Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28163

On May 13–14, 1996, the FBI

provided additional evidence to the

Review Board regarding 2 records (and

2 duplicates) that previously had been

the subject of Review Board

determinations. Upon receiving and

evaluating this additional evidence, the

Review Board voted to sustain

postponements as follows:

FROM ORIGINAL FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE: 96–11177, 61 FR 20211

Record No. No. original releases

No. original postponementsNo. revised releasesNo. revised postponementsDate of revised

re-review

124–10023–10230 ............................................ 3 0 2 1 05/2006

124–10091–10003 ............................................ 3 0 2 1 05/2006

124–10018–10380 ............................................ 1 0 0 1 05/2006

124–10170–10350 ............................................ 1 0 0 1 05/2006

Additional Notice

Technical corrections have been made

in 104–10019–10022, as released by the

Board on April 17, 1996, to bring it into

conformity with an identical document,

104–10018–10040, as released by the

Board on August 3, 1995. The record

should have 9 releases and 7

postponements. Additionally, two

documents were incorrectly reported in

the April 6, 1996 Federal Register (96–

8526, 61 FR 15760). Document 104–

10004–10093 was reported as 7 releases

and 1 postponement; the Board’s action

was 6 releases and 2 postponements.

Document 104–10184–10001 was

reported as 99 releases and 134

postponements; the Board’s action was

41 releases and 189 postponements.

The Review Board also rescinded its

earlier determination (noticed at 96–

11177, 61 FR 20211), regarding the

following FBI records, in order to

provide the FBI additional time to

submit evidence in support of its

proposed postponements. These records

are: 124–10011–10498, 124–10086–

10157, 124–10173–10044, 124–10250-

10245, 124–10252–10073.

Dated: May 29, 1996.

David G. Marwell,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96–13838 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6118–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATES: June 4, 1996, 2:00 p.m. This

notice changes the date and time of the

open meeting noticed in Vol. 61 FR

27047, published on May 30, 1996.

PLACE: ARRB, 600 E Street, NW,

Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Review and Accept Minutes of Last

Open Meeting.

2. Amendment of Board Procedures.

3. Other Business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Thomas Samoluk, Associate Director for

Communications, 600 E Street, NW,

Second Floor, Washington, DC 20530.

Telephone: (202) 724–0088; Fax: (202)

724–0457.

David G. Marwell,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96–14028 Filed 5–30–96; 5:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 6118–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Determination Not To Revoke

Antidumping Duty Orders and

Findings Nor To Terminate Suspended

Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Determination Not to Revoke

Antidumping Duty Orders and Findings

Nor to Terminate Suspended

Investigations.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is notifying the public of its

determination not to revoke the

antidumping duty orders and findings

nor to terminate the suspended

investigations listed below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Panfeld or the analyst listed

under Antidumping Proceeding at:

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,

telephone (202) 482–4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Commerce (the

Department) may revoke an

antidumping duty order or finding or

terminate a suspended investigation,

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(iii), if

no interested party has requested an

administrative review for four

consecutive annual anniversary months

and no domestic interested party objects

to the revocation or requests an

administrative review.

We had not received a request to

conduct an administrative review for

the most recent four consecutive annual

anniversary months. Therefore,

pursuant to § 353.25(d)(4)(i) of the

Department’s regulations, on April 1,

1996, we published in the Federal

Register a notice of intent to revoke

these antidumping duty orders and

findings and to terminate the suspended

investigations and served written notice

of the intent to each domestic interested

party on the Department’s service list in

each case. Within the specified time

frame, we received objections from

domestic interested parties to our intent

to revoke these antidumping duty orders

and findings and to terminate the

suspended investigations. Therefore,

because domestic interested parties

objected to our intent to revoke or

terminate, we no longer intend to revoke

these antidumping duty orders and

findings or to terminate the suspended

investigations.

Antidumping Proceeding

A–122–085

Canada

Sugar and Syrups

Objection Date: April 24, 1996; April 29,

1996

Objector: American Sugar Cane League et.

al., Florida Sugar Marketing and

Terminal Association, Inc., et.al.

Contact: David Dirstine at (202) 482–4033

A–484–801

Greece

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide

Objection Date: April 29, 1996

Objector: Kerr-McGee Chemical

Corporation, Chemetals Inc.

Contact: Thomas Barlow at (202) 482–0410

A–779–602

Kenya

Standard Carnations

Objection Date: April 26, 1996

Objector: Floral Trade Council

Contact: Michael Panfeld at (202) 482–0168

Dated: May 21, 1996.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–13967 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
28164 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

[A–588–840]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation: Engineered Process Gas

Turbo-Compressor Systems, Whether

Assembled or Unassembled, and

Whether Complete or Incomplete,

From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irene Darzenta at (202) 482–6320 or

Katherine Johnson at (202) 482–4929,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute

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 (‘‘URAA’’).

