Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices 25623

instrument will be used to analyze by

high resolution mass spectrometry

synthetic and naturally occurring

nucleosides as part of an effort to create

new anti-viral and anti-cancer drugs. In

addition, the instrument will be used to

train professional and graduate students

in mass spectrometry. Application

Accepted by Commissioner of Customs:

March 1, 1996.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 96–12874 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instrument

Shriners Hospital has withdrawn

Docket Number 95–077, an application

for duty-free entry of a 3–Dimensional

Motion Analyzer System, Model VICON

370. We have discontinued processing

in accordance with Section 301.5(g) of

15 CFR part 301.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs.

[FR Doc. 96–12873 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–533–063]

Certain Iron Metal Castings From India:

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

iron metal castings from India. We

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

to be zero or de minimis for Delta

Enterprises and Super Iron Foundry,

and 5.45 percent ad valorem for all

other companies for the period January

1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. If

the final results remain the same as

these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as indicated

above. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Cassel or Lorenza Olivas,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 16, 1980, the Department

published in the Federal Register (45

FR 50739) the countervailing duty order

on certain iron-metal castings from

India. On October 7, 1994, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 51166)

of this countervailing duty order. We

received a timely request for review

from the Municipal Castings Fair Trade

Council and individually-named

members on October 24, 1994.

We initiated the review, covering the

period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993, on November 14,

1994 (59 FR 56549). The review covers

14 manufacturers/exporters of the

subject merchandise and six programs.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994. However, references to the

Department’s Countervailing Duties;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments, 54 FR

23366 (May 31, 1989) (Proposed

Regulations), are provided solely for

further explanation of the Department’s

countervailing duty practice. Although

the Department has withdrawn the

particular rulemaking proceeding

pursuant to which the Proposed

Regulations were issued, the subject

matter of these regulations is being

considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

See 60 FR 80 (Jan. 3, 1995).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of Indian manhole covers

and frames, clean-out covers and

frames, and catch basin grates and

frames. These articles are commonly

called municipal or public works

castings and are used for access or

drainage for public utility, water, and

sanitary systems. During the review

period, such merchandise was

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050. The

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the Government of India and, six

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise. We followed standard

verification procedures, including

meeting with government and company

officials, and examination of relevant

accounting and original source

documents. Our verification results are

outlined in the public versions of the

verification reports, which are on file in

the Central Records Unit (Room B–099

of the Main Commerce Building).

Calculation Methodology for

Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

In accordance with Ceramica

Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States,

853 F. Supp. 431 (CIT 1994), we

calculated the net subsidy on a countrywide basis by first calculating the

subsidy rate for each company subject to

the administrative review. We then

weight-averaged the rate received by

each company using as the weight its

share of total Indian exports to the

United States of subject merchandise,

including all companies, even those

with de minimis and zero rates. We then

summed the individual companies’

weight-averaged rates to determine the

subsidy rate from all programs

benefitting exports of subject

merchandise to the United States.

Since the country-wide rate

calculated using this methodology was

above de minimis, as defined by 19 CFR

§ 355.7 (1994), we proceeded to the next

step and examined the net subsidy rate

calculated for each company to

determine whether individual company

rates differed significantly from the

weighted-average country-wide rate,

pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(d)(3). Two

companies (Delta Enterprises and Super

Iron Foundry) had significantly different

net subsidy rates during the review

period pursuant to 19 CFR 355.22(d)(3).

The rate for these companies was zero.

These companies are treated separately

for assessment and cash deposit

purposes. All other companies are

assigned the country-wide rate.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined to

Confer Subsidies

1. Pre-Shipment Export Financing.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI),
25624 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices

through commercial banks, provides

pre-shipment financing, or ‘‘packing

credits,’’ to exporters. Upon

presentation of a confirmed order or

letter of credit, exporters may receive

pre-shipment loans for working capital

purposes, i.e., for the purchase of raw

materials and for packing, warehousing,

and transporting of export merchandise.

Exporters may also establish preshipment credit lines upon which they

may draw as needed. Credit line limits

are established by commercial banks,

based upon the company’s

creditworthiness and past export

performance. Companies that have preshipment credit lines typically pay

interest on these loans on a quarterly

basis on the outstanding balance of the

account at the end of each period. In

general, packing credits are granted for

a period of up to 180 days.

