Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Notices 29531

Dated: May 30, 1996.

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14743 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[Docket 47–96]

Foreign-Trade Zone 168—Dallas/Fort

Worth, TX, Area; Application for

Expansion

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the Dallas/Fort Worth

Maquila Trade Development

Corporation, grantee of FTZ 168,

requesting authority to expand its zone

to include a site in Carrollton, Texas,

within the Dallas/Fort Worth Customs

port of entry. The application was

submitted pursuant to the provisions of

the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the

regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part

400). It was formally filed on May 30,

1996.

FTZ 168 was approved on November

1, 1990 (Board Order 491, 55 FR 46974,

11/8/90) and reorganized in 1992 and

1994. The zone currently consists of

three sites in the Fort Worth, Texas,

area:

Site 1 (24 acres)—industrial area at

Alta Mesa and Will Rogers Boulevards,

Fort Worth;

Site 2 (263 acres)—Centreport

Industrial Development, south of DFW

International Airport, Fort Worth;

Site 3 (195 acres)—Fossil Creek

Business Park, I–35W and I–820, Fort

Worth.

Applications are currently pending

for a site (proposed Site 4—91 acres)

located at the Regency Business Park

along Post & Paddock Road, Grand

Prairie, Texas (Doc. 77–95, 60 FR 61528,

11/30/95), and a site (proposed Site 5—

630 acres) within the 1,200-acre

Mercantile Center, located at I–35 and

Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas

(Doc. 27–96, 61 FR 17875, 4/23/96).

The applicant is now requesting

authority to expand the zone to include

a site at the Frankford Trade Center (168

acres) located adjacent to I–35E and

Frankford Road, Carrollton, Texas. The

site is owned by Hunt Realty

Investments, Inc., and zone services will

be provided by the FTZ Operating

Company of Texas.

No specific manufacturing requests

are being made at this time. Such

requests would be made to the Board on

a case-by case basis.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and 3 copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is August 12, 1996. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period (to August 26, 1996).

A copy of the application and

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

U.S. Department of Commerce District

Office 2050 N. Stemmons Fwy., Suite

170 Dallas, Texas 75258

Office of the Executive Secretary

Foreign-Trade Zones Board U.S.

Department of Commerce, Room 3716

14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230

Dated: May 30, 1996.

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14744 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[Order No. 826]

Removal of Time Limit for

Manufacturing Authority, Western

Publishing Company, Inc. (Children’s

Books) Within Foreign-Trade Zone 41,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin Area

Pursuant to its authority under the

Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18,

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u),

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, an application from the

Foreign-Trade Zone of Wisconsin, Ltd.,

grantee of FTZ 41, filed with the

Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the

Board) on November 20, 1995,

requesting removal of the time limit

contained in Board Order 639 (58 FR

30144, 5/26/93), which authorized, on

behalf of Western Publishing Company,

Inc., the manufacture of children’s

touch-sound books under zone

procedures within FTZ 41, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, area (FTZ Docket 76–95, 60

FR 61528);

Whereas, notice inviting public

comment was given in the Federal

Register and the application has been

processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and

the Board’s regulations; and,

Whereas, the Board adopts the

findings and recommendations of the

examiner’s report, and finds that the

requirements of the FTZ Act and

Board’s regulations would be satisfied

and that the proposal would be in the

public interest, approves the requested

removal of the time limit;

Now, therefore, the Board hereby

authorizes the removal of the time limit

from FTZ Board Order 639, subject to

the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board’s

regulations, including Section 400.28.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of

June 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Commerce for

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14740 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

International Trade Administration

[A–122–804; C–122–805]

New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail, From

Canada: Initiation and Preliminary

Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty and Countervailing

Duty Administrative Reviews, and

Intent To Revoke Orders in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation and

preliminary results of changed

circumstances antidumping duty and

countervailing duty administrative

reviews, and intent to revoke orders in

part.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

Gerdau MRM Steel, Inc. (Gerdau), an

interested party in these proceedings in

accordance with sections 353.2(k) and

355.2(i) of our regulations, and an

exporter of nominal 60 ASCE (ASTM

A1–92) steel rail, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is initiating

changed circumstances antidumping

duty and countervailing duty

administrative reviews and issuing an

intent to revoke in part the antidumping

duty and countervailing duty orders on

new steel rail, except light rail, from

Canada, the scope of which currently

include new steel rail at least 60 pounds

per yard or heavier. Gerdau requested

that the Department revoke the orders in

part as to imports of nominal-60-

pounds-per-yard new steel rail from

Canada (60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92).