The Petition

On May 8, 1996, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received

a petition filed in proper form by

Dresser-Rand Company. On May 21,

1996, Dresser Rand Company provided

supplemental data regarding specific

issues relating to scope, industry

support, and pricing information. On

May 23, 1996, the United Steelworkers

of America (‘‘USW’’) entered an

appearance as co-petitioners in this

investigation. The USW represents

turbo-compressor systems production

workers for three domestic producers of

the subject merchandise. In accordance

with section 732(b) of the Act, the

petitioners allege that imports of

engineered process gas turbocompressor systems, whether assembled

or unassembled, and whether complete

or incomplete (‘‘turbo-compressor

systems’’) from Japan are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value within the meaning

of section 731 of the Act, and that such

imports are materially injuring, or

threatening material injury to, a U.S.

industry.

Since the petitioners are interested

parties as defined under section

771(9)(C) of the Act, they have standing

to file a petition for the imposition of

antidumping duties.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act

requires the Department to determine,

that a minimum percentage of the

domestic industry supports an

antidumping petition. A petition meets

the minimum requirements if (1)

domestic producers or workers who

support the petition account for at least

25 percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) those

domestic producers or workers

expressing support account for more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

On May 24, 1996, Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries (‘‘MHI’’) submitted a letter

challenging the industry support for the

petition. MHI argued that the turbocompressor systems covered in the

petition are comprised of numerous

products, including steam turbines,

lubrication systems, and seal systems, as

such the petitioners are required to

show industry support for domestic

producers of these products. MHI

further argued that because the petition

contains no data showing industry

support for these products, e.g., steam

turbines, the Department must resort to

polling of these producers. We have

determined that MHI’s challenge is

without merit. The like product covered

by this investigation is a complete

system. The ‘‘products’’ identified by

MHI are subcomponents which are

included within the like product of

systems only to the extent that they are

designed and dedicated to a specific

system, which is typically designed to

contract specifications. Thus, for

example, steam turbines by themselves

are not covered by the scope of this

investigation and as a result a showing

of support by the steam turbine industry

is not required. Rather, only steam

turbines included in the contract for the

initial system designed and dedicated

for use in a complete system (the like

product) are covered. Accordingly, it

would be inappropriate to consider

whether steam turbine producers

support a petition on turbinecompressor systems.

A review of the production data

provided in the petition and other

information readily available to the

Department indicates that the

petitioners account for more than 50

percent of the total production of the

like product. (See Office of

Antidumping Investigation’s Initiation

checklist dated May 28, 1996). The

Department received no expressions of

opposition to the petition from any U.S.

producers or workers. Accordingly, the

Department determines that the petition

is filed on behalf of the domestic

industry.

Scope of the Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are turbo-compressor

systems (i.e., one or more ‘‘assemblies’’

or ‘‘trains’’) which are comprised of

various configurations of process gas

compressors, drivers (i.e., steam

turbines or motor-gear systems designed

to drive such compressors), and

auxiliary control systems and

lubrication systems for use with such

compressors and compressor drivers,

whether assembled or unassembled.

One or more of these turbo-compressor

assemblies or trains, may be combined.

The systems covered are only those

used in the petrochemical and fertilizer

industries, in the production of

ethylene, propylene, ammonia, urea, or

methanol. This petition does not

encompass turbo-compressor systems

incorporating gas turbine drivers, which

are typically used in pipeline

transmission, injection, gas processing,

and liquid natural gas service.

Compressors are machines used to

increase the pressure of a gas or vapor,

or mixture of gases and vapors.

Compressors are commonly classified as

reciprocating, rotary, jet, centrifugal, or

axial (classified by the mechanical

means of compressing the fluid), or as

positive-displacement or dynamic-type

(classified by the manner in which the

mechanical elements act on the fluid to

be compressed). Subject compressors

include only centrifugal compressors

engineered for process gas compression,

e.g., ammonia, urea, methanol,

propylene, or ethylene service.

Unassembled compressors for purposes

of this investigation consist of (1) either

half of the casing (in the case of a

horizontally split casing) or the casing

and end-caps, whether or not

assembled, and whether or not mounted

on a platform; or (2) the rotor, whether

or not mounted in the casing.

Compressors are often disassembled

into such component parts for shipping.

Turbines are classified (1) as steam or

gas; (2) by mechanical arrangement as

single-casing, multiple shaft, or tandemcompound (more than one casing with

a single shaft); (3) by flow direction

(axial or radial); (4) by steam cycle,

whether condensing, non-condensing,

automatic extraction, or reheat; and (5)

by number of exhaust flows of a

condensing unit. Steam and gas turbines

are used in various applications. Only

steam turbines as dedicated for a turbo-
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28165

compressor system are subject to this

investigation.

