30216 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Notices

1On March 25, 1996, the Bureau issued revised

Export Administration Regulations (61 Fed. Reg.

12714). While those revisions made significant

changes to export licensing procedures, they do not

affect the result of this case. References in this

Decision and Order are to the part numbers used

in the Export Administration Regulations prior to

March 25.

A member of the Board shall receive

no compensation from the Foundation

for the service as a member of the Board.

While away from home or regular

place of business of a member of the

Board, the member shall be allowed

travel expenses paid by the Foundation,

including per diem in lieu of

subsistence, at the same rate as a person

employed intermittently in the

Government service is allowed under

section 5703 of title 5, United States

Code.

The Board may complete the

organization of the Foundation by

adopting the constitution and bylaws

consistent with the purposes of the

Foundation.

How To Submit Nominations

Nominations must be received by

[insert Date 30 days from the date of

publication].

Nominations should be typed and

should include the following:

(1) A brief summary of no more than

two pages explaining the nominee’s

suitability to serve on the National

Natural Resources Conservation

Foundation Board of Trustees including

relevant experience, current employer

or organizational affiliation.

(2) Resume.

Send nominations to the address

listed earlier in this notice.

Paul Johnson,

Chief, USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15185 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–16–M

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting

of the South Carolina Advisory

Committee

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the rules and

regulations of the U.S. Commission on

Civil Rights, that a meeting of the South

Carolina Advisory Committee to the

Commission will convene at 9:00 a.m.

and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday,

July 2, 1996, at County Square, County

Council Chambers, 301 University

Ridge, Greenville, South Carolina

29601. The purpose of the meeting is to

discuss civil rights progress and

problems in the State, discuss followup

to the report, Perceptions of Racial

Tensions in South Carolina; and hear

from invited guests on the current status

of race relations in Greenville.

Persons desiring additional

information, or planning a presentation

to the Committee, should contact

Committee Chairperson Milton B.

Kimpson, 803–779–2597, or Bobby D.

Doctor, Director of the Southern

Regional Office, 404–730–2476 (TDD

404–730–2481). Hearing-impaired

persons who will attend the meeting

and require the services of a sign

language interpreter should contact the

Regional Office at least five (5) working

days before the scheduled date of the

meeting.

The meeting will be conducted

pursuant to the provisions of the rules

and regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC, June 3, 1996.

Carol-Lee Hurley,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 96–15085 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

[Docket Nos. AB3–95; AB2–95]

Serfilco, Ltd. and Jack H. Berg,

Respondents; Final Decision and

Order

I. Summary

Before me for decision is the appeal

of respondents, Serfilco Ltd. (Serfilco)

and Jack H. Berg (Berg), from the

decision and order of the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The

ALJ found that Berg and Serfilco, a

company wholly owned by Berg, each

committed nine violations of § 769.2(d)

of the Export Administration

Regulations (15 C.F.R. § 769.2(d)). The

charges were based on their responding

to seven of the eight questions

contained in a boycott questionnaire

(the ‘‘Annex’’), and providing two

additional items of prohibited

information in a cover letter

transmitting the answers to the Annex.

The ALJ imposed a civil penalty of

$10,000 for each of these violations, for

a total of $180,000. In addition, Serfilco

was found to have committed seven

violations of § 769.6 of the regulations

for failure to report its receipt of seven

boycott-related requests. The ALJ

imposed a civil penalty of $4,000 for

each of these violations, for a total of

$28,000. The civil penalties totaled

$90,000 against Berg and $118,000

against Serfilco or $208,000 against the

two. Finally, the ALJ imposed on

respondents a one year denial of export

privileges to Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait,

Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi

Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates,

and the Republic of Yemen.

I have affirmed the findings of the ALJ

that the respondents committed the

violations in question. I have, however,

reduced the amounts of some of the

civil penalties. I have set the penalties

at $80,000 for Berg and $38,000 for

Serfilco. The total of the civil penalties

against the two is now $118,000. I have

also affirmed the periods of denial of

export privileges to the countries

specified for each respondent.

