22020 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

The SIPP represents a source of

information for a wide variety of topics

and allows information for separate

topics to be integrated to form a single,

unified data base so that the interaction

between tax, transfer, and other

government and private policies can be

examined. Government domestic policy

formulators depend heavily upon SIPP

information concerning the distribution

of income received directly as money or

indirectly as in-kind benefits, and the

effect of tax and transfer programs on

this distribution. They also need

improved and expanded data on the

income and general economic and

financial situation of the U.S.

population. The SIPP has provided

these kinds of data on a continuing basis

since late 1983, permitting levels of

economic well-being and changes in

these levels to be measured over time.

The survey is molded around a

central ‘‘core’’ of labor force and income

questions that will remain fixed

throughout the life of a panel. The core

is supplemented with questions

designed to answer specific needs such

as estimating eligibility for government

programs, examining pension and

health care coverage, and analyzing

individual net worth. These

supplemental questions are included

with the core and are referred to as

‘‘topical modules.’’

The topical modules for the 1996

Panel Wave 3 are the following: (1)

Assets and Liabilities; (2) Medical

Expenses and Work Disability, and (3)

Real Estate, Shelter Costs, Dependent

Care, and Vehicles; and (4) the Poverty

Module. Also, additional topical

module items will be asked at the end

of the core instrument concerning

Earnings and Employment, General

Income Amounts, Stocks and Mutual

Fund Shares, Rental Income, Mortgages,

Royalties, and Other Financial

Investments. Wave 3 interviews will be

conducted from December 1996 through

March 1997.

II. Method of Collection

The SIPP is designed as a continuing

series of national panels of interviewed

households that are introduced every 4

years, with each panel having a duration

of about 4 years in the survey. All

household members 15 years old or

older are interviewed using regular

proxy-respondent rules. They are

interviewed a total of 12 times (12

waves) at 4-month intervals, making the

SIPP a longitudinal survey. Sample

persons (all household members present

at the time of the first interview) who

move within the country and reasonably

close to a SIPP Primary Sampling Unit

(PSU) will be followed and interviewed

at their new address. Persons 15 years

old or older who enter the household

after Wave 1 will be interviewed;

however, if these persons move, they are

not followed unless they happen to

move along with a Wave 1 sample

person. A reinterview with a sample of

participants is also conducted to ensure

quality in responses.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0607–0813.

Form Number: SIPP–16303 Reminder

Card; SIPP/CAPI Automated Instrument.

Type of Review: Regular.

Affected Public: Individuals or

Households.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

77,700 (interview), 2,500 (reinterview).

Estimated Time Per Response: 30

minutes (interview), 10 minutes

(reinterview).

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 116,550*

Interview .................................... * 116,500

Reinterview ............................... * 1,250

Total ................................... 117,800

* Estimates based on conducting 3 waves in

a year.

Estimated Total Annual Cost:

$28,000,000.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of this information collection;

they also will become a matter of public

record.

Dated: May 7, 1996.

Linda Engelmeier,

Acting Departmental Forms Clearance

Officer, Office of Management and

Organization.

[FR Doc. 96–11828 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

Economics and Statistics

Administration

Bureau of the Census

Census Advisory Committee on

Agriculture Statistics; Notice of

Renewal

In accordance with the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5

U.S.C. app. 2, (1973), and after

consultation with the General Services

Administration, the Secretary of

Commerce has determined that the

renewal of the Census Advisory

Committee on Agriculture Statistics is

in the public interest in connection with

the performance of duties imposed on

the Department by law.

The Committee was established July

16, 1962. It was initially chartered

under the Federal Advisory Committee

Act in January 1973. The Committee’s

purpose is to advise the Director,

Bureau of the Census, on the conduct of

the periodic censuses and surveys of

agriculture and related surveys and the

kind of information to obtain from

respondents associated with agriculture

production. The Committee also

prepares recommendations regarding

the content of agriculture reports, and

presents the views and needs for data of

major suppliers and users of agriculture

statistics. The Committee draws on the

experience and expertise of its members

to form a collective judgment

concerning agriculture data collected

and the statistics the Census Bureau

issues.