An ‘‘unassembled’’ steam turbine, for

purposes of this investigation, includes

(1) either half of the turbine casing,

whether or not mounted on a platform;

or (2) the turbine rotor, whether or not

mounted in the casing. Steam turbines

are commonly disassembled into major

segments for shipping.

A motor and gear box is used as a

compressor driver in lieu of a steam

turbine. A control system is used to

monitor and control the operation of a

turbo-compressor system. A lubrication

system is engineered to support a

subject compressor and steam turbine

(or motor/gear box).

A typical turbo-compressor system

consists of one or more compressors

driven by a turbine (or in some cases a

motor drive). A compressor is usually

installed on a base plate and the drive

is installed on a separate base plate. The

turbine (or motor drive) base plate will

typically also include any governing or

safety systems, couplings, and a

gearbox, if any. The lube and oil seal

systems for the turbine and

compressor(s) are usually mounted on a

separate skid.

This scope covers only constituent

parts of turbo-compressor systems that

are integral to the original start-up and

operation of the turbo-compressor

system, whether shipped individually

or in combination with other subject

merchandise. This scope excludes spare

parts that are sold separately from a

contract for a turbo-compressor system.

Turbo-compressor systems imported

from Japan as an assembly or train (i.e.,

including turbines, compressors, motor

and gear boxes, control systems and

lubrication systems, and auxiliary

equipment) may be classified under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading

8414.80.2015, which provides for

centrifugal and axial compressors. The

U.S. Customs Service may view the

combination of turbine driver and

compressor as ‘‘more than’’ a

compressor and, as a result, classify the

combination under HTSUS subheading

8419.60.5000.

Compressors for use in turbocompressor systems, if imported

separately, may also be classified under

HTSUS subheading 8414.80.2015. Parts

for such compressors, including rotors

or impellers and housing, are classified

under HTSUS subheading 8414.90.4045

and 8414.90.4055.

Steam turbines for use in turbocompressor systems, if imported

separately, may be classified under the

following HTSUS subheadings:

8406.81.1020: steam turbines, other than

marine turbines, stationary, condensing

type, of an output exceeding 40MW;

8406.82.1010: Steam turbines, other

than marine turbines, stationary,

condensing type, exceeding 7,460 Kw;

8406.82.1020: Steam turbines, other

than marine turbines, stationary,

condensing type, exceeding 7,460 Kw,

but not exceeding 40 MW;

8406.82.1050: Steam turbines, other

than marine turbines, stationary, other

than condensing type, not exceeding

7,460 Kw; 8406.82.1070: steam turbines,

other than marine turbines, stationary,

other than condensing type, exceeding

7,460 Kw, but not exceeding 40 MW.

Parts for such turbines are classified

under HTSUS subheading 8406.90.2000

through 8406.90.4580.

Control and other auxiliary systems

may be classified under HTSUS

9032.89.6030, ‘‘automatic regulating or

controlling instruments and apparatus:

complete process control systems.’’

Motor and gear box entries may be

classified under HTSUS subheading

8501.53.4080, 8501.53.6000,

8501.53.8040, or 8501.53.8060. Gear

speed changers used to match the speed

of an electric motor to the shaft speed

of a driven compressor, would be

classified under HTSUS subheading

8483.40.5010.

Lubrication systems may be classified

under HTSUS subheading 8414.90.4075.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

The scope of this investigation

includes incomplete and unassembled

systems. Given that systems may be

shipped in different containers, it is

important to ensure that the subject

merchandise, in particular components

and subassemblies, be readily

identifiable to the U.S. Customs Service.

To ensure that any antidumping order

which may result is clear and

enforceable, we are asking interested

parties to submit comments to the

Department by July 8, 1996. Reply

comments will be due by July 22, 1996.

Export Price and Normal Value

The petitioners based export price on

a foreign producer’s 1995 contract price

for the sale of: (1) A charge gas

compressor train, (2) a propylene

compressor train, and (3) an ethylene

compressor sold as an entire package.

The terms of the contract were based on

a delivered price with duties paid to the

nearest U.S. port. Deductions were

made to export price for packing, inland

freight, ocean freight, and customs

duties.

The petitioners submitted three

alternatives for determining normal

value. Of the three alternatives, the

Department, for initiation purposes,

relied on the normal value calculated

based on constructed value (‘‘CV’’)

using the U.S. producer’s production

costs, because the other calculations

were based on non-contemporaneous

prices. Since the CV calculation

provided an adequate basis for

initiation, we did not further analyze

the remaining two normal value

calculations submitted by the

petitioners.

CV includes the cost of manufacturing

(‘‘COM’’), selling, general and

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), U.S.

packing, and profit.