In prior administrative reviews of this

order, the Department found this

program to be de jure specific, and thus

countervailable, because receipt of preshipment export financing was

contingent upon export performance

and the interest rates were preferential.

(See e.g., Final Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review: Certain

Iron-Metal Castings From India, 56 FR

41658 (August 22, 1991); Final Results

of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings

From India, 56 FR 52515 (October 21,

1991 (1987 and 1988 Indian Castings

Final Results). No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

During the POR, the rate of interest

charged on pre-shipment export loans

ranged from 13.0 percent to 15.5

percent, depending on the length and

date of receipt of the loan.

The Government of India (GOI)

classifies the companies under review

as small-scale industry companies.

Therefore, as we have done in past

relevant cases, we used the small-scale

industry short-term interest rates

published in the August 1994 Reserve

Bank of India Annual Report 1993–94 as

our benchmark. This rate was 15

percent during the POR for all categories

of advances. We compared this

benchmark to the interest rate charged

on pre-shipment loans and found that

for certain loans granted under this

program, the interest rate charged was

lower than the benchmark. The use of

this benchmark rate is consistent with

prior reviews of this order. (See Final

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review: Certain IronMetal Castings From India, 60 FR 44843

(August 29, 1995) (1991 Indian Castings

Final Results)).

Eight of the fourteen respondent

companies used pre-shipment export

loans for shipments of subject castings

to the United States during the POR. To

calculate the benefit from the preshipment loans to these eight

companies, we compared the actual

interest paid on these loans with the

amount of interest that would have been

paid using the benchmark interest rate

of 15 percent. If the benchmark rate

exceeded the program rate, the

difference between those amounts is the

benefit. If a company was able to

segregate pre-shipment financing

applicable to subject merchandise

exported to the United States, we

divided the benefit derived from only

those loans by total exports of subject

merchandise to the United States. If a

firm was unable to segregate preshipment financing, we divided the

benefit from all pre-shipment loans by

total exports. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

from this program to be 0.13 percent ad

valorem for all manufacturers and

exporters in India of certain iron-metal

castings, except for those firms listed

below which have significantly different

total subsidies from all programs

combined. The net subsidy for those

firms is as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Rate

(percent)

Delta Enterprises ...................... 0.00

Super Iron Foundry ................... 0.00

2. Post-Shipment Export Financing

and Post-Shipment Credit Denominated

in Foreign Currency (PSCFC). The

Reserve Bank of India, through

commercial banks, provides postshipment rupee denominated loans to

exporters upon presentation of export

documents. Post-shipment financing

also consists of bank discounting of

foreign customer receivables. In general,

post-shipment loans are granted for a

period of up to 180 days. The interest

rate for post-shipment financing ranged

from 13 to 18 percent during the POR.

In the 1987 and 1988 Indian Castings

Final Results, the Department found this

program to be specific, and thus

countervailable, because receipt of the

post-shipment export financing in

rupees was contingent upon export

performance and the interest rates were

preferential. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

On January 1, 1992, the GOI amended

the original post-shipment financing

scheme and introduced the ‘‘Scheme for

Post-Shipment Credit Denominated in

Foreign Currency (PSCFC).’’ Under the

amended scheme, exporters may

discount foreign currency export bills at

interest rates linked to the London

Interbank Offering Rate (LIBOR). These

loans are not provided to the borrower

in the foreign currency, but allow the

post-shipment credit liability of the

exporter to be denominated in foreign

currency, which is then liquidated with

foreign currency export proceeds.

Upon presentation of the export bill,

the bank will discount the bill for a

period of up to 180 days at an interest

rate determined by the RBI. The interest

amount, calculated at the applicable

foreign currency interest rate, will be

deducted from the total amount of the

bill, and the exporter’s account will be

credited for the rupee equivalent of the

net foreign currency amount.

Commercial banks are required to

convert the net amount of the export bill

drawn or expressed in U.S. dollars into

rupees at a contracted exchange rate (if

the exporter takes forward cover) or at

the rate prevailing on the date of

negotiation or discount by the bank. The

exporter’s credit liability will continue

to be shown in U.S. dollars. If payment

from the overseas customer is received

within the due date for the loan, the

exporter’s account is considered fully

liquidated or ‘‘crystallized’’. Where

payment by the overseas customer is

made beyond the due date, additional

interest will be recovered from the

exporter for the number of days

payment is overdue. The additional

interest amount is calculated in U.S.

dollars for the delayed period at the

overdue foreign currency interest rate

set by the RBI. This amount is then

converted into rupees at the commercial

bank’s prevailing selling rate of the U.S.

dollar and deducted from the exporter’s

account.

