical producer whose

manufacturing activities are limited to

the chemical sector, we recomputed

SG&A using this data.

The allegation that the Taiwanese

producer is selling the foreign like

product in its home market at prices

below its COP is based upon a

comparison of the adjusted home

market price with the calculated COP.

Based on this information, we find

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales of the foreign like product

were made at prices below COP in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i)

of the Act. Accordingly, the Department

will initiate a cost investigation with

respect to Taiwan.

Therefore, for the purposes of this

initiation, we are accepting the

petitioner’s estimate of CV, as adjusted

by the Department, as the appropriate

basis for Taiwanese normal value. The

petitioner based CV on its COP

methodology, described above, adding

an amount for profit and packing to

arrive at a total CV. The Department

made the same adjustment to the

petitioner’s Taiwanese SG&A estimate

as in the COP calculation. The

petitioner calculated profit on the basis

of financial data for three Taiwanese

chemical producers, however only one

of these chemical producers

manufactured and sold solely chemical

products. Therefore, the Department

recomputed profit on the basis of the

financial data for the one company

whose operations were limited to

chemicals. This treatment of profit is

consistent with the URAA amendments.

Packing costs were based on the

petitioner’s experience.

For Taiwan, based on comparisons of

export prices to CV, the recalculated

dumping margins are in a range from

82.23 to 91.83 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioner, there is reason to believe that

imports of polyvinyl alcohol from Japan,

Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan are being,

or likely to be, sold at less than fair

value. If it becomes necessary at a later

date to consider the petition as a source

of facts available, we may review the

calculations.

Initiation of Investigations

We have examined the petition on

polyvinyl alcohol and have found that

it meets the requirements of section 732

of the Act, including the requirements

concerning the material injury or threat

of material injury to the domestic

producers of a domestic like product by

reason of the complained-of imports,

allegedly sold at less than fair value.

Therefore, we are initiating

antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of polyvinyl

alcohol from the PRC, Japan, Korea, and

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value. Unless extended, we will make

our preliminary determinations by

August 16, 1995.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, copies of the

public version of the petition have been

provided to the representatives of the

PRC, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. We will

attempt to provide copies of the public

version of the petition to all the

exporters named in the petition.

ITC Notification

We have notified the International

Trade Commission (ITC) of our
17056 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 4, 1995 / Notices

initiations, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by April 24,

1995, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of polyvinyl

alcohol from Japan, Korea, the PRC, and

Taiwan are causing material injury, or

threaten to cause material injury to a

U.S. industry. A negative ITC

determination will result in the

investigations being terminated;

otherwise, these investigations will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 732(c)(2) of the Act.

Dated: March 29, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–8193 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

A–588–823

Professional Electric Cutting Tools

From Japan; Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On August 24, 1994, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register (55 FR 39033) the notice of

initiation of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

professional electric cutting tools from

Japan. This review has now been

terminated as a result of the withdrawal

by the petitioner of its request for

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack

Dulberger or Maureen Flannery, 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) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 29, 1994, Black and Decker,

Inc., a U.S. manufacturer of professional

electric cutting tools, as an interested

party, requested an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on professional electric cutting tools

from Japan, for the period January 4,

1993 through June 30, 1994, pursuant to

19 CFR 353.22(a)(2) (1994). On August

24, 1994, the Department published in

the Federal Register (59 FR 43537) the

notice of initiation of that

administrative review.

Black and Decker timely withdrew its

request for review on October 24, 1994,

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). As a

result, the Department has terminated

the review.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–8194 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

University of Washington, 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: 94–153. Applicant:

University of Washington, Seattle, WA

98195. Instrument: Electron Microscope,

Model CM100. Manufacturer: Philips,

The Netherlands. Intended Use: See

notice at 60 FR 7168, February 7, 1995.

Order Date: April 30, 1994.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as this

instrument is intended to be used, was

being manufactured in the United States

at the time the instrument was ordered.

Reasons: The foreign instrument is a

conventional transmission electron

microscope (CTEM) and is intended for

research or scientific educational uses

requiring a CTEM. We know of no

CTEM, or any other instrument suited to

these purposes, which was being

manufactured in the United States at the

time of order of the instrument.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–8195 Filed 4–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Evaluation of State Coastal

Management Programs and National

Estuarine Research Reserve

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management, National Ocean

Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

DOC.

ACTION: Notice of intent to evaluate.

SUMMARY: The NOAA Office of Ocean

and Coastal Resource Management

(OCRM) announces its intent to evaluate

the performance of the Alaska and

Northern Marianas Islands Coastal Zone

Management Programs and the Old

Woman Creek (Ohio) and South Slough

(Oregon) National Estuarine Research

Reserve Programs.

These evaluations will be conducted

pursuant to Sections 312 and 315 of the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

(CZMA), as amended. The CZMA

requires a continuing review of the

performance of coastal states with

respect to coastal and estuarine

management. Evaluation of Coastal

Management Programs and National

Estuarine Research Reserves requires

findings concerning the extent to which

a state has met the national coastal

management objectives, adhered to its

Coastal Program or Reserve Management

Plan approved by the Secretary of

Commerce, and adhered to the terms of

financial assistance awards funded

under the CZMA. The evaluations will

include a site visit, consideration of

public comments, and consultations

with interested Federal, State, and local

agencies and members of the public.

Public meetings are held as part of the

site visits.

Notice is hereby given of the dates of

the site visits for the listed evaluations,

and the dates, local times, and locations

of public meetings during the site visits.

The Old Woman Creek National

Estuarine Research Reserve in Ohio

evaluation site visit will be from May

15–19, 1995. A public meeting will be

held on Wednesday, May 17, 1995, at 7

p.m., at the Old Woman Creek Visitor’s

Center, 2514 Cleveland Road-East,

Huron, OH.

The Commonwealth of the Northern

Marianas Islands Coastal Zone

Management Program evaluation site

visit will be from June 5–9, 1995. A

public meeting will be held on

Wednesday, June 7, 1995 at 7:30 p.m.,

in Saipan.

The Alaska Coastal Zone Management

Program evaluation site visit will be

from June 19–23, 1995. A public