29534 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Notices

This amendment of final results of

review and notice are in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended [19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)] and section 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations (19 CFR

353.22).

Dated: June 4, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14746 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–19–P

[A–455–001]

Electric Golf Carts From Poland;

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On August 25, 1995 the

United States Court of International

Trade (the CIT) remanded to the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) the final results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping finding on electric golf

carts from Poland covering the period

July 1, 1976 through June 10, 1980.

Melex USA, et al. v. United States, Court

No. 92–04–00298, Slip Op 96–58

(August 25, 1995). In its remand

instructions, the CIT ordered that the

Department recalculate the antidumping

margin by applying the methodologies

of the Antidumping Act of 1921, and by

using Melex’s cost differential data to

determine the cost of four-wheel golf

carts. On February 12, 1996, the

Department filed its results of

redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s

remand. On March 22, 1996, the CIT

affirmed the Department’s results of the

remand redetermination. Melex USA, et

al. v. United States, Court No. 92–04–

00298, Slip Op 96–58.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4195/

3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 25, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

final results of its administrative review

of the antidumping finding on electric

golf carts from Poland, (57 FR 10334).

As a result of clerical errors, we

amended the final results of review on

April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18129). The

weighted-average margin in the

amended final results was 2.91 percent.

The review covered two manufacturers/

exporters, Melex USA, Inc. and Pezetel,

Ltd. (collectively referred to as Melex),

and the period July 1, 1976 through June

10, 1980.

On August 25, 1995, the CIT

remanded to the Department the final

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping finding on electric golf

carts from Poland, Melex USA, et al. v.

United States, Court No. 92–04–00298,

Slip Op 96–58.

In its remand instructions, the CIT

directed the Department to: (1) Apply

the methodologies of the Antidumping

Act of 1921 (the 1921 Act) to

unliquidated entries made prior to the

effective dates of the Trade Agreements

Act of 1979 and the Trade and Tariff Act

of 1984; (2) reevaluate the applicability

of credit expense as a component of the

constructed value calculation in light of

the CIT’s decision to apply the 1921

Act; and (3) use Melex’s four-wheel cost

differential data to determine the cost of

four-wheel golf cars. Slip Op. at 20.

On February 12, 1996, the Department

filed its results of redetermination

pursuant to the CIT’s remand. As a

result of the remand instructions from

the CIT, the antidumping margin for

Melex on redetermination changed to

0.33 percent.

On March 22, 1996, the CIT affirmed

the Department’s results of the remand

redetermination and dismissed the case.

Melex USA, et al. v. United States, Court

No. 92–04–00298, Slip Op 96–58.

Pursuant to the CIT’s order of March

22, 1996, the Department is hereby

amending the final results of

administrative review. The Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all entries made during the period of

review. The Department will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to collect the

antidumping duty applicable.

Individual differences between U.S.

price and foreign market value may vary

from the percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

This notice is in accordance with

section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930

as amended.

Dated: June 4, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14742 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–557–806]

Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia; 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 extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia. For

information on the net subsidy for each

reviewed company, as well as for all

non-reviewed companies, please see the

Preliminary Results of Review section of

this notice. 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 in the

Preliminary Results of Review section of

this notice. Interested parties are invited

to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy

Kornfeld 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: Judy Kornfeld (202) 482–

3146, Lorenza Olivas (202) 482–1785 or

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 25, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 38472) the countervailing duty order

on extruded rubber thread from

Malaysia. On August 1, 1995, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (60 FR 39150)

of this countervailing duty order. We

received a timely request for review,

and we initiated the review, covering
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Notices 29535

the period January 1, 1994 through

December 31, 1994, on September 15,

1995 (60 FR 47930).

In accordance with section 355.22 of

the Department’s Interim Regulations,

this review covers only those producers

or exporters of the subject merchandise

for which a review was specifically

requested (see Antidumping and

Countervailing Duties: Interim

Regulations; Request for Comments, 60

FR 25130 (May 11, 1995) (Interim

Regulations). Accordingly, this review

covers Heveafil Sdn. Bhd., Filmax Sdn.

Bhd., Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd., Filati

Lastex Elastofibre Sdn Bhd. (Filati), and

Rubfil Sdn. Bhd. Heveafil and Filmax

are affiliated companies. This review

also covers 13 programs.