The committee will function solely as

an advisory body and will comply fully

with the provisions of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act. The advisory

committee shall consist of 21 member

organizations. Each of the member

organizations shall appoint a

representative to the committee, subject

to the concurrence of the Director,

Bureau of the Census.

The committee shall report to the

Director, Bureau of the Census.

The Department of Commerce will file

copies of the committees’ renewal

charters with appropriate committees in

Congress.

You may address inquires or

comments to Maxine Anderson-Brown,

Committee Liaison Officer, Bureau of

the Census, Room 3039, FB 3,

Washington, D.C. 20233, telephone

(301) 457–2308, TDD (301) 457–2540.

Dated: May 7, 1996.

Martha Farnsworth Riche,

Director, Bureau of the Census.

[FR Doc. 96–11888 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–BS–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices 22021

International Trade Administration

[A–412–817]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Foam Extruded PVC and Polystyrene

Framing Stock From the United

Kingdom

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Grebasch, Dorothy Tomaszewski,

or Erik Warga, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–3773, (202) 482–0631, or

(202) 482–0922, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’) are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Act by the Uruguay Rounds

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’).

Preliminary Determination

As explained in the memoranda from

the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration dated November 22,

1995, and January 11, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) has exercised its

discretion to toll all deadlines for the

duration of the partial shutdowns of the

Federal Government from November 15

through November 21, 1995, and

December 16, 1995, through January 6,

1996. Thus, the deadline for the

preliminary determination in this

investigation has been extended by 28

days, i.e., one day for each day (or

partial day) the Department was closed.

As such, the deadline for this

determination is no later than May 3,

1996.

We preliminarily determine that foam

extruded PVC and polystyrene framing

stock (‘‘framing stock’’) from the United

Kingdom (‘‘U.K.’’) is being, or is likely

to be, sold in the United States at less

than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in

section 733 of the Act. The estimated

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section

of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (Notice of Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation: Foam

Extruded PVC and Polystyrene Framing

Stock from the United Kingdom (60 FR

52370, October 6, 1995), the following

events have occurred:

On October 25, 1995, the United

States International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) issued an affirmative

preliminary injury determination in this

case (see ITC Investigation No. 731–TA–

738).

On November 9, 1995, the Department

issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to each of the three U.K.

companies (Ecoframe Ltd., (‘‘Ecoframe’’)

Magnolia Group PLC, (‘‘Magnolia’’) and

Robobond Ltd., (‘‘Robobond’’)) that

produced and sold the subject

merchandise during the period of

investigation (‘‘POI’’), September 1,

1994, through August 31, 1995. The

questionnaire is divided into four

sections. Section A requests general

information concerning a company’s

corporate structure and business

practices, the merchandise under

investigation that it sells, and the sales

of the merchandise in all of its markets.

Sections B and C request home market

sales listings and U.S. sales listings,

respectively. Section D requests

information on the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’) of the foreign like product and

constructed value (‘‘CV’’) of the subject

merchandise.

On January 11, 1996, Robobond

submitted a letter requesting that it be

excused from reporting its home market

and U.S. sales made from inventory,

referred to as ‘‘501 stock’’ sales, on the

grounds that the transactions were small

quantities, represented a small

percentage of overall sales, and would

be burdensome to report and verify. See

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice, below.

Ecoframe requested on January 11 and

March 3, 1996, that the Department

exclude from its margin analysis

‘‘ecopasta,’’ ‘‘special offer’’ and scrap

sales in both the United States and

home markets, as well as a ‘‘special

circumstance’’ sale to one U.S.

customer. See ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,

below.

On February 9, 1996, Magnolia

requested (1) a quantity adjustment (see

‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice,

below) and (2) the exclusion of certain

home market sales from reporting

requirements. The Department granted

Magnolia’s exclusion request by a

March 25, 1996, letter.

