Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices 19045

respondent asserts that its allocation

methodology is not distortive or

inaccurate. Finally, respondent notes

that the Department reviewed Giant’s

interest revenue calculation at

verification and found no discrepancies.

DOC Position: We found that Giant’s

record keeping system does not readily

allow Giant’s to report transactionspecific interest revenue. Therefore, we

are allocating interest revenue only to

those sales with no early payment

discounts. Regarding bad debt expense,

we agree with respondents that it was

correctly reported as an indirect selling

expense. We recommend making no

adjustment to bad debt.

Overlord

Comment 38: Declaration Fees

At verification, we found that

Overlord under-reported declaration

fees paid to the Hong Kong government

on U.S. shipments of bicycles through

Hong Kong. Petitioners contend that the

Department should increase the

reported expenses by the average

percentage by which the fees were

under-reported.

DOC Position: We agree and have

made the appropriate calculations for

purposes of the final determination.

Universal

Comment 39: Methodology for

Reporting Prices of Market-Economy

Inputs

According to the petitioners,

Universal’s price reporting methodology

is unacceptable. Based on Universal’s

unwillingness to provide information

prior to the verification regarding the

methodology it used to derive marketeconomy prices, and the inaccuracies

discovered during the Department’s

price variation tests and component

traces, the petitioners propose that, as

facts available, the Department increase

prices for all market-sourced

components by the greatest disparity

between reported and verified prices in

the price variation tests.

Universal argues that the Department

should not increase the prices reported

for market-economy inputs because the

majority of the input prices examined

by the Department were accurately

reported and the few discrepancies

noted by the Department were only

minor errors. Additionally, Universal

contends that its reported prices are

already overstated because these prices

are charged by Universal’s affiliated

supplier. Universal maintains the

Department verified that reported

component prices, which are charged by

Universal’s affiliated supplier, are more

than the prices the affiliated supplier

pays to purchase those components

from unrelated suppliers.

DOC Position: Universal failed to

report the weight-average price of

market-economy inputs purchased

during the POI. Rather, Universal

reported market-economy prices based

on selected invoices which company

officials considered to be representative

of the prices paid during the POI.

According to Universal officials, the

company employed this reporting

methodology because during the POI

prices for most components remained

stable. We tested ten components and

found that four were under-reported by

a small percentage. We disagree with

petitioners that we should increase all

of Universal’s prices by the largest

observed variation. This situation does

not warrant the use of adverse acts

available. Rather, as facts available, we

applied the average variance to all

purchases. See, Concurrence Memo for

Final Determination.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

For Bo An, Giant, Hua Chin, and

Overlord, we calculated a zero or de

minimis margin. Consistent the with

Pencils, merchandise that is sold by

these producers but manufactured by

other producers will not receive the zero

margin. Instead, such entries will be

subject to the ‘‘PRC-wide’’ margin.

In accordance with section 733(d)(1)

of the Act and 735(c)(1), we are

directing the Customs Service to

continue to suspend liquidation of all

entries of bicycles from the PRC, 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 posting of a

bond equal to the estimated amount by

which the NV exceeds the export price

as shown below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until May 7, 1996. The weightedaverage dumping margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin

percentage

Bo An ........................................ 0.00

CBC .......................................... 3.25

CATIC ....................................... 13.67

Giant ......................................... 0.97

Hua Chin ................................... 0.00

Merida ....................................... 7.44

Overlord .................................... 0.00

Chitech ...................................... 2.05

Universal ................................... 11.06

PRC-wide rate .......................... 61.67

PRC-Wide Rate

The PRC-Wide rate applies to all

entries of subject merchandise except

for entries from exporters that are

identified individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. As our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will, within 45 days, determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that

material injury, or threat of material

injury does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing

Customs officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered for consumption

on or after the effective date of the

suspension of liquidation. This

determination is published pursuant to

section 735(d) of the Act.

Dated: April 22, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–10555 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Intent To Revoke Countervailing Duty

Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to revoke

countervailing duty order.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is notifying the public

of its intent to revoke the countervailing

duty order listed below. Domestic

interested parties who object to

revocation of this order must submit

their comments in writing not later than

the last day of May 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Albright or Cameron Cardozo,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department may revoke a

countervailing duty order if the

Secretary of Commerce concludes that it

is no longer of interest to interested
19046 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices

parties. Accordingly, as required by the

Department’s regulations (at 19 C.F.R.

355.25(d)(4)), we are notifying the

public of our intent to revoke the

countervailing duty order listed below,

for which the Department has not

received a request to conduct an

administrative review for the most

recent four consecutive annual

anniversary months.