Bethlehem Steel Corp. and CF&I Steel,

L.P., petitioners in these cases, have

submitted letters indicating they have

no objection to the initiation of these

changed circumstances reviews and no

interest in maintaining the antidumping
29532 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Notices

duty and countervailing duty orders on

60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92 new steel rail

from Canada. Based on the fact that this

portion of these orders is no longer of

interest to domestic parties, we intend

to partially revoke these orders.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

F. Unger, Jr., Office of Antidumping

Compliance or Robert Copyak, 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)482–0651 and (202)

482–2209, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 3, 1989, the Department

published the antidumping and

countervailing duty final determination

in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation (54 FR 31984), which

covered new steel rail 60 pounds per

yard and heavier. The Department

published an antidumping duty order

on new steel rail, except light rail, on

September 15, 1989 (54 FR 38263). The

Department published a countervailing

duty order on new steel rail, except light

rail, on September 22, 1989 (54 FR

39032).

On February 1, 1996, Gerdau

requested that the Department conduct

changed circumstances administrative

reviews to determine whether to

partially revoke the orders with regard

to 60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92 new steel rail.

The orders’ application to imports of

new steel rail other than 60 ASCE/

ASTM A1–92 is not affected by this

request. On March 29, 1996, petitioner,

Bethlehem Steel advised the

Department that it has no interest in

maintaining the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on 60 ASCE/

ASTM A1–92 new steel rail. In addition,

Gerdau informed the Department that it

has canvassed interested parties known

to it to be actively involved in the

production of 60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92

steel rail in the United States, and did

not find any opposition to the

revocation of the orders with regard to

60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92 steel rail.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the current

regulations, as amended by the interim

regulations published in the Federal

Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by these

changed circumstances reviews is

imports of 60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92 new

steel rail. The merchandise covered by

the orders is new steel rail, except light

rail, whether of carbon, high carbon,

alloy or other quality steel, and includes

standard rails, all main line sections,

heat-treated or head-hardened

(premium) rails, transit rails, contact rail

(or ‘‘third rail’’) and crane rails. This

merchandise is currently classified

under subheadings 7302.10.1020,

7302.10.1040, 7302.10.5000, and

8548.00.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). The HTS numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description of the

scope of these reviews remains

dispositive.

These changed circumstances

administrative reviews cover all

manufacturers/exporters of 60 ASCE/

ASTM A1–92 steel rail, except light rail,

from Canada.

Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping

Duty and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews, and Intent To

Revoke Orders in Part

Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) and

782(h)(2) of the Act, the Department

may partially revoke an antidumping or

countervailing duty order based on a

review under section 751(b) of the Act

(i.e., a changed circumstances review).

Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a

changed circumstances administrative

review to be conducted upon receipt of

a request which shows changed

circumstances sufficient to warrant a

review.

The Department’s regulations at 19

CFR 353.25(d)(2) and 355.25(d)(2)

permit the Department to conduct

changed circumstances administrative

reviews under section 353.22(f) and

355.22(h), respectively, based upon an

affirmative statement of no interest from

the petitioner in the proceeding.

Sections 353.25(d)(1)(i) and

355.25(d)(1)(i) further provide that the

Department may revoke an order or

revoke an order in part if it determines

that the order under review is no longer

of interest to interested parties. In

addition, in the event that the

Department concludes that expedited

action is warranted, sections 353.22(f)(4)

and 355.22(h)(4) of the regulations

permit the Department to combine the

notices of initiation and preliminary

results.

Therefore, in accordance with

sections 751(d)(1) and 782(h)(2) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.25(d), 353.22(f),

355.25(d), and 355.22(h), based on

affirmative statements of no interest by

Bethlehem Steel and CF&I Steel, we are

initiating these changed circumstances

administrative reviews. Further, based

on the representation made by Gerdau

that other U.S. producers of this

merchandise have no interest in the

orders with respect to 60 ASCE/ASTM

A1–92 steel rail, we determine that

expedited action is warranted, and we

preliminarily determine that continued

coverage of 60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92 steel

rail is no longer of interest to domestic

interested parties. Because we have

concluded that expedited action is

warranted, we are combining these

notices of initiation and preliminary

results. Therefore, we are hereby

notifying the public of our intent to

revoke in part the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders as to imports

of 60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92 new steel rail

from Canada.