Any exchange rate risk on the dollar

amount of the bill (i.e., gain or loss due

to the change in value of the rupee visa-vis the dollar) will be borne by the

commercial bank. If the overseas

customer defaults, the exporter must

repay the rupee equivalent of the export

bill at the exchange rate prevailing on

the date the payment of the export bill

would have been due. During the POR,

the discount rate charged on these bills

ranged from 6.5 percent to 6.75 percent,

while the overdue foreign currency

interest rate was 8.5 percent. For

overdue bills repaid beyond 180 days,

the normal rupee interest rates apply.

These rates ranged from 15 to 22 percent

during the POR.

For reasons stated in the prior section

for pre-shipment financing above, we

are using the small-scale industry shortterm interest rates published in the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices 25625

August 1994 Reserve Bank of India

Annual Report 1993–94 as our

benchmark for short-term rupee

denominated post-shipment loans.

However, because loans under this

program are discounted, and the

effective rate paid by exporters on these

loans is a discounted rate, we derived a

benchmark discount rate of 13.04

percent for the POR.

Where loans are denominated in

foreign currency, as is the case for

PSCFC loans, our normal practice is to

use a foreign currency benchmark,

which would be the interest rate on

alternative dollar-indexed loans in

India. However, we have not been able

to find such a benchmark, and must,

therefore, use as a benchmark a rupeedenominated interest rate, adjusted to

take into account movements in the

rupee-dollar exchange rate over the term

of the loan. In this situation, our

preference would be to adjust the

benchmark by the ‘‘expected’’

movement in the rupee/dollar exchange

rate by comparing the spot rate on the

day the bill was discounted with the

forward exchange rate. Because we were

unable to find forward exchange rates

for the POR, we adjusted the benchmark

used for rupee denominated postshipment loans described above, by the

actual movement in the rupee/dollar

exchange rate over the period for which

the export bill was discounted.

Therefore, the adjusted benchmark

varied for each PSCFC loan.

During the POR, 11 of the 14

respondent companies made payments

on post-shipment export or PSCFC loans

for shipments of subject castings to the

United States. To calculate the benefit

from these loans we followed the same

short-term loan methodology discussed

above for pre-shipment financing. We

divided the benefit by either total

exports or exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States,

depending on whether the company was

able to segregate the post-shipment

financing on the basis of destination of

the exported good. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

from this program to be 1.25 percent ad

valorem for all manufacturers and

exporters in India of certain iron-metal

castings, except for those firms listed

below which have significantly different

total subsidies from all programs

combined. The net subsidy for those

firms is as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Rate

(percent)

Delta Enterprises ...................... 0.00

Super Iron Foundry ................... 0.00

3. Income Tax Deductions Under

Section 80HHC. Under section 80HHC

of the Income Tax Act, the GOI allows

exporters to deduct profits derived from

the export of goods and merchandise

from taxable income. In the 1987 and

1988 Indian Castings Final Results, the

Department found this program to de

jure specific, and thus countervailable,

because receipt of benefits was

contingent upon export performance.

No new information or evidence of

changed circumstances has been

submitted in this proceeeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

To calculate the benefit to each

company, we subtracted the total

amount of income tax the company

actually paid during the review period

from the amount of tax the company

would have paid during the review

period had it not claimed any

deductions under section 80HHC. We

then divided this difference by the value

of the company’s total exports. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine the

net subsidy from this program to be 3.64

percent for all manufacturers and

exporters in India of certain iron-metal

castings, except for those firms listed

below which have significantly different

total subsidies from all programs

combined. The net subsidy for those

firms is as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Rate

(percent)

Delta Enterprises ...................... 0.00

Super Iron Foundry ................... 0.04

4. Import Mechanisms. The GOI

allows companies to transfer certain

types of import licenses to other

companies in India. During the POR,

producers/exporters of subject castings

sold Additional Licenses,

Replenishment Licenses, and Special

Import Licenses. In prior administrative

reviews of this order, we determined

that the sale of these licenses by

exporters is countervailable. See the

1987 and 1988 Indian Castings Final

Results and the 1991 Indian Castings

Final Results. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances has

been submitted in this proceeding to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