II. Introduction

On August 24, 1995, the Office of

Antiboycott Compliance, Bureau of

Export Administration, United States

Department of Commerce (‘‘agency’’

herein) issued charging letters to the

respondents, Serfilco, Ltd. and Jack H.

Berg. The agency charged that Berg, the

President of Serfilco, and Serfilco each

committed nine violations of § 769.2(d)

of the Export Administration

Regulations and that Serfilco committed

seven violations of § 769.6 of the Export

Administration Regulations. (All

references to regulations in this decision

are to the Export Administration

Regulations in 15 CFR) 1 The

respondents and the agency jointly

stipulated to, or the respondents

requested and received, an extension of

the due date for the respondents’ answer

to the charging letters on nine

occasions. On March 27, 1995, the

respondents answered the charging

letters and requested a hearing. The

hearing was held on August 23, 1995 in

Washington, D.C. Post-hearing briefs

and proposed findings and conclusions

were filed by the parties on October 12,

1995; replies were filed on November 9,

1995. The Administrative Law Judge

issued his Decision and Order on

December 5, 1995. The respondents

filed their appeal on January 4, 1996.

The agency’s reply brief was filed on

February 16, 1996, pursuant to an

extension of time I granted.

III. Findings of Fact

When the alleged violations occurred,

Serfilco was a corporation located in

Glenview, Illinois and incorporated in

Illinois. All of the violations occurred

during 1988, 1989, and 1990 when Berg

resided in the United States. Berg

wholly owned Serfilco; he was its

president, treasurer, and chief executive

officer. Serfilco was a United States

person, as defined in § 769.1(d), during

the time of the alleged violations. At the

time of the alleged violations, Serfilco

manufactured and exported commercial
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Notices 30217

filtration and pumping equipment. Berg

also owned independent operating

companies, under the Serfilco name, in

Canada and England. In 1989, Serfilco’s

export sales represented approximately

17 or 18 percent of its total sales. Its

sales in the Middle East were a fraction

of overall sales. Serfilco also filled

Middle East orders for its products from

its facility in England. The record does

not reflect whether the sales estimates

include sales from England. Serfilco has

an international department at its

Illinois headquarters.

On December 16, 1987, Berg wrote to

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

attaching correspondence, and inquired

whether the Chamber of Commerce

knew of any reason why his English

company should not sell Serfilco pumps

to Iran. During the period 1988–1990,

Berg was trying to obtain business in

Iraq. Between January 1989 and June

1989, Berg sought a distributor in Iraq

for his commercial filtration equipment

and industrial pumps. As part of that

effort, on January 4, 1989, Berg wrote to

the senior commercial officer at the U.S.

Embassy in Baghdad at the suggestion of

M. A. Al-Hantaway, a potential agent for

Serfilco’s products in Iraq. Berg

explained in his letter to the embassy

that the Al-Hantaway Bureau in

Baghdad would represent Serfilco’s

products and he sought embassy

approval. On January 29, 1989, Russell

Y. Smith, the Commercial Attache at the

American Embassy in Baghdad, sent

Berg a facsimile explaining that ‘‘Iraqi

agency law require[s] you to answer

questions about your relations with a

country boycotted by Iraq.’’ The

embassy advised Berg that ‘‘U.S. law

prohibiting U.S. persons from answering

such suggestions may apply.’’ Smith

told Berg to call 202–377–2381 or 4550,

the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, to

find out about the requirements of U.S.

law.

Also on January 29, 1989, Smith

wrote to Berg, reminded him that the

United States had an antiboycott law

and ‘‘that the Iraqi Agency Law of 1983

may require responses to a series of

questions (contained on one sheet)

concerning your relations with Israel.’’

Smith told Berg that:

A U.S. person is prohibited from

responding to these questions under

American law. If you are not familiar with

the antiboycott law * * * please contact the

Office of Antiboycott Compliance in

Washington at (202) 377–4550 or (202) 377–

2381. They will be happy to advise you how

to comply with the law and also to suggest

alternative actions you may take.