If final revocation in part occurs, we

intend to instruct the U.S. Customs

Service (Customs) to liquidate without

regard to antidumping or countervailing

duties and to refund any estimated

antidumping and countervailing duties

collected for all entries of 60 ASCE/

ASTM A1–92 steel rail made on or after

the date of publication in the Federal

Register of the final results of these

reviews in accordance with 19 CFR

353.25(d)(5) and 355.25(d)(5). We will

also instruct Customs to pay interest on

such refunds in accordance with section

778 of the Act. The current requirement

for a cash deposit of estimated

antidumping and countervailing duties

on 60 ASCE/ASTM A1–92 steel rail will

continue until publication of the final

results of these changed circumstances

reviews.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceedings may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held no

later than 28 days after the date of

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Case briefs and/or

written comments from interested

parties may be submitted not later than

14 days after the date of publication of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 11, 1996 / Notices 29533

this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals

to written comments, limited to the

issues raised in those comments, may be

filed not later than 21 days after the date

of publication of this notice. All written

comments shall be submitted in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(e) and

355.31(e) and shall be served on all

interested parties on the Department’s

service list in accordance with 19 CFR

353.31(g) and 355.31(g). Persons

interested in attending the hearing

should contact the Department for the

date and time of the hearing. The

Department will publish the final

results of these changed circumstances

reviews, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any written

comments.

This notice is in accordance with

sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and

sections 353.22(f), 353.25(d), 355.22(h),

and 355.25(d) of the Department’s

regulations.

Dated: June 4, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–14738 Filed 6–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–549–502]

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes From Thailand:

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review in Accordance With Decision

on Remand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of

antidumping duty administrative review

in accordance with decision on remand.

SUMMARY: On August 26, 1992, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register the final results of the second

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes from Thailand. The review

covered the period March 1, 1988

through February 28, 1989.

On February 14, 1995, the Court of

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) issued an

order, in the case of Saha Thai Steel

Pipe Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op.

95–21 (CIT 1995), remanding to the

Department the final results of the

second administrative review of Saha

Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Saha Thai’’).

The Department issued its remand

results on May 3, 1995, and its final

calculations on June 21, 1995. On

August 2, 1995, the CIT affirmed the

Department’s redetermination (Slip Op.

95–139). Since the CIT’s ruling was not

appealed, and the CIT decision

affirming our redetermination has

become final and conclusive within the

meaning of section 516A(e) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we

are amending our final results of the

second administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes from Thailand with respect to

Saha Thai.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alain Letort or Linda Ludwig, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–3793 or telefax

(202) 482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of certain circular welded

carbon steel pipes and tubes with an

outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more,

but not exceeding 16 inches. These

products, which are commonly referred

to in the industry as ‘‘standard pipe’’ or

‘‘structural tubing,’’ are hereinafter

designated as ‘‘pipe and tube.’’ Pipe and

tube is currently classifiable under item

numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025,

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040,

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and

7306.30.5090 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’). These item numbers

are provided for convenience and

customs purposes only. The written

product description remains dispositive.

This review covers shipments made

by Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Saha

Thai’’) from Thailand to the United

States during the period March 1, 1988

through February 28, 1989.

Background

On August 26, 1992, the Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published in the Federal Register the

final results of the second

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

circular welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes from Thailand (57 FR 38668)

(‘‘Final Results’’). The review covered

shipments of this merchandise from

Thailand to the United States during the

period March 1, 1988, through February

28, 1989, by Saha Thai.

On February 14, 1995, the Court of

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) issued an

order, in the case of Saha Thai Steel

Pipe Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op.

95–21 (CIT 1995), remanding to the

Department the final results of the

second antidumping duty

administrative review of Saha Thai. The

CIT ordered the Department ‘‘to clearly

set forth the criteria used in its Final

Results and to provide a reasonable

explanation for any departure from

established criteria if necessary, the

facts used, and the conclusions reached

in light of those criteria and facts.’’ The

Department having done so as reported

in its remand results dated May 31,

1995, and final calculations dated June

21, 1995 (together referred to as the

‘‘remand results’’), the CIT, on August 2,

1995, affirmed the remand results (Slip

Op. 95–139).

Amended Final Results of the Review

As a result of our recalculations, we

have determined that a weightedaverage dumping margin of 0.46 percent

ad valorem exists for certain circular

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

sold by Saha Thai during the period

beginning on March 1, 1988 and ending

on February 28, 1989. The dumping

margin is de minimis.

Because the CIT’s ruling affirming our

redetermination has become final and

conclusive, within the meaning of

section 516A(e) of the Act, the

Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service immediately to lift the

suspension of liquidation and also to

assess antidumping duties on entries

subject to this review, as appropriate.

The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of

antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this

review period. Failure to comply with

this requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.