Because the sale of Special Import

Licenses and Additional Licenses could

not be tied to specific shipments, we

calculated the subsidies by dividing the

total amount of proceeds a company

received from sales of these licenses by

the total value of its exports of all

products to all markets. Also, because

sales of Replenishment Licenses can be

tied to specific exports, we calculated

the subsidies by dividing the amount of

proceeds a company received from sales

of Replenishment Licenses that was

attributable to shipments of subject

castings to the United States by the total

value of the company’s exports of

subject castings to the United States. We

do not consider the sale of

Replenishment Licenses issued for nonsubject merchandise to have benefitted

exports of the subject merchandise.

We preliminarily determine the net

subsidy from the sale of Additional,

Special Import, and Replenishment

Licenses to be 0.04 percent ad valorem

for all manufacturers and exporters in

India of certain iron-metal castings,

except for those firms listed below

which have significantly different

aggregate benefits. The net subsidies for

those firms are as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Rate

(percent)

Delta Enterprises ...................... 0.00

Super Iron Foundry ................... 0.00

B. New Programs Preliminarily Found to

Confer Subsidies

1. Exemption of Export Credit from

Interest Taxes. At verification, the GOI

and commercial bank officials explained

that starting from September, 1991,

commercial banks were required to pay

a 3 percent tax on all interest accrued

from borrowers. This tax is passed on to

borrowers in its entirety. As of April 1,

1993, the GOI exempted from the

interest tax all interest accruing or

arising to any commercial bank on loans

and advances made to any exporter as

export credit. See the 1993 GOI

Verification Report at 6–7 and Exhibits

EEPC–8, 9, 10 and 11 (October 30, 1995)

(Public Document). Because only

interest accruing or arising on loans and

advances made to exporters in the form

of export credit is exempt from the

interest tax, we preliminarily determine

this exemption to provide

countervailable benefits to exporters.

During the POR, eleven of the fourteen

respondent companies made interest

payments on export related loans,

through the pre- and post-shipment

financing schemes.

To calculate the benefit to each

company, we first determined the total

amount of interest paid by each

producer/exporter of subject castings

from April 1 to December 31, 1993, by

adding all interest payments made on

pre- and post-shipment loans after April

1, 1993. For the two companies that

reported aggregate interest on pre- and

post-shipment loans for the POR, and

for which we were unable to determine

what portion of the reported interest

was paid after April 1, 1993, we
25626 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices

assumed that the company’s interest

payments were evenly distributed over

each quarter of 1993, and, therefore, that

75 percent of the interest reported was

paid in the last three quarters of 1993,

i.e., from April 1 through December 31.

Next, we multiplied this amount by

three percent, the amount of tax that the

interest would have been subject to

without the exemption. We then

divided the benefit by the value of the

company’s total exports or exports of

subject merchandise to the United

States, depending on whether the export

financing was on total exports or only

exports of subject castings to the U.S.

On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidy from this

program to be 0.06 percent ad valorem

for all manufacturers and exporters in

India of certain iron-metal casting,

except for those firms listed below

which have significantly different total

subsidies from all programs combined.

The net subsidy for those firms is as

follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Rate

(percent)

Delta Enterprises ...................... 0.00

Super Iron Foundry ................... 0.00

2. Imports Made Under an Advance

License through the Liberalized

Exchange Rate Management System

(LERMS). The Liberalized Exchange

Rate Management System or LERMS, in

effect from March 1, 1992 through

February 28, 1993, was part of the GOI’s

economic liberalization efforts, aimed in

part at achieving full convertibility of

the rupee. Under the LERMS, the

importation of goods under the Duty

Exemption Scheme (with Advance

Licences), was financed at two rates: 40

percent at the official RBI rate and 60

percent at the (higher) market

determined rate. We verified that the

LERMS was terminated effective

February 28, 1993, after which all

foreign exchange earnings and the

financing of all imports was at the full

market exchange rate. (See section II.1.

below for a discussion of foreign

exchange earnings under the LERMS).