Smith also sent Berg the Office of

Antiboycott Compliance publication

‘‘Restrictive Trade Practices or Boycotts

Including Enforcement and

Administrative Proceedings,’’ which

included the antiboycott regulations.

Berg filed Smith’s correspondence in his

‘‘Iraqi folder.’’

Between May 14, 1989 and June 6,

1989, Berg received a May 14, 1989

letter from M. A. Al-Hantaway, Director

of Al-Hantaway Bureau, Commissioning

Agency, Baghdad, Iraq. The letter was a

request to Berg that he ‘‘approve 6

copies of the (Sales Policy) each with its

attached annex * * * and then send

them all to us for further process here

in Iraq.’’ The annex was a single page

list of eight questions about

respondents’ relationships with Israel.

The annex questions were as follows:

1. We do not have now & ever have

a branch or main company factory or

assembly plant in Israel.

2. We do not have now or ever have

general Agencies or offices in Israel for

our middle eastern international

operations.

3. We have never granted the right

using name, trade-marks, royalty,

patent, copyright or any of our

subsidiaries to Israeli persons or firms.

4. We do not participate or own or

ever participate or own shares in Israeli

firm or business.

5. We do not render now or ever have

rendered any consultance servic[e] or

technical assistance to any Israeli firm

business.

6. We do not represent now or ever

represented any Israeli firm or business

in Israel or abroad.

7. (What companies in whose capital

are you shareholders? [P]lease state the

name and nationality of each company

and the percent of share to their total

capital.)

8. (What companies are shareholding

in your capital, please state the name

and nationality of each company and

the percentage of share to your total

capital.)

On June 6, 1989, Berg answered all of

the questions except number five and

sent those answers to Al-Hantaway. In

his letter to Al-Hantaway accompanying

his responses he volunteered:

Please note that we presently receive

orders from Israel, and have also received

orders in the past. We have sales dealers or

representatives in Israel, same as you. We

will continue the above sales.

Berg suggested to Al-Hantaway that

he might prefer dealing with Serfilco’s

office in England. Berg stated that his

statement to Al-Hantaway was meant to

convey the company’s policy to sell its

products all over the world without

prejudice. Berg maintains that he was

not aware of any boycott of Israel when

he responded.

Al-Hantaway responded to Berg’s

June 6, 1989 letter on June 27, 1989 and

pointed out that since Berg could not

‘‘sign for all the eight items concerning

Israel,’’ it would be useless to continue

negotiation. Al-Hantaway explained that

it would be necessary for Serfilco to

‘‘stop relations with Israelian dealers

and representatives and promise to

avoid any relation with Israel in the

future.’’ If Serfilco were to do this, he

said, he would then ask the Iraqi

authorities to allow him to represent

Serfilco. Al-Hantaway’s refusal to

represent Serfilco, resulted in Berg

calling the Office of Antiboycott

Compliance, as Commercial Attache

Smith had suggested in January.

On July 20, 1989, Berg telephoned the

Office of Antiboycott Compliance. Berg

told Joyce Shephard of that office that

he had received a letter from

Commercial Attache Smith about selling

to Iraq. he said that a company in Iraq

wanted to represent Serfilco but that the

company wanted him to sign an

agreement about the boycott of Israel.

According to a report of that

conversation that Shephard wrote, Berg

wanted to know if he could ship from

his facility in England or Canada and

avoid violating the antiboycott law. He

also wanted to know whether he would

have to agree to boycott Israel. Berg told

Shephard that in his absence she should

talk with Shirley Futterman, A Serfilco

employee. On July 21, 1989, Berg sent

Shephard the January 1989 letter from

Commercial Attache Smith and his

correspondence with Al-Hantaway. Berg

told Shephard he wanted to know if

there were alternative actions that

Serfilco could take that would permit

the company to continue its business in

Israel and also trade with Iraq. Berg

explained to Shepard that Smith had

sent him a package containing materials

which included a publication called

‘‘Restrictive Trade Practices or Boycotts

Including Enforcement and

Administrative Proceedings.’’