Based on timely allegations by

petitioner, Marley Mouldings, the

Department began investigations into

whether the three respondents had

made sales in the home market at prices

that were below COP pursuant to

section 773(b) of the Act (see February

28 and March 4, 1996, memoranda from

team to Gary Taverman).

On February 16, 1996, petitioner

made a timely request that, pursuant to

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the

Department postpone its preliminary

determination in this proceeding.

Accordingly, we postponed the

preliminary determination until not

later than May 3, 1996 (61 FR 7240,

February 27, 1996). (As noted above, all

deadlines were tolled 28 days as a result

of the two federal government

shutdowns totaling 28 days; therefore,

the original deadline of February 15,

1996, had already been extended to

March 14, 1996.)

Respondents submitted responses to

the various sections of the questionnaire

from December 1995 through April

1996. For respondents’ responses to

sections A, B and C, the Department

issued supplemental requests for

information from February through

April 1996. Responses to these

supplemental requests were received in

March and April 1996. Robobond and

Ecoframe also filed supplements to their

section D responses on April 17 and

May 1, 1996, respectively.

Petitioner filed comments on

Robobond’s response to section D on

April 29, 1996. Robobond argued in

April 30 and May 2, 1996, letters that

petitioner’s comments were too late to

be considered for the preliminary

determination.

Postponement of Final Determination

On April 25, 1996, Robobond

requested that, pursuant to section

735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, in the event of

an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the

Department postpone its final

determination until not later than 135

days after the publication of the

affirmative preliminary determination

in the Federal Register. In accordance

with 19 CFR 353.20(b), inasmuch as our

preliminary determination is

affirmative, Robobond accounts for a

significant proportion of exports of the

subject merchandise, and we are not

aware of the existence of any

compelling reasons for denying the

request, we are granting Robobond’s

request and postponing the final

determination.

Consistent with the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(‘‘GATT’’), section 773(d) of the Act

permits the Department to extend

suspension of liquidation from four to

six months at the request of exporters

representing a significant proportion of

exports of the subject merchandise. The

structure of the statute integrally links a
22022 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices

request to extend the final

determination and extension of

suspension of liquidation. This linkage

balances the goals of providing an

expeditious remedy to the domestic

industry against the desire to avoid

undue harm to the exporters who have

requested extension of the final

determination. Accordingly, we

consider a request by an exporter to

extend the final determination as

containing an implied request to extend

suspension of liquidation. We are,

therefore, extending suspension of

liquidation in this case.

Scope of Investigation

This investigation covers all extruded

PVC and polystyrene framing stock

regardless of color, finish, width or

length. Finished frames assembled from

foam extruded PVC and polystyrene

framing stock are excluded. The

merchandise under investigation is

currently classifiable under subheadings

3924.90.20.00; 3926.90.90.90;

3926.90.95.90; and 3926.90.98.90 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the

United States (‘‘HTS’’). Although the

HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of these

investigations is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The POI is September 1, 1994,

through August 31, 1995.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by respondents to

the United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the export price

(‘‘EP’’) to the Normal Value (‘‘NV’’), as

described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section

777A(d)(1)(A)(i), we compared POIwide weighted-average EPs to weightedaverage NVs. In determining averaging

groups for comparison purposes, we

considered the appropriateness of such

factors as physical characteristics and

level of trade.

A. Physical Characteristics

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

covered by the description in the Scope

of Investigation section, above,

produced in the United Kingdom and

sold in the home market during the POI,

to be foreign like products for purposes

of determining appropriate product

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there

were no sales of identical merchandise

in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the

next most similar foreign like product

on the basis of the characteristics listed

in the Department’s antidumping

questionnaire. In making the product

comparisons, we relied on the following

criteria (in order of preference):

material; weight per linear foot; profile

type; width; finish type (pasta/compo,

foil, mylar, laminated/wrapped,

embossed plain substrate, embossed

substrate with foil, embossed substrate

with mylar, wet system (e.g., paint), or

other); and total number of finishes.

B. Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and the

Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘SAA’’), H.R. Doc. No.

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 829–831

(1994), to the extent practicable, the

Department will calculate NV based on

sales at the same level of trade as the

U.S. sale. When the Department is

unable to find sale(s) in the comparison

market at the same level of trade as the

U.S. sales(s), the Department may

compare sales in the U.S. and foreign

markets at one or more different levels

of trade.

Of the three respondents in this

proceeding, only Robobond reported

that different levels of trade existed,

claiming that its sales from inventory

are at a different level than its noninventory sales.

We preliminarily find that different

levels of trade do not exist for

Robobond. In its level-of-trade claim,

Robobond stated that sales from

inventory constituted a separate level

from non-inventory sales. We are not

satisfied that this difference rises to the

level of a different level of trade. See

May 3, 1996, memorandum, on file in

Room B–099 of the Main Commerce

Building. However, we will examine

this issue further at verification and

consider arguments that parties may

make during the briefing process.

What Robobond has characterized as

a level-of-trade difference appears to

stem from a concern that comparisons

be made using comparable quantities.

However, Robobond has not explained

how comparable quantities might be

defined or whether price comparability

is affected by comparing different

quantities. The Department must, in

considering the question of level of

trade categorization, ensure there are

different selling functions at the alleged

different levels, and distinguish

differences in level of trade from other

differences among sales, such as

quantity differences. See SAA at 830.

While differences in quantity may be an

appropriate factor to consider in making

fair value comparisons, such differences

do not constitute level-of-trade

differences.

Accordingly, we preliminarily find

that no level of trade differences exist

and that level of trade does not need to

be considered in price averaging.

Export Price

We calculated EP, in accordance with

subsections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, for

each of the respondents, where the

subject merchandise was sold directly to

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the

United States prior to importation and

use of constructed export price was not

otherwise warranted based on the facts

of record.

We made company-specific

adjustments as follows:

Ecoframe

We calculated EP based on packed,

ex-works, FOB port, and delivered

prices to unaffiliated customers in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

(gross unit price) for the following

charges: international freight (including

plant-to-port-of-exit freight; brokerage

and handling; and ocean freight).

For sales of a particular model to one

U.S. customer, Ecoframe requested

exclusion because certain designing and

tooling costs had been paid separately

by the customer. Rather than exclude

these sales, we increased export price to

account for the revenue. The

Department may consider such revenue

to be a component of the price charged

to the customer. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Forged Steel

Crankshafts from the United Kingdom

(56 FR 5975, February 14, 1991). We

will fully examine the nature of this

revenue during verification of

Ecoframe’s questionnaire response.

We excluded Ecoframe’s scrap sales to

U.S. customers. These were sales that

were discounted when it was

discovered after sale that the

merchandise sold as prime merchandise

was actually substandard. The sales

involved relatively insignificant

quantities. We did not exclude

‘‘ecopasta’’ or ‘‘special offer’’ sales

because Ecoframe did not adequately

explain why such sales should be

excluded nor does the record indicate

that the sales were extraordinary.

Finally, we recalculated credit

expenses because the reported figure

did not comport with the narrative

description.

Magnolia

We calculated EP based on packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers in the United States. Where
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices 22023

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price (gross unit price) for

the following charges: international

freight (including plant-to-port-of-exit

freight; U.K. inland insurance; brokerage

and handling; ocean freight; marine

insurance; U.S. inland port-towarehouse freight; U.S. inland

warehouse-to-customer freight; U.S.

inland insurance; and other U.S.

transportation charges) and U.S. duty.

Robobond

We calculated EP based on packed,

delivered/duty unpaid and ex-works

prices to unaffiliated customers in the

United States. Where appropriate, we

made deductions from the starting price

(gross unit price) for the following

charges: international freight (including

UK inland freight, UK brokerage &

handling, ocean freight, U.S. brokerage

and handling, and U.S. inland freight).