While the LERMS was in effect,

purchases of most imports are made at

the market exchange rate. This applied

to both exporters and non-exporters. An

exception to this were goods imported

under the Duty Exemption Scheme

which permitted exporters holding an

Advance License to purchase imports at

dual exchange rates through February

28, 1993. Sixty percent of the value of

the import was charged at the market

rate and forty percent at the Reserve

Bank determined official dollar/rupee

exchange rate. The Advance License

was the only license under which

imports were charged at the 60/40 ratio.

These licenses allow exporters to import

products duty free, that are

subsequently consumed in the

production of exported goods. Castings

exporters used Advance Licenses by the

importation of pig iron consumed in the

production of the subject merchandise.

The receipt of these licenses was

previously determined to be not

countervailable, because the Advance

License operates as duty drawback

scheme, and the drawback of import

duties on raw materials consumed in

the production of exported goods was

found to be not excessive. See the 1991

Indian Castings Final Results. However,

Advance Licenses are issued to

companies based on their status as

exporters. As such, provisions under the

LERMS which allow exporters to import

goods at exchange rates more favorable

than those available to non-exporters

constitutes an export subsidy within the

meaning of § 355.43(a)(1) of the

Department’s Proposed Regulations.

Therefore, because the official rupee/

dollar exchange rate was lower than the

market rate during the POR, thereby

lowering the cost of goods imported

under an Advance License during

January and February of 1993, we

preliminarily determine the importation

of goods under an Advance License at

the 60/40 ratio to provide

countervailable benefits to producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise.

During the POR, three of the fourteen

respondent companies made imports

against an Advance License while the

LERMS was still in effect. To calculate

the benefit to each company, we

subtracted the total amount the

company paid in rupees for the

imported goods from the amount they

would have paid if the imports had been

paid for at the higher market exchange

rate. We then divided the benefit by the

value of the company’s total exports. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine

the net subsidy from this program to be

0.33 percent ad valorem for all

manufacturers and exporters in India of

certain iron-metal castings, except for

those firms listed below which have

significantly different total subsidies

from all programs combined. The net

subsidy for those firms is as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter Rate

(percent)

Delta Enterprises ...................... 0.00

Super Iron Foundry ................... 0.00

Because we verified that this program

was terminated as of February 28, 1993,

and there are no residual benefits, for

cash deposit purposes, in accordance

with section § 355.50 of the

Department’s Proposed Regulations, the

deposit rate for this program will be

zero.

II. Programs Preliminarily Found Not to

Confer Subsidies

1. Inward Exchange Remittances

under the Liberalized Exchange Rate

Management System (LERMS). The

Liberalized Exchange Rate Management

System or LERMS, in effect from March

1, 1992 through February 28, 1993, was

part of the GOI’s economic liberalization

efforts, partly aimed at achieving full

convertibility of the rupee. Under the

LERMS, all inward exchange

remittances, i.e., foreign exchange

earnings, were converted into rupees

either at the market exchange rate or at

dual exchange rates: 40 percent at the

official RBI rate and 60 percent at the

(higher) market determined rate. We

verified that the LERMS was terminated

effective February 28, 1993, after which

all foreign exchange remittances and the

financing of all imports was at the full

market exchange rate. (For a discussion

of import financing under the LERMS,

see I.B.2. above.) During January and

February of 1993, while the LERMS was

in effect, castings exporters converted

all of their export earnings at the 60/40

exchange rate ratio described above.

Because all transactions by which

Indian companies or individuals

exchanged foreign currency into rupees

while the LERMS was in effect were

converted at the 60/40 exchange rate

ratio or at the higher market exchange

rate, we preliminarily determine that

the export earnings of castings

producers, converted at the dual

exchange rates under LERMS, do not

confer countervailable benefits with

respect to the subject merchandise.

III. Programs Preliminarily Found Not

To Be Used

We examined the following programs

and preliminarily find that the

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise did not apply for or

receive benefits under these programs

during the period of review:

1. Market Development Assistance

(MDA)

2. Rediscounting of Export Bills Abroad

3. International Price Reimbursement

Scheme (IPRS)

4. Cash Compensatory Support Program

(CCS)

5. Pre-Shipment Financing in Foreign

Currency (PSFC)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices 25627

Preliminary Results of Review

For the period January 1, 1993

through December 31, 1993, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

to be zero or de minimis for Delta

Enterprises and Super Iron Foundry,

and 5.45 percent ad valorem for all

other companies. In accordance with 19

CFR 355.7, any rate less than 0.5 percent

ad valorem is de minimis.

