Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices 3193

Antidumping duty proceedings Period to be reviewed

Canada:

Elemental Sulphur A–122–047

Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd., Petrosul International, Alberta Energy Co., Ltd., Husky Oil Canada, Ltd., Norcen Energy

Resources, Ltd 12/01/93–11/30/94

Mexico:

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware A–201–504

Esmaltaciones San Ignacio, S.A. Cinsa, S.A. de C.V 12/01/93–11/30/94

Japan:

Polychloroprene Rubber A–588–046

Denki Kaguku, K.K., Denki Kaguku Kogyo, K.K./Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd., Mitsui Bussan K.K., Showa Neoprene

K.K., Showa Neoprene K.K./Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd., Suzugo Corporation, Toyo Soda Mfg. Co., Ltd., Toyo

Soda Mfg. Co., Ltd./Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd 12/01/93–11/30/94

Taiwan:

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe A–583–815

Ta Chen 12/01/93–11/30/94

The People’s Republic of China:

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware A–570–506

Clover Enamelware Enterprise/Lucky Enamelware Factory, China National Light I/E Corp./Shanghai Branch/

Amerport (H.K.) 12/01/93–11/30/94

Countervailing Duty Proceedings

Mexico:

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware* C–201–505 01/01/94–12/31/94

* Two requests were received for an individual company review under 19 CFR 355.22(a)(2). The Department is currently reviewing these requests to ensure that they meet the requirements for an individual company review.

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protection orders in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b) and

355.34(b).

These initiations and this notice are

in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 353.22(c)(1)

and 355.22(c)(1).

Dated: January 9, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–969 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–475–801]

Antifriction Bearings From Italy; Notice

of United States Court of International

Trade Decision

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

SUMMARY: On October 20, 1994, in

Torrington v. United States, Slip Op.

94–167 (Torrington), the United States

Court of International Trade (CIT)

affirmed the Department of Commerce’s

(the Department) redetermination on

remand of the final results of the first

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on antifriction

bearings (other than tapered roller

bearings) and parts thereof from Italy, 56

FR 31751 (July 11, 1991). The CIT had

previously remanded the final results to

the Department for the reconsideration

of a number of issues. The CIT has now

entered final judgment on all issues.

The results covered the period

November 9, 1988, through April 30,

1990.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.

David Dirstine or Richard Rimlinger,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 8, 1993, the CIT in Torrington

v. United States, Slip Op. 93–125,

remanded the final results of the first

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on antifriction

bearings (other than tapered roller

bearings) and parts thereof from Italy to

the Department to: (1) Add the full

amount of value added tax (VAT) paid

on each sale in the home market to

foreign market value (FMV) without

adjustment; (2) treat certain of SKF

Industrie, S.p.A.’s (SKF) discounts as

indirect expenses unless the manner in

which they were reported met the

standard for treatment as direct

expenses; and (3) remove discounts paid

on SKF’s and FAG Cuscinetti S.p.A.’s

(FAG) out-of-scope merchandise or, if

not possible, disallow the discounts.

The Department submitted its results of

redetermination on remand to the court

on September 22, 1993. On December

10, 1993, in Torrington v. United States,

Slip Op. 93–234, the CIT again

remanded the case to the Department to:

(1) Apply Italy’s VAT rate to the United

States price (USP) calculated at the

same point in the stream of commerce

as Italy’s VAT is applied for home

market sales, and add the resulting

amount to USP; and (2) choose

appropriate best information available

(BIA) for the adjustment to FAG’s USP

for U.S. discounts and treat the

adjustment as a direct selling expense.

The Department submitted its

redetermination pursuant to this second

remand order on January 10, 1994. On

March 4, 1994, in Torrington v. United

States, Slip Op. 94–37, the CIT again

remanded the case for the Department

(1) to implement its new VAT

methodology and recalculate the VAT

pursuant to the partial final judgment

on the issue previously entered in the

case; (2) to determine and apply BIA for

the adjustment to FAG’s USP for U.S.

discounts; and (3) to determine whether

the Department has statutory authority

to adjust FMV, calculated using

purchase price, for FAG’s pre-sale

inland freight in light of Ad Hoc Comm.

of AZ–NM–TX–FL Producers of Gray

Portland Cement v. United States, 13

F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The

Department submitted its results of

redetermination pursuant to this third

remand order on May 17, 1994. On

October 20, 1994, in Torrington, the CIT

affirmed the Department’s results of

remand and entered final judgment on

all issues.