About November 13, 1988, Serfilco

received a request for a quotation, with

attachments, from Faisal A. Alarfaj,

Managing Director, Grace Trading Est.

Grace Trading requested that Serfilco

include the manufacturer’s name and

address ‘‘for Israeli Boycott Office

verification.’’ Berg responded on

December 2, 1988 and stated that the

manufacturer of the pump offered was

Serfilco’s subsidiary, ASM Industries,

Leola, Pennsylvania.

About May 14, 1989, Serfilco received

an inquiry from Ahmad Jassim Heleyel,

Commercial Director, State Enterprise

for Mechanical Industries Republic of

Iraq. The inquiry contained ‘‘General

Terms and Conditions’’ which were
30218 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Notices

2Arguments raised by Respondents not discussed

below have been considered and rejected as being

without merit or as being immaterial to the final

decision. The conclusions reached are based on

consideration of the record as a whole.

found in Serfilco’s files. Among the

conditions was the requirement that

‘‘commercial invoices indicat[e] the

name of exporter, manufacturer & that

he or his principal is not a branch,

mother, sister or partner to

establishment included in Israeli

boycott’’ and the exporter would need to

certify that Israeli labor, capital or raw

materials were not used, that the ship is

not blacklisted and that the ship will

not call at any Israeli port. Shirley

Futterman on behalf of William H.

Smyth, a Serfilco Sales Application

Engineer, responded to the letter from

Heleyel on June 27, 1989. Futterman

sent Heleyel a copy of Serfilco’s

catalogue and explained that Serfilco

had reviewed the Heleyel’s

requirements but that Serfilco did not

have anything to offer.

About May 30, 1989, Serfilco received

a request for a quotation from Al-Jubail

Fertilizer Company (SAMAD) of Saudi

Arabia which attached a document

entitled ‘‘Instructions to Bidders.’’

Those instructions stated that among the

elements to be considered in the

evaluating the quotation would be the

‘‘Manufacturer’s name and address (for

boycott verification).’’ The document

entitled ‘‘Request for Quotation’’ which

preceded the instructions also stated

that all quotations must contain the

manufacturer’s name and address for

boycott verification purposes. On June

13, 1989, Futterman responded to

SAMAD with a quotation for the part

sought. She signed on behalf of

Serfilco’s Export Department.

On or about March 5, 1990, Serfilco,

Ltd. received a request for a quotation

from Arthur Goveas, Thuwainy Trading

Co., W.L.L. in Kuwait, with an attached

document from the purchasing

department of the Kuwait Oil Company.

The Kuwait Oil Company document

was called an ‘‘Enquiry’’ and provided

the following specifications for bidders:

(K) A Boycott Certificate from the IBO

Kuwait or Declaration letter from bidder,

should be supplied with the bid confirming

that the manufacturer is neither boycotted

nor warned, otherwise bid will not be

considered.

On or about March 21, 1990, Shirley

Futterman on behalf of William H.

Smyth, International Sales Application,

Serfilco, Ltd. responded to the request

from Thuwainy Trading Co.

About April 22, 1990, Serfilco, Ltd.

received a request for quotation from

Abdullatif Abdalla Almihri, President,

Middle East Group—Trading &

Contracting W.L.L., with an attached

document entitled ‘‘SCHEDULE OF

PRICES.’’ The request for quotation

required the bidder to comply with the

following requirement:

Complete name & address of manufacturer/

s must be stated on the offer sheet for

clearance from the Israeli Boycott Office—

Kuwait, without which your offer will be

rejected by the authorities.

By letter dated May 10, 1990, Mark

Glodoski, International Sales Appl.,

Serfilco, Ltd. responded to the request

from the Middle East Group—Trading &

Contracting W.L.L.

Serfilco did not institute an

antiboycott compliance program until

‘‘right after 1992.’’