If the final results of this review

remain the same as these preliminary

results, the Department intends to

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess the following countervailing

duties:

Manufacturer/Exporter Rate

(percent)

Delta Enterprises ...................... 0.00

Super Iron Foundry ................... 0.00

All Other Companies ................ 5.45

The Department also intends to

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

collect a cash deposit of estimated

countervailing duties of zero percent of

the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments

of the subject merchandise from Delta

Enterprises and Super Iron Foundry,

and 5.13 percent of the f.o.b. invoice

price on all shipments of the subject

merchandise from all other companies.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 10 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted seven

days after the time limit for filing the

case brief. Parties who submit argument

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held seven days

after the scheduled date for submission

of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs

and rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR 355.38(e).

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR § 355.38(c), are due. The

Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

CFR § 355.22.

Dated: May 14, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12871 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 950314073–6067–02]

RIN 0693–ZA07

Approval of Federal Information

Processing Standards Publication

161–2, Electronic Data Interchange

(EDI)

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to announce that the Secretary of

Commerce has approved a revision of

Federal Information Processing

Standard (FIPS) 161–1, Electronic Data

Interchange (EDI), which will be

published as FIPS Publication 161–2.

This revision reflects changes in the

development of voluntary industry

standards for Electronic Data

Interchange (EDI), including the

planned alignment of the X12 and UN/

EDIFACT families of standards, and

provides updated guidance to Federal

agencies in the selection of EDI

standards. The revision adopts the HL7

standards for EDI as an alternative for

certain healthcare applications. It also

establishes a Federal EDI Standards

Management Committee to harmonize

the development of EDI transaction set

and message standards among Federal

agencies, and the setting of

governmentwide implementation

conventions for EDI applications used

by Federal agencies. FIPS PUB 161–2

supersedes FIPS PUB 161–1 in its

entirety. The announcement section of

FIPS 161–2 is provided in this notice.

On April 3, 1995, notice was

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 16854–16857) that a revision of

Federal Information Processing

Standard (FIPS) 161–1, Electronic Data

Interchange (EDI), was being proposed

for Federal use.

The written comments submitted by

interested parties and other material

available to the Department relevant to

this standard were reviewed by NIST.

On the basis of this review, NIST

recommended that the Secretary

approve the revised standard as Federal

Information Processing Standards

Publication (FIPS PUB) 161–2, and

prepared a detailed justification

document for the Secretary’s review in

support of that recommendation.

The detailed justification document

which was presented to the Secretary,

and which includes an analysis of the

written comments received, is part of

the public record and is available for

inspection and copying in the

Department’s Central Reference and

Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020,

Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street

between Pennsylvania and Constitution

Avenues NW., Washington, DC 20230.

EFFECTIVE DATE: FIPS PUB 161 was

effective September 30, 1991.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

purchase copies of the announcement

section of FIPS 161–2 from the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS).

Specific ordering information from

NTIS for this standard is set out in the

Where to Obtain Copies Section of the

standard.

Documents defining both the X12 and

EDIFACT families of standards are

available from DISA, Inc. or from its

named contractor. DISA, Inc. serves as

the secretariat for Accredited Standards

Committee (ASC) X12 and the Pan

American EDIFACT Board (PAEB) and

its address and phone number are as

follows: Data Interchange Standards

Association, Inc. (DISA, Inc.), 1800

Diagonal Road, Suite 200, Alexandria,

VA 22314–2852. Telephone (703) 548–

7005.

HL7 documents are available from:

Health Level Seven, Inc., 3300

Washtenaw Avenue, Suite 227, Ann

Arbor, MI 48104. Telephone (313) 677–

7777.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roy Saltman, telephone (301) 975–3376,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

Dated: May 16, 1996.

Samuel Kramer,

Associate Director.

Federal Information Processing

Standards Publication 161–2, 1996

Month Day, Announcing the Standard

for Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)

Federal Information Processing

Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) are

issued by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) after

approval by the Secretary of Commerce

pursuant to Section 5131 of the

Information Technology Management