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (Timken), the United States Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held

that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1516a(e), the
3194 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices

Department must publish a notice of a

court decision which is not ‘‘in

harmony’’ with a Department

determination, and must suspend

liquidation of entries pending a

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s

decisions on July 8, 1993, December 10,

1993, and March 4, 1994, constitute

decisions not in harmony with the

Department’s final results. Publication

of this notice fulfills this obligation.

Pursuant to the decision in Timken,

the Department must continue the

suspension of liquidation of the subject

merchandise pending the later of the

expiration of the period for appeal or

the conclusion of any appeal. Further,

absent an appeal, or, if appealed, upon

a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision affirming

the CIT’s opinion, the Department will

amend the final affirmative results of

the first administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on antifriction

bearings (other than tapered roller

bearings) and parts thereof from Italy to

reflect the amended margins of the

Department’s redeterminations on

remand, which were affirmed by the

CIT.

Dated: January 9, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–968 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–307–807]

Ferrosilicon From Venezuela;

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) initiated an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on ferrosilicon from Venezuela. The

Department is now terminating this

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen McPhillips or John Kugelman,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C.

20230, telephone (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 24, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of initiation of administrative

review (59 FR 43537) of the

antidumping duty order on ferrosilicon

from Venezuela at the request of a

respondent, CVG-Venzolana de

Ferrosilicio, C.A. (Fesilven). This notice

stated that the Department would

review merchandise sold in the United

States by Fesilven during the period

December 29, 1992 through May 31,

1994.

Fesilven subsequently withdrew its

request for review on October 25, 1994.

Under CFR 353.22(a)(5) (1994), a party

requesting a review may withdraw that

request no later than 90 days after the

date of publication on the notice of

initiation. Because Fesilven’s

withdrawal occurred within the time

frame specified in 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5),

and no other interested party has

requested an administrative review for

this period, the Department is now

terminating this review.

This notice is published pursuant to

19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Roland L. McDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–970 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From

People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled.

ACTION: Addition to the Procurement

List.

SUMMARY: This action adds to the

Procurement List a service to be

furnished by nonprofit agencies

employing persons who are blind or

have other severe disabilities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase

From People Who Are Blind or Severely

Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403,

1735 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, Virginia 22202–3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Milkman (703) 603–7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 18, 1994, the Committee for

Purchase From People Who Are Blind

or Severely Disabled published notice

(59 FR 59757) of proposed addition to

the Procurement List. Comments were

received from the current contractor for

this service. The contractor indicated

that loss of the contract would have a

significant impact on its business

because it is concentrating on improving

its better performing contracts rather

than developing new business. The

contractor noted that it does employ

some people with disabilities, although

it questioned how the nonprofit agency

designated by the Committee will be

able to perform the switchboard and

information operations of this service

using people with severe disabilities.

The contractor noted that the

switchboard uses lights and sounds, so

sight and hearing capabilities are

required, and the switchboard

equipment requires dexterity to process

calls efficiently. The contractor

indicated that the small workroom

space does not promote the use of wheel

chairs or special equipment, and the

requirement to respond to emergency

calls makes the use of people with

mental disabilities inappropriate. The

contractor also expressed concerns that

addition of the service to the

Procurement List would dramatically

increase the Government’s costs to

acquire the same level of service the

contractor is providing, and it indicated

that its contacts with the nonprofit

agency showed the latter did not

understand the requirements of the

service.

This contract represents a very small

percentage of the contractor’s total sales.

Even considering the impact of another

switchboard service added to the

Procurement List in 1992 where the

commenting contractor also held the

contract and allowing for a possibly

greater impact because of the

contractor’s business plan, the level of

impact on the contractor does not

amount to a level which the Committee

considers to be severe adverse impact.

The Committee appreciates the fact

that the contractor has hired some

people with disabilities to perform this

contract. The nonprofit agency will

consider employing these people.

However, addition of the service to the

Procurement List will guarantee that the

service will be provided by people with

severe disabilities, while a competitive

contractor would be free to terminate its

disabled workers for any reason.

The nonprofit agency plans to use

people with physical disabilities to

perform the switchboard services. It has

taken into account the dexterity

requirement in its staffing plans. The

nonprofit agency will not hire anyone

who is totally blind or totally deaf. The

nonprofit agency considers the