On May 8, 1996 we extended the

period for completion of the preliminary

and final results pursuant to section

751(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (see, Extruded Rubber Thread

From Malaysia; Extension of Time Limit

for Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 20803). As explained in

the memoranda from the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration

dated November 22, 1995, and January

11, 1996 (on file in the public file of the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the Department of Commerce), all

deadlines were further extended to take

into account the partial shutdowns of

the Federal Government from November

15 through November 21, 1995, and

December 15, 1995, through January 6,

1996. The deadline for the final results

of this review is no later than 120 days

from the date on which these

preliminary results are published in the

Federal Register.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) effective

January 1, 1995 (the Act). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

References to the 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 URAA. See Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Request for

Public Comments, 60 FR 80 (January 3,

1995).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of extruded rubber thread

from Malaysia. Extruded rubber thread

is defined as vulcanized rubber thread

obtained by extrusion of stable or

concentrated natural latex of any cross

sectional shape; measuring from 0.18

mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140 gauge,

to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18

gauge, in diameter. Such merchandise is

classifiable under item number

4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). The HTS item number

is provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written

description is dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information submitted

by the Government of Malaysia and

Heveafil, Filmax, Rubberflex, Filati and

Rubfil. We followed standard

verification procedures, including

meeting with government and company

officials and examination of relevant

accounting and financial records and

other 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).

Affiliated Parties

Heveafil owns and controls Filmax

and both companies produce subject

merchandise. Therefore, we determine

them to be affiliated companies under

section 771(33) of the Act. As such, and

consistent with prior reviews of this

order, we have calculated only one rate

for both of these companies. See

Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 59 FR 46392 (September 8,

1994). For further information, see

Memorandum to File from Judy

Kornfeld Regarding Status as Affiliated

Parties dated May 22, 1996, on file in

the public file of the Central Records

Unit, Room B–099 of the Department of

Commerce.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined To

Confer Subsidies

1. Export Credit Refinancing (ECR)

Program

The ECR program was established in

order to promote: (1) Exports of

manufactured goods and agricultural

food products that have significant

value-added and high local content, (2)

greater domestic linkages in export

industries, and (3) easy access to credit

facilities. In order to accomplish this,

the Bank Negara Malaysia, the central

bank of Malaysia, provides order-based

and pre- and post-shipment financing of

exports through commercial banks for

periods of up to 120 and 180 days,

respectively, and certificate of

performance (CP)-based pre-shipment

financing. These loans are provided in

Malaysian Ringgits. Order-based

financing is provided for specific sales

to specific markets. CP-based financing

is a line of credit based on the previous

12 months’ export performance, and

cannot be tied to specific sales in

specific markets.

The Department determined that this

program was countervailable in Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination and Countervailing Duty

Order; Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia (57 FR 38472; August 25,

1992) (Malaysian Rubber Thread Final

Determination) because receipt of loans

under this program was contingent

upon export performance and the loans

were provided at preferential interest

rates. No new information or evidence

of changed circumstances has been

submitted in this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding. Heveafil,

Filmax, Rubberflex and Rubfil used preshipment ECR loans. Rubfil and Filati

used post-shipment ECR loans.

In order to determine whether these

loans were provided at preferential rates

during the review period, we compared

the interest rate charged on these loans

to a benchmark interest rate. As a

benchmark for short-term loans, it is our

practice to select the predominant

source of short-term financing in the

country as our benchmark for short-term

loans. See, section 355.44(b)(3) of the

Department’s Proposed Regulations. In

Malaysia, term loans and overdrafts

offered by commercial banks are the

most predominant form of short-term

financing. The average interest rates for

these types of financing, however, are

not individually available. Therefore,

we have used as our benchmark for ECR

loans the average commercial bank

lending rate as an estimate of these
29536 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Notices

predominant short-term lending rates.

This rate is referred to by banks as the

base lending rate (BLR). Commercial

banks then add a one to two percent

spread to the BLR. Thus, to determine

the commercial benchmark, we used the

average commercial BLR rates as

published by Bank Negara, the central

bank of Malaysia, plus an average

spread of 1.5 percent. This is consistent

with the benchmark methodology used

in the last two administrative reviews.

(See, e.g., Extruded Rubber Thread from

Malaysia; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review) (Final Results of 1992 Review)

(60 FR 17515; April 6, 1995).