We added to the starting price an

amount for reported freight revenue,

where appropriate. We recalculated

reported credit expenses using the

average U.S.-dollar prime interest rate

because the interest rate used for the

reported figures was not based on

information from the POI but rather on

information provided by a bank for

purposes of the questionnaire response.

We did not exclude ‘‘501 stock’’ sales

because the record does not indicate

that these sales were materially different

from Robobond’s other U.S. sales.

Although Robobond characterized these

sales as being a separate level of trade

based on seller function, such a

difference, if found to exist, is properly

considered in the context of making fair

value comparisons rather than by

exclusions. As discussed above,

Robobond has not established that these

sales are at a different level of trade.

Normal Value

Cost of Production Analysis

As noted in the ‘‘Case History’’

section above, based on the petitioners’

allegations, the Department found

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that each respondent made sales in the

home market at prices below the cost of

producing the merchandise. As a result,

the Department initiated investigations

to determine whether the respondents

made home market sales during the POI

at prices below their respective COPs

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act.

Before making any fair value

comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of each respondent’s cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign

like product, plus amounts for home

market general, and administrative

expenses (‘‘G&A’’) and packing costs in

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the

Act. We relied on the respondents’

submitted COP amounts except in the

following specific instances wherein the

reported costs were improperly valued:

Ecoframe: different costs had been reported

for identical products and were weight

averaged to derive a single, product-specific

cost; and the reported amount for variable

overhead was recalculated to exclude

packing expenses.

Magnolia: indirect selling expenses were

recalculated to adjust for improper

allocation.

Robobond: reported G&A expenses were

adjusted to reflect expenses for all affiliated

companies; and reported depreciation

expenses were revised to reflect Robobond’s

historical treatment of depreciation rather

than an accounting practice adopted after the

filing of the petition.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We used the respondents’ adjusted

weighted-average COP for the POI. We

compared the weighted-average COP

figures to home market sales of the

foreign-like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to

determine whether these sales had been

made at below-cost prices within an

extended period of time in substantial

quantities, and were not at prices which

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time. On a productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

the home market prices, less any

applicable movement charges and direct

and indirect selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) where

less than 20 percent of a respondent’s

sales of a given product were at prices

less than the COP, we did not disregard

any below-cost sales of that product

because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more

of a respondent’s sales of a given

product during the POI were at prices

less than the COP, we disregarded the

below-cost sales because such sales

were found to be made in substantial

quantities within an extended period of

time (in accordance with section

773(b)(2)(B) of the Act) and at prices

which would not permit recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time

(in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act).

Where there were no above-cost sales

available for matching purposes, export

prices that would have been compared

to home market prices for these models

were instead compared to CV.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)

of the Act, we calculated CV based on

the sum of a respondent’s cost of

materials, fabrication, selling, general,

and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’)

and U.S. packing costs as reported in

the U.S. sales databases. In accordance

with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we

based SG&A and profit on the amounts

incurred and realized by the respondent

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country.

Where appropriate, we calculated each

respondent’s CV based on the

methodology described in the

calculation of COP above. For selling

expenses, we used the weighted-average

home market selling expenses. For

Robobond, we calculated interest based

on actual interest expenses incurred

rather than the reported figure, which

improperly included an adjustment for

imputed interest.

Adjustments to Prices

We made company-specific

adjustments to prices used as NV, as

follows:

Ecoframe

We calculated NV based on packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers. We made deductions from

the starting price for inland freight. In

addition, where appropriate, we

adjusted for differences in

circumstances of sale for imputed credit

expenses, credit insurance expenses,

and commissions (including appropriate

offsets). We adjusted reported gross unit

prices to reflect the actual unit price of

the quantity delivered.

We excluded Ecoframe’s scrap sales to

home market customers. Some were

sales that were discounted when it was

discovered after sale that the

merchandise sold as prime merchandise

was actually substandard; others were

off-prime production sold as scrap. All

types of excluded sales involved

relatively insignificant quantities. We

did not exclude ‘‘ecopasta’’ or ‘‘special

offer’’ sales because Ecoframe did not

adequately explain why such sales

should be excluded nor does the record

indicate that the sales were

extraordinary.