IV. Analysis 2

A. Furnishing Prohibited Information

(§ 769.2(d))

While it is beyond doubt that

respondents furnished prohibited

information, the 18 charges under

§ 769.2(d) (nine against Berg and nine

against his corporation, Serfilco) and

$180,000 penalty pertain to two

documents—the annex and the cover

letter. Government counsel correctly

argues that applicable agency law

establishes that the ‘‘proper unit of

prosecution’’ is each item of prohibited

information within a transmission. The

ALJ also correctly concluded that he did

not have authority to reduce the number

of charges. That authority is vested only

in the Under Secretary.

Under the longstanding policy and

practice of this agency, charges are

initiated and penalties are imposed

based upon items of information

improperly furnished. Here, each charge

under § 769.2(d) was based upon a

separate piece of information whose

transmission could assist in the

administration of the boycott. It was

appropriate to initiate charges and exact

penalties on each of these. I will not

exercise my discretion to reduce the

number of these charges.

I also concur with the ALJ’s finding

that Berg and Serfilco are separate

entities and are each legally responsible

for the violations committed.

1. The Annex

The record clearly demonstrates that

respondent Berg was specifically

warned that he would be receiving a

boycott request and that responding to

the request was prohibited.

Additionally, he was furnished a copy

of the applicable regulations. Therefore,

the imposition of the maximum $10,000

penalty against Berg for completing each

question in the Annex is appropriate.

However, mindful that Serfilco is a

small, closely held company whose

actions were under the control of

respondent Berg, I have exercised my

discretion and reduced the penalties

against it to $2,500 for each of the seven

violations relating to the annex.

2. The Cover Letter

Having completed the Annex, Berg

apparently realized that it could create

the false impression that he did not do

business in Israel. In a misguided

attempt to make it clear that he did such

business in Israel and intended to

continue to do so, Berg provided the

additional items of information in his

cover letter which form the basis for the

second set of § 769.2(d) violations (two

against him and two against Serfilco).

The body of Berg’s letter reads, in its

entirety:

Thank you for your letter of May 16th.

I have read the attached annex and

indicated my answers.

Please not that we presently receive orders

from Israel, and have received orders in the

past. We have sales dealers and

representatives in Israel, same as you.

We will continue the above sales, and will

be pleased to work with you on the same

arrangement. Please advise if this is

agreeable. We’ll then forward copies of the

sales policy to your embassy.

As noted above, I believe that this

cover letter constitutes two separate

violations of § 769.2(d) for each

respondent. I do not, however, believe

that imposition of the maximum penalty

is appropriate. As a mitigating factor in

assessing a penalty for this violation, the

record establishes that Berg’s objective

was to make clear his intention to

continue to do business in Israel.

Moreover, it should be noted that in his

responses to the Annex and in this letter

he furnished information only on his

firm. Thus, the only furtherance of the

boycott resulting from his response was

the likely inclusion of his firm on the

‘‘blacklist,’’ a result more harmful to

himself than supportive of the boycott.

Therefore, I have decided to impose two

$5,000 penalties against Berg and two

$1,000 penalties against Serfilco for

furnishing the information contained in

the cover letter.

B. Reporting Violations (§ 769.6)

1. Grace Trading Co.

This request was dated November 13,

1988, before Serfilco received specific

warnings about the antiboycott laws.

Serfilco presented credible evidence

that it did not read the ‘‘fine print’’

when it did not stock and product in

question, but instead responded with a

form letter. Since this apparently was

Serfilco’s first exposure to the Arab

boycott of Israel, I give credence to this
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Notices 30219

argument in mitigation and reduce the

$4,000 penalty imposed by the ALJ to

$2,000.

2. Al-Hantaway

The two reporting violations

involving Al-Hantaway cover the same

subject matter as the previously

discussed § 769.2(d) violations.

Specifically, Serfilco is charged with

failing to report the request to complete

the Annex and a subsequent letter from

Al-Hantaway informing Serfilco that it

must stop its ‘‘relations with Israelian

dealers and representatives and promise

to avoid any relation with Israel in

future.’’ While the record is subject to

interpretation concerning Serfilco’s

motivation in contacting the Office of

Antiboycott Compliance (OAC)

concerning this matter, it does clearly

establish that Serfilco provided the

OAC, within the prescribed time period,

copies of all relevant correspondence.