Based on a comparison of the ECR

rates and the benchmark rate, we find

that ECR loans continue to be provided

at preferential interest rates. To

calculate the benefit from ECR loans on

which interest was paid in 1994, we

used our short-term loan methodology

which has been applied consistently in

previous determinations. (See, e.g.,

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination and Countervailing Duty

Order: Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from

Thailand (55 FR 1695; January 18,

1990); and the Malaysian Rubber

Thread Final Determination in this case

(57 FR 38474; August 27, 1992). See

also section 355.44(b)(3) of the Proposed

Regulations. Because the post-shipment

ECR loans were shipment-specific, we

included in our calculations only those

loans used to finance exports of

extruded rubber thread to the United

States. Because the pre-shipment loans

were not shipment-specific, we

included all loans on which interest was

paid during the review period.

To calculate the benefit, we compared

the amount of interest actually paid on

these loans during the review period

with the amount that would have been

paid at the benchmark rate of 8.98

percent. The difference between those

amounts is the benefit. We then divided

each company’s interest savings by total

exports, in the case of pre-shipment

loans, because they applied to all

exports, or by exports to the United

States, in the case of post-shipment

loans, because they applied to specific

shipments of exports to the United

States. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the ad valorem net subsidy

from pre-shipment loans to be the

following for each of the reviewed

companies:

Net subsidies—producer/exporterNet subsidy

rate %

Heveafil/Filmax ......................... 0.22

Rubberflex ................................. 0.19

Filati .......................................... 0.00

Net subsidies—producer/exporterNet subsidy

rate %

Rubfil ......................................... 0.15

For post-shipment loans, we

preliminarily determine the ad valorem

net subsidy to be the following for each

of the reviewed companies:

Net subsidies—producer/exporterNet subsidy

rate %

Heveafil/Filmax ......................... 0.00

Rubberflex ................................. 0.00

Filati .......................................... 2.59

Rubfil ......................................... 0.23

2. Pioneer Status

Pioneer status is a tax incentive

offered to promote investment in the

manufacturing, tourist, and agricultural

sectors. Pioneer status was first

introduced under the Pioneer Industries

(Relief from Income Tax) Ordinance,

1958. This ordinance was replaced by

the Investment Incentives Act (IIA) in

1968, which was subsequently replaced

by the Promotion of Investment Act

(PIA) of 1986. Under the IIA and the

PIA, the Minister of International Trade

and Industry may determine products or

activities to be pioneer products or

activities.

Companies petition for pioneer status

for products or activities that have

already been approved and listed as

pioneer products. Once a company

receives pioneer status, its profits from

the designated product or activity are

exempt from the corporate income tax

for a period of five years, with the

possibility of an extension for an

additional five years. The five-year

extension was abolished for companies

which applied for pioneer status on or

after November 1991. Furthermore, the

computation of capital allowances,

which are normally deducted against

the adjusted taxable income is

postponed to the post-tax holiday

period.

Under certain conditions, companies

must agree to an export commitment

(i.e., they must agree to export a certain

percentage of their production) to

receive pioneer status. Furthermore, an

export requirement may sometimes be

applied to certain industries after it is

determined that the domestic market is

saturated and will no longer support

additional producers.

In the investigation of this case (see,

Malaysian Rubber Thread Final

Determination), we determined that

pioneer status was granted to Rubberflex

based on its obligation to export.

Therefore, we found the program to

constitute an export subsidy with

respect to that company. In addition, in

past administrative reviews, we

reviewed the pioneer status of Filati and

Filmax and found the program

countervailable with respect to both of

these companies because pioneer status

was granted to each based on a

commitment that they would export a

majority of their production. (See Final

Results of 1992 Review.) No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of these findings.

Rubberflex, Filati and Filmax continued

to hold pioneer status during the review

period. However, no benefits were

provided to any of these companies

because either the company (1) did not

file a tax return, or (2) had a tax loss

during this review period.

Rubfil was the only company to claim

the tax exemption under pioneer status

during the review period. However, in

the original investigation and in prior

administrative reviews of this order,

Rubfil either did not use this program or

did not participate in the review.

Therefore, a determination as to the

countervailability of this program with

respect to Rubfil has not been made.

During verification of this review we

examined the application process which

led to the granting of Rubfil’s pioneer

status. We verified that in its pioneer

agreement, Rubfil committed to export a

majority of its production. Therefore,

since pioneer status was conferred upon

Rubfil contingent upon its export

commitment, we determine this

program constitutes an export subsidy

with respect to that company.

To calculate the benefit, we

determined the tax savings from this

program during the review period and

divided those savings by total exports.