Magnolia

We calculated NV based on packed,

delivered prices to unaffiliated

customers. We made deductions from

the starting price for inland freight and

early payment discounts. In addition,

we adjusted for differences in

circumstances of sale for imputed credit
22024 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices

expenses (which we recalculated using

the proper base price). Magnolia also

reported an amount upon which to base

an adjustment for differences in

quantities sold between the U.S. and

U.K. markets, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.55(a). Although Magnolia claimed

that it incurred differing manufacturing

costs depending on quantity, it did not

demonstrate, nor did data on the record

show, that pricing differences were

related to quantity. Accordingly, we

have not made the requested

adjustment.

Robobond

We calculated NV based on packed,

ex-works or delivered prices to

unaffiliated customers. We made

deductions from the starting price for

inland freight, where appropriate. We

added to the starting price an amount

for reported freight revenue, where

appropriate. In addition, we adjusted for

differences in circumstances of sale for

imputed credit expenses, post-sale

clearing of accounts receivable (U.S. and

home market), bank charges (U.S. and

home market), post-sale ‘‘overcharging’’

credits, post-sale ‘‘shortage’’ credits, and

customer-specific freight charges not

allocable to specific sales. We

reclassified as indirect selling expenses

reported direct selling expenses for bad

debt and for net expense freight on

return merchandise. Neither expense

was attributable to specific customers.

We recalculated reported credit

expenses using the average U.K.-poundsterling lending rate because the interest

rate used for the reported figures was

not based on information from the POI

but rather on information provided by a

bank for purposes of the questionnaire

response.

For each respondent, we made

adjustments, where appropriate, for

physical differences in the merchandise

in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Where the

difference in merchandise adjustment

for every comparison product exceeded

20 percent, we based NV on CV. In

addition, in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(B), we deducted home market

packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs for all respondents.

We did not exclude ‘‘501 stock’’ sales

from the home market sales listing for

the reasons described in the ‘‘Export

Price’’ section of this notice, above.

Price to CV Comparisons

Where we compared CV to export

prices, we deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct

selling expenses and added the

weighted-average U.S. product-specific

direct selling expenses (where

appropriate) in accordance with section

773(a)(8) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) of the

Act directs the Department to use a

daily exchange rate in order to convert

foreign currencies into U.S. dollars.

Further, section 773A(b) directs the

Department to allow a 60-day

adjustment period when a currency has

undergone a sustained movement. A

sustained movement has occurred when

the weekly average of actual daily rates

exceeds the weekly average of

benchmark rates by more than five

percent for eight consecutive weeks.

The benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. (For an explanation of this

method, see Policy Bulletin 96–1:

Currency Conversions (61 FR 9434,

March 8, 1996)). Such an adjustment

period is required only when a foreign

currency is appreciating against the U.S.

dollar. The use of an adjustment period

was not warranted in this case because

the U.K. pound did not undergo a

sustained movement, nor were there

currency fluctuations during the POI.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information

determined to be acceptable for use in

making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the export price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice.

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

Ecoframe ................................... 27.26

Robobond/Simons .................... 2.60

Magnolia ................................... 81.24

All Others .................................. 4.29

Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(A) and

section 735(c)(5) of the Act, the

Department has not included zero and

de minimis weighted-average dumping

margins and margins determined

entirely under section 776 of the Act,

from the calculation of the ‘‘all others’’

deposit rate.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than August 1,

1996, and rebuttal briefs, no later than

August 8, 1996. A list of authorities

used and an executive summary of

issues should accompany any briefs

submitted to the Department. Such

summary should be limited to five pages

total, including footnotes. In accordance

with section 774 of the Act, we will

hold a public hearing, if requested, to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the

hearing will be held on August 15, 1996,

the time and place to be determined, at

the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should

confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the

scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room B–099, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) the party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by 135 days after the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices 22025