The petitioners calculated COM based

on the U.S. producer’s own cost data as

reflected in a recent bid proposal to

produce a turbo-compressor system for

a U.S. sale, adjusted for known

differences between costs incurred in

producing turbo-compressor systems in

the United States and in Japan. The

labor and engineering cost estimates

were adjusted from one of the U.S.

producer’s cost models to reflect the

higher compensation levels existing in

Japan compared to those in the United

States. The Japan/U.S. labor cost inflator

used to adjust the labor and engineering

cost estimates was based on data

petitioners obtained from reports issued

by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For SG&A and profit, the petitioners

relied on the 1995 financial statements

of a Japanese producer of turbocompressor systems. We recalculated

the SG&A and profit rates, revising the

figures upward to account for an error

in the petitioners’ calculations. The

petitioners did not separately report an

amount for U.S. packing.

Based on comparison of export price

to the Department’s recalculation of CV,

the estimated dumping margin is 90.05

percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the

petitioner, there is reason to believe that

imports of turbo-compressor systems

from Japan are being, or are likely to be,

sold at less than fair value. If it becomes

necessary at a later date to consider the

petition as a source of facts available

under section 776 of the Act, we may

further review the calculations.

Initiation of Investigation

We have examined the petition on

turbo-compressor systems and have

found that it meets the requirements of

section 732 of the Act, including the

requirements concerning allegations of

the material injury or threat of material
28166 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

injury to the domestic producers of a

like product by reason of the subject

imports, allegedly sold at less than fair

value. Therefore, we are initiating an

antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of turbocompressor systems from Japan are

being, or are likely to be, sold at less

than fair value in the United States.

Unless extended, we will make our

preliminary determination by October

15, 1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been

provided to the representatives of the

Government of Japan. We will attempt

to provide a copy of the public version

of the petition to each exporter of turbocompressor systems named in the

petition.

International Trade Commission

(‘‘ITC’’) Notification

We have notified the ITC of our

initiation, as required by section 732(d)

of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by June 24,

1996, whether there is a reasonable

indication that imports of turbocompressor systems from Japan are

causing material injury, or threatening

to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination

will result in the investigation being

terminated; otherwise, the investigation

will proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13966 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–201–601]

Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico;

Preliminary Results and Partial

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, and Intent to

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in

Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial termination of antidumping

duty administrative review, and intent

to revoke antidumping duty order in

part.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

fresh-cut flowers from Mexico, in

response to a request by a respondent,

Rancho El Aguaje (Aguaje). Although

we initiated reviews for two other

producers, Rancho El Toro (Toro) and

Rancho Guacatay (Guacatay), we are

terminating these reviews because Toro

and Guacatay timely withdrew their

requests for review. We preliminarily

intend to revoke the antidumping duty

order with respect to Aguaje, based on

our preliminary determination that

Aguaje has had a three-year period of

sales at not less than normal value (NV).

This review covers one producer/

exporter and entries of the subject

merchandise into the United States

during the period April 1, 1994 through

March 31, 1995.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have not been made below

NV. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments are

requested to submit with each comment

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the comment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor or Maureen Flannery,

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) 482–4733.

Applicable Statutes and Regulations

Unless otherwise states, 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

(URAA). 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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 23, 1987, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on certain fresh

cut flowers from Mexico (52 FR 13491).

On April 27, 1995, Toro and Guacatay

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1). Toro and

Guacatay also requested that the

Department revoke the antidumping

duty order as it pertains to them upon

completion of the review. On April 28,

1995, Aguaje requested an

administrative review and revocation of

the order as it pertains to it upon

completion of the review. We published

a notice of initiation on May 15, 1995

(60 FR 25885), covering Toro, Guacatay,

and Aguaje, and the period April 1,

1994 through March 31, 1995. On

August 11, 1995, Toro and Guacatay

timely withdrew their requests for

review. Because there were no other

requests for review for these two

respondents from any other interested

party, the Department is now

terminating this review for Toro and

Guacatay in accordance with section

353.22(a)(5) of the Department’s

regulations. We shall instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate Toro’s and

Guacatay’s entries of this period at the

rates in effect at the time of entry.

Because they are previously reviewed

companies, the cash deposit rates will

continue to be the company-specific

rates currently in effect.

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

are certain fresh cut flowers, defined as

standard carnations, standard

chrysanthemums, and pompon

chrysanthemums. During the period of

review, such merchandise was

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

items 0603.10.7010 (pompon

chrysanthemums), 0603.10.7020

(standard chrysanthemums), and

0603.10.7030 (standard carnations). The

HTSUS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes

only. The written description remains

dispoitive as to the scope of the order.

This review covers sales of the subject

merchandise entered into the United

States during the period April 1, 1994

through March 31, 1995.

Verification

From April 17 through April 19, 1996,

the Department conducted verification

of the questionnaire responses

submitted by Aguaje, as provided in

section 782(i) of the Act. We used

standard verification procedures,

including onsite inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant accounting,

sales, and other financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public version of the verification report.