On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the ad valorem net subsidy

from this program to be the following

for each of the reviewed companies:

Net subsidies—producer/exporterNet subsidy

rate %

Heveafil/Filmax ......................... 0.00

Rubberflex ................................. 0.00

Filati .......................................... 0.00

Rubfil ......................................... 0.15

3. Industrial Building Allowance

Sections 63 through 66 of the Income

Tax Act of 1967, as amended, allow an

income tax deduction for a percentage

of the value of constructed or purchased

buildings used in manufacturing. In

1984, this allowance, which had been

limited to manufacturing facilities, was

extended to include buildings used as

warehouses to store finished goods
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Notices 29537

ready for export or imported inputs to

be incorporated into exported goods.

This program includes a 10 percent

initial and a 2 percent annual tax

allowance (i.e., 12 percent in the first

year and 2 percent thereafter). The

program effectively reduces a

company’s taxable income, and the tax

allowance can be carried forward to

future tax years until fully exhausted.

Rubber-based exporters are eligible for

this program. We found this program

countervailable in the Malaysian Rubber

Thread Final Determination because use

of this allowance is limited to exporters.

No new information or evidence of

changed circumstances has been

submitted in this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this program’s

countervailability.

Heveafil used this program during the

review period. To calculate the benefit,

we determined the tax savings from this

program during the review period for

Heveafil and divided the savings

amount by Heveafil/Filmax’s total

exports, because these benefits applied

to all exports. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the ad valorem

net subsidy from this program to be the

following for each of the reviewed

companies:

Net subsidies—producer/exporterNet subsidy

rate %

Heveafil/Filmax ......................... Less than

0.005

Rubberflex ................................. 0.00

Filati .......................................... 0.00

Rubfil ......................................... 0.00

4. Double Deduction for Export

Promotion Expenses

Section 41 of the Promotion of

Investments Act allows companies to

deduct expenses related to the

promotion of exports twice, once in

calculating net income on the financial

statement and again in calculating

taxable income. We found this program

countervailable in the Malaysian Rubber

Thread Final Determination because its

use is limited to exporters. No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been submitted in

this proceeding to warrant

reconsideration of this finding.

Heveafil used this program during the

review period. To calculate the benefit,

we calculated the tax savings from this

program during the review period for

this company and divided those savings

by Heveafil/Filmax’s total exports,

because these benefits applied to all

exports. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the ad valorem net subsidy

from this program to be the following

for each of the reviewed companies:

Net subsidies—producer/exporterNet subsidy

rate %

Heveafil/Filmax ......................... 0.02

Rubberflex ................................. 0.00

Filati .......................................... 0.00

Rubfil ......................................... 0.00

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined

to be Not Used

We examined the following programs

and preliminarily find that the

producers and/or exporters subject to

review did not apply for or receive

benefits under these programs during

the period of review:

• Investment Tax Allowance,

• Abatement of a Percentage of Net

Taxable Income Based on the F.O.B.

Value of Export Sales,

• Abatement of Five Percent of

Taxable Income Due to Location in a

Promoted Industrial Area,

• Abatement of Taxable Income of

Five Percent of Adjusted Income of

Companies due to Capital Participation

and Employment Policy Adherence,

• Double Deduction of Export Credit

Insurance Payments,

• Abatement of Taxable Income of

Five Percent of Adjusted Income of

Companies Due to Capital Participation

and Employment Policy Adherence, and

• Preferential Financing for

Bumiputras.

Preliminary Results of Review

In accordance with section

355.22(c)(4)(ii) of the Department’s

Interim Regulations, we have calculated

an individual subsidy rate for each

producer/exporter subject to this

administrative review. For the period

January 1, 1994 through December 31,

1994, we preliminarily determine the ad

valorem net subsidies to be as follows:

Net subsidies—producer/exporterNet subsidy

Rate %

Heveafil/Filmax ......................... 0.24

Rubberflex ................................. 0.19

Filati .......................................... 2.58

Rubfil ......................................... 0.52

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 countervailing duties as indicated

above. The Department also intends to

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

collect cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties as indicated above

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

shipments of the subject merchandise

from reviewed companies, entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of this

review. As provided for in the Act, any

rate less than 0.5 percent ad valorem in

an administrative review is de minimis.

Accordingly, for those companies no

countervailing duties will be assessed or

cash deposits required.