In accordance with section

355.25(d)(4)(iii) of the Department’s

regulations, if no domestic interested

party (as defined in sections 355.2 (i)(3),

(i)(4), (i)(5), and (i)(6) of the regulations)

objects to the Department’s intent to

revoke this order pursuant to this

notice, and no interested party (as

defined in section 355.2(i) of the

regulations) requests an administrative

review in accordance with the

Department’s notice of opportunity to

request administrative review, we shall

conclude that the countervailing duty

order is no longer of interest to

interested parties and proceed with the

revocation. However, if an interested

party does request an administrative

review in accordance with the

Department’s notice of opportunity to

request administrative review, or a

domestic interested party does object to

the Department’s intent to revoke

pursuant to this notice, the Department

will not revoke the order.

COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDER

Brazil:

Iron construction Castings (C–351–504).05/15/86 51 FR

17220

Opportunity To Object

Not later than the last day of May

1996, domestic interested parties may

object to the Department’s intent to

revoke this countervailing duty order.

Any submission objecting to the

revocation must contain the name and

case number of the order and a

statement that explains how the

objecting party qualifies as a domestic

interested party under sections 355.2

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

Department’s regulations.

Seven copies of any such objections

should be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Room B–099, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

This notice is in accordance with 19

CFR 355.25(d)(4)(i).

Dated: April 19, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–10553 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P–M

Minority Business Development

Agency

Business Development Center

Application: State of Mississippi

AGENCY: Minority Business

Development Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive

Order 11625 and 15 U.S.C. 1512, the

Minority Business Development Agency

(MBDA) is soliciting competitive

applications under its Minority

Business Development Center (MBDC)

program to operate a statewide Rural

Minority Business Development Center

(RMBDC) for approximately a 3-year

period, subject to agency priorities,

recipient performance and the

availability of funds.

The RMBDC will provide business

development services to the rural

minority business community to help

establish and maintain viable rural

minority businesses. To this end, MBDA

funds organizations to identify and

coordinate public and private sector

resources on behalf of rural minority

individuals and firms; to offer a full

range of management and technical

assistance to rural minority

entrepreneurs; and to serve as a conduit

of information and assistance regarding

rural minority business. The RMBDC

will operate throughout the State of

Mississippi. The headquarters of the

RMBDC will be located in Jackson,

Mississippi. The award number for this

RMBDC will be 04–10–96005–01.

DATES: The closing date for applications

is May 31, 1996. Applications must be

received in the MBDA Headquarters’

Executive Secretariat on or before May

31, 1996. A pre-application conference

to assist all interested applicants will be

held on May 15, 1996 at 10:00 a.m., at

the following address: U.S. Department

of Commerce, Minority Business

Development Agency, 401 West

Peachtree Street, N.W., Room 1715,

Atlanta, Georgia 30308–3516.

ADDRESSES: Completed application

packages should be submitted to the

U.S. Department of Commerce, Minority

Business Development Agency,

Executive Secretariat, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 5073,

Washington, D.C. 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND AN

APPLICATION PACKAGE, CONTACT: Robert

Henderson, Regional Director, Atlanta

Regional Office, (404) 730–3300.

Proper identification is required for

entrance into any Federal Building.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contingent upon the availability of

Federal funds, the cost of performance

for the first budget period (13 months)

from September 1, 1996 to September

30, 1997, is estimated at $277,835. A 30-

day start-up period will be added to

their first budget period, making it a 13-

month award. The application must

include a minimum cost-share of

$41,675 (15%) of the total project cost,

through non-Federal contributions. The

Federal share, to be in the amount of

$236,160, includes $5,760 for an annual

audit fee. Cost-sharing may be in the

form of cash contributions, client fees,

in-kind contributions or combinations

thereof.

The funding instrument for this

project will be a cooperative agreement.

Competition is open to individuals,

non-profit and for-profit organizations,

state and local governments, American

Indian tribes and educational

institutions.

Applications will be evaluated on the

following criteria: the experience and

capabilities of the firm and its staff in

addressing the needs of the business

community in general and, specifically,

the special needs of minority

businesses, individuals and

organizations (50 points); the resources

available to the firm in providing rural/

urban business development services

(10 points); the firm’s approach

(techniques and methodologies) to

performing the work requirements

included in the application (20 points);

and the firm’s estimated cost for

providing such assistance (20 points).

An application must receive at least

70% of the points assigned to each

evaluation criteria category to be

considered programmatically acceptable

and responsive. Those applications

determined to be acceptable and

responsive will then be evaluated by the

Director of MBDA. Final award

selections shall be based on the number

of points received, the demonstrated

responsibility of the applicant, and the

determination of those most likely to

further the purpose of the MBDC

program. Negative audit findings and

recommendations and unsatisfactory

performance under prior Federal awards

may result in an application not being

considered for award. The applicant

with the highest points score will not

necessarily receive the award.

The RMBDC shall be required to

contribute at least 15% of the total

project cost through non-Federal