However, Serfilco did not submit the

required form. Under these

circumstances, I must conclude that

Serfilco committed two violations of

§ 769.6. In view of the mitigating factors

noted above, I have decided that the

penalty for each of these two violations

should be $250.

3. The Four Later Reporting Violations

The record clearly establishes that

Serfilco received reportable requests

from the State Enterprise for Mechanical

Industries, Republic of Iraq; the AlJubail Fertilizer Company; the

Thunwainy Trading Co.; and the Middle

East Group; and failed to report any of

them. These four violations all occurred

after Serfilco received specific warning

about the antiboycott laws, and I affirm

the ALJ’s imposition of a $4,000 penalty

for each.

V. Order

A $10,000 penalty is imposed against

Berg for each of the seven § 769.2(d)

violations related to the annex. A $5,000

penalty is imposed against Berg for each

of the two § 769.2(d) violations

involving the cover letter. A $2,500

penalty is imposed against Serfilco for

each of the seven § 769.2(d) violations

related to the annex. A $1,000 penalty

is imposed against Serfilco for each of

the two § 769.2(d) violations involving

the cover letter. A $2,000 penalty is

imposed against Serfilco for the § 769.6

violation regarding Grace Trading. A

$250 penalty is imposed against Serfilco

for each of the two § 769.6 violations

involving Al-Hantaway. A $4,000

penalty is imposed against Serfilco for

each of the remaining four § 769.6

violations. The total penalties imposed

thus are $80,000 against Berg and

$38,000 against Serfilco. The ALJ’s

imposition, against each respondent, of

a one year denial of export privileges to

Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,

Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria,

United Arab Emirates, and the Republic

of Yemen, is sustained. The period of

denial shall begin on the date of this

final decision and order. Respondents

shall pay these civil penalties within 30

days of the date of this order in

accordance with the attached

instructions.

Dated: June 10, 1996.

William A. Reinsch,

Under Secretary for Export Administration.

Instruction for Payment of Civil Penalty

1. The civil penalty check should be

made payable to: U.S. Department of

Commerce.

2. The check should be mailed to U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Export Administration, Office of Budget

and Financial Management, Room H–

3889, 14th Street and Constitution

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

Attn: Victor Micit.

[FR Doc. 96–15074 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

International Trade Administration

[A–475–703]

Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

From Italy; Extension of Time Limit of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time

Limit of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for preliminary results in the

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin

from Italy, covering the period August 1,

1994, through July 31, 1995, because it

is not practicable to complete the

reviews within the time limits

mandated by the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle or Michael Rill, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department received a request to

conduct an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on granular

PTFE resin from Italy. On October 12,

1995, the Department published a notice

of initiation (60 FR 53164) of this

administrative review covering the

period June 1, 1994, through May 31,

1995. The Department adjusted the time

limits by 28 days due to the government

shutdowns, which lasted from

November 14, 1995, to November 20,

1995, and from December 15, 1995, to

January 6, 1996. See Memorandum to

the file from Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, January 11, 1996.

It is not practicable to complete this

review within the time limits mandated

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

Therefore, in accordance with that

section, the Department is extending the

time limit for the preliminary results to

September 27, 1996.

Interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective order in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(b).

These extensions are in accordance with

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

Dated: May 30, 1996.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 96–15096 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[A–560–801, A–583–825, and A–570–844]

Notice of Postponement of Preliminary

Determinations: Melamine Institutional

Dinnerware Products From Indonesia,

Taiwan and the People’s Republic of

China (PRC)

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Wojcik-Betancourt, Everett

Kelly, or David J. Goldberger, Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone (202) 482–0629, (202) 482–

4194, or (202) 482–4136, respectively.

POSTPONEMENT OF PRELIMINARY

DETERMINATION: We have determined

that respondent parties to these

proceedings are cooperating, thus far, in

these investigations. We also have

determined that all cases are

extraordinarily complicated because of

the issues raised. The PRC investigation

involves a legal issue of first impression