The URAA replaced the general rule

in favor of a country-wide rate with a

general rule in favor of individual rates

for investigated and reviewed

companies. The procedures for

countervailing duty cases are now

essentially the same as those in

antidumping cases, except as provided

for in section 777(e)(2)(B) of the Act.

Requests for administrative reviews

must now specify the companies to be

reviewed. See § 355.22(a) of the Interim

Regulations. The requested review will

normally cover only those companies

specifically named. Pursuant to 19 CFR

355.22(g), for all companies for which a

review was not requested, duties must

be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and

cash deposits must continue to be

collected, at the rate previously ordered.

As such, the countervailing duty cash

deposit rate applicable to a company

can no longer change, except pursuant

to a request for a review of that

company. See Federal-Mogul

Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp.

782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council

v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT

1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e),

the antidumping regulation on

automatic assessment, which is

identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g)).

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all

companies except those covered by this

review will be unchanged by the results

of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies at the most recent

company-specific or country-wide rate

applicable to the company. Accordingly,

the cash deposit rates that will be

applied to non-reviewed companies

covered by this order are those

established in the most recently

completed administrative proceeding.

See Extruded Rubber Thread from

Malaysia; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (60 FR 17515; April 6, 1995).

These rates shall apply to all nonreviewed companies until a review of a

company assigned these rates is

requested. In addition, for the period

January 1, 1994 through December 31,

1994, the assessment rates applicable to

all non-reviewed companies covered by

this order are the cash deposit rates in

effect at the time of entry.
29538 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Notices

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.

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, 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)).

Dated: May 29, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14741 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 060496D]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene a public meeting.

DATES: The meetings are scheduled as

follows: Mackerel Advisory Panel (AP)

July 8, 1996, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00

p.m.; Standing and Special Mackerel

Scientific and Statistical Committee

(SSC), July 9, 1996, from 10:00 a.m. to

5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Mackerel AP and SSC

meeting will be held at the Ponchartrain

Hotel, 2031 St. Charles Avenue, New

Orleans, LA 70104; telephone: 800–777–

6193.

Council address: Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council, 5401

West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 331,

Tampa, FL 33609.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Leard, Senior Fishery Biologist;

telephone: 813–228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Mackerel AP during its meeting on July

8, 1996 and the SSC during its meeting

on July 9, 1996 will review the

following mackerel assessment

information and develop their

recommendations to the Council: A

stock assessment for the fishery

prepared by NMFS; a report of the

Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel

which will recommend the range of

allowable biological catch of Gulf group

king mackerel for the 1996–97 season;

and a report of a scientific

socioeconomic panel which examines

social and economic impacts of various

levels of total allowable catch (TAC) for

the 1996–97 season.

The Council will consider these

recommendations when it sets TAC and

trip and bag limits for king and Spanish

mackerel for the 1996–97 mackerel

season at the Council meeting on July

17–18, 1996 in Tampa, FL.

The SSC consists of scientists, and the

Mackerel AP is made up of fishermen

and other users who advise the Council

on fishery issues.

Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Anne Alford at the

Council (see ADDRESSES) by July 1, 1996.

Dated: June 5, 1996.

Richard H. Schaefer,

Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and

Management, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

[FR Doc. 96–14732 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

[I.D. 060496C]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council’s (Council)

Mackerel Socioeconomic Panel (SEP)

will convene a public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held

beginning at 11:00 a.m. on July 1, 1996

and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. on July

2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at

the Radisson Bay Harbor Inn, 7700

Courtney Campbell Causeway, Tampa

FL; 813–281–8900.

Council address: Gulf of Mexico

Fishery Management Council, 5401

West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 331,

Tampa, FL 33609.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Antonio B. Lamberte, Economist;

telephone: 813–228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

purpose of the meeting will be to review

available social and economic data on

the Gulf of Mexico king mackerel

fishery and to determine the social and

economic implications of the levels of

acceptable biological catch

recommended by the Council’s

Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel. The

SEP may recommend to the Council a

total allowable catch level for the 1996–

97 fishing year.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible

to people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be directed to

Anne Alford at the Council (see

ADDRESSES) by June 24, 1996.

Dated: June 5, 1996.

Richard H. Schaefer,

Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and

Management, National Marine Fisheries

Service.

[FR Doc. 96–14733 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of an Import Limit for

Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber

Textile Products Produced of

Manufactured in Malaysia

June 5, 1996.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs reducing a

limit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 1996.