Dated: May 3, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–11822 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–825]

Sebacic Acid From the People’s

Republic of China; Extension of Time

Limits of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limits of antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limits for preliminary and final results

in the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sebacic acid

from the People’s Republic of China

(PRC), covering the period July 13, 1994,

through June 30, 1995, because it is not

practicable to complete the review

within the time limits mandated by the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)) (the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea Chu or Michael Rill, 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

The Department received a request to

conduct an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on sebacic acid

from the PRC. On September 15, 1995,

the Department published a notice of

initiation of this administrative review

covering the period July 13, 1994,

through June 30, 1995. The Department

adjusted the time limits by 28 days due

to the government shutdowns, which

lasted from November 14, 1995, to

November 20, 1995, and from December

15, 1995, to January 6, 1996. See

memoranda to the file from Susan G.

Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, dated November 22,

1995, and January 11, 1996. As adjusted,

the current time limits are April 29,

1996, for the preliminary results and

August 27, 1996, for the final results.

It is not practicable to complete this

review within the time limits mandated

by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Therefore, in accordance with that

section, the Department is extending the

time limits for the preliminary results to

August 27, 1996, and for the final

results to February 24, 1997.

Intersted parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective order in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b).

These extensions are in accordance

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–11821 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5510–DS–M

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Visiting Committee on Advanced

Technology; Meeting

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.

2, notice is hereby given that the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology’s Visiting Committee on

Advanced Technology (NIST) will meet

on Tuesday, June, 11, 1996, from 8:30

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Wednesday,

June 12, 1996, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30

a.m. The Visiting Committee on

Advanced Technology is composed of

fifteen members appointed by the

Director of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology who are

eminent in such fields as business,

research, new product development,

engineering, labor, education,

management consulting, environment,

and international relations. The purpose

of this meeting is to review and make

recommendations regarding general

policy for the Institute, its organization,

its budget, and its programs within the

framework of applicable national

policies as set forth by the President and

the Congress. On June 11, 1996, the

agenda will include an update on NIST

programs by NIST Director Prabhakar;

presentations on strategic planning for

Standards in Trade, Information

Technology and Biotechnology;

predictions about the future of the

internet; impact of advancing

technology on metrology needs; and a

laboratory tour. On June 12, 1996, the

agenda will include presentations on

the ATP Focused Program, Tools for

DNA Diagnostics and the Baldrige Pilot

Programs in Education and Health Care.

DATES: The meeting will convene June

11, 1996, at 8:30 a.m., and will adjourn

at 9:30 a.m. on June 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in

the Employees Lounge (seating capacity

80, includes 38 participants),

Administration Building, at NIST,

Gaithersburg, Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris E. Kuyatt, Visiting Committee

Executive Director, NIST, Gaithersburg,

Maryland 20899, telephone number

(301) 975–6090.

Dated: May 7, 1996.

Samuel Kramer,

Associate Director.

[FR Doc. 96–11929 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

National Technical Information Service

Advisory Board Meeting

AGENCY: National Technical Information

Service, Technology Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.

2, notice is hereby given that the

National Technical Information Service

Advisory Board (the ‘‘Board’’) will meet

on Monday, June 17, 1996, from 9:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. This meeting will be

closed to the public.

The Board was established under the

authority of 15 U.S.C. 3704b(c), and was

Chartered on September 15, 1989. The

Board is composed of five members

appointed by the Secretary of Commerce

who are eminent in such fields as

information resources management,

information technology, and library and

information services. The purpose of the

meeting is to review and make

recommendations regarding general

policies and operations of NTIS,

including policies in connection with

fees and charges for its services. The

session will be closed because

premature disclosure of the information

to be discussed would be likely to

significantly frustrate implementation of

NTIS’ business plans.

DATES: The meeting will convene on

June 17, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn

at 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in

Room 2029, Sills Building, National

Technical Information Service, 5285

Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia

22161.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: This one-day

meeting will be closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: