33714 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices

statute does not explicitly instruct us to

disregard below-cost sales in the

calculation of profit. Accordingly, it

would be inappropriate for the

Department to read such a requirement

into the statute. Thus, the Department

does not deem it necessary to change its

methodology as further suggested by

petitioner. (Comment 1 also relates to

this issue.)

Comment 9: Torrington argues that a

sale should be presumed to be an export

sale whenever the circumstances

suggest that the sales are not for home

market consumption. As an example,

Torrington comments that, where the

record for a company shows that either

a HM customer (or related party) has

U.S. manufacturing facilities which use

bearings in a further-manufactured

article or export documents were

prepared by the manufacturer, the

Department should presume that the

manufacturer knew or should have

known that the sales in question were

for export. Petitioner further notes that,

in this case, if the respondent provides

adequate rebuttal evidence, the

presumption is then defeated. Petitioner

argues that this creates incentive for

respondents to find out whether such

sales are for home market consumption

and to report relevant information.

Department’s Position: With the

exception of Route B sales, we find no

evidence on the record that HM sales of

NMB/Pelmec’s merchandise were

exported. With respect to Route B sales,

see our response to Comment 3.

Comment 10: Torrington argues that

the Department should not exclude U.S.

sales of bearings used by a related party

as a minor component in a furthermanufactured article.

Department’s Position: Since NMB/

Pelmec did not have sales of bearings

used by a related party as a minor

component in further manufacturing,

and the Department did not exclude

such sales in this case, this issue does

not apply to the firm.

Comment 11: Torrington argues that

the Department should calculate profit

on the basis of sampled, above-cost HM

sales only. Petitioner contends that

profit for CV should be based on profits

on sampled HM sales, not on sales of

the class or kind of merchandise

generally in the home market. Petitioner

claims that the use of the sampled sales

insures that profit is based on a verified

database of sales of in-scope

merchandise of the same general class

or kind, as opposed to the use of general

profit data, for which the Department

has little assurance that the reported

profits are actually based on sales of inscope merchandise of the same general

class or kind.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Torrington’s contention that profit

should be calculated on the basis of the

sampled sales. The Department

consistently used profit information

based on the general class or kind of

merchandise. See AFBs IV at 10923. As

far as above-cost sales are concerned,

see our response to Comment 3.

Comment 12: Torrington asks that the

Department reconsider its treatment of

antidumping duties and deduct such

duties from ESP as a selling cost.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with petitioner. As stated in AFBs IV at

10905, it has been our consistent

interpretation of 19 CFR 353.26 that

evidence of reimbursement is necessary

before we can make an adjustment to

USP. In this review, Torrington has not

identified record evidence that there

was reimbursement of antidumping

duties, and we have not adjusted USP

for the duties.

Final Results of Review

We determine that, for the period May

1, 1993, through April 30, 1994, NMB/

Pelmec had a weighted-average

antidumping duty margin of 0.19

percent, which is de minimis. We

further determine that NMB/Pelmec has

not sold ball bearings at less than FMV

for three consecutive review periods,

including this review period. The

certification from the firm (mentioned

above) and the fact that there were no

comments with respect to our intent to

revoke this order in the preliminary

results warrant revocation of the order.

Therefore, the Department is revoking

the order on antifriction bearings (other

than tapered roller bearings) and parts

thereof from Thailand, with regard to

ball bearings, in accordance with

section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.25.

This revocation applies to all entries

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after May 1, 1994.

The Department will order the

suspension of liquidation ended for all

such entries and will instruct the

Customs Service to release any cash

deposit or bonds. The Department will

further instruct Customs to refund with

interest any cash deposits on post-May

1, 1994 entries. In addition, the

Department will terminate the review

covering subject merchandise from

Thailand sold during the period May 1,

1994, through April 30, 1995, which

was initiated on June 19, 1995 (60 FR

31952).

Assessment Rates: The Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. Because

sampling and other simplification

methods prevent entry-by-entry

assessments, we will calculate wherever

possible an exporter/importer specific

assessment rate for each class or kind of

antifriction bearings.

Exporter’s Sales Price Sales: For ESP

sales, which we sampled, we divided

the total dumping margin for the

reviewed sales by the total entered value

of those reviewed sales for the importer.

We will direct Customs to assess the

resulting percentage margin against the

entered Customs values for the subject

merchandise on entries under the

relevant order during the review period.

While the Department is aware that the

entered value of sales during the period

of review (POR) is not necessarily equal

to the entered value of entries during

the POR, use of entered value of sales

as the basis of the assessment rate

permits the Department to collect a

reasonable approximation of the

antidumping duties which would have

been determined if the Department had

reviewed those sales of merchandise

actually entered during the POR.

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 the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This administrative review,

revocation, and notice are in accordance

with sections 751(a)(1) and 751(c) of the

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

353.22 and 353.25 of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22 and 19 CFR

353.25).

Dated: June 21, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–16614 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices 33715

Minority Business Development

Agency

Business Development Center

Applications: Charleston, South

Carolina

AGENCY: Minority Business

Development Agency, Commerce.

ACTION: Amendment.

SUMMARY: On page 29737, Federal

Register, dated Wednesday, June 12,

1996, solicitation to operate the

Charleston Minority Business

Development Center is amended to read:

Pre-Application Conference:

Wednesday, June 26, 1996, at 9:00 a.m.,

at the Atlanta Regional Office, 401 W.

Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 1715,

Atlanta, Georgia 30308–3516. The

closing date for applications is July 15,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND AN

APPLICATION PACKAGE, CONTACT: Robert

Henderson at (404) 730–3300.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:

11.800 Minority Business Development

Center)

Dated: June 24, 1996.

Frances B. Douglas,

Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer,

Minority Business Development Agency.

[FR Doc. 96–16545 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–21–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary Advisory Council; Open

Meeting

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management (OCRM),

National Ocean Service (NOS), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary Advisory Council Notice of

Open Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Council was established

in December 1991 to advise and assist

the Secretary of Commerce in the

development and implementation of the

comprehensive management plan for

the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary.

TIME AND PLACE: July 12, 1996 from 9:00

a.m. until adjournment. The meeting

location will be at the Monroe County

Government Center, Conference Room,

2696 Overseas Highway, Marathon,

Florida.

AGENDA: .

1. Update on the status of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement and

Management Plan for the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary.

2. Discussion of water quality issues

in the Florida Keys.

3. Discussion of the Site

Characterization of the Florida Keys

compiled by Kathleen Sullivan and Dr.

Mark Chiappone.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will

be open to public participation; the time

period from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., will

be set aside for oral comments and

questions. Seats will be set aside for the

public and the media. Seats will be

available on a first-come first-served

basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June

Cradick at (305) 743–2437.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog

Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program)

Dated: June 24, 1996.

W. Stanley Wilson,

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services

and Coastal Zone Management.

[FR Doc. 96–16499 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–M

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, July

2, 1996.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers,

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda,

Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

Matter to be Considered

FY 1998 Budget

The staff will brief the Commission on

issues related to the Commission’s budget for

fiscal year 1998.

For a recorded message containing the

latest agenda information, call (301)

504–0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of

the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway,

Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504–0800.

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16722 Filed 6–26–96; 1:59 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact for

the Relocation of the 1111th Signal

Battalion, the 1108th Signal Brigade

and a Portion of the Information

Systems Engineering CommandCONUS From Fort Ritchie, Maryland, to

Fort Detrick, Maryland

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice availability.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Public

Law 101–510, the Defense Base Closure

and Realignment Act of 1990, the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Commission recommended the

relocation of the 1111th Signal

Battalion, the 1108th Signal Brigade and

a portion of the Information Systems

Engineering Command-CONUS from

Fort Ritchie, Maryland, to Fort Detrick,

Maryland. The Army will also relocate

the Technical Applications Office and

associated Base Operations support

personnel to Fort Detrick, Maryland,

pursuant to this recommendation.

The Environmental Assessment (EA)

evaluates the environmental impacts

associated with the transfer of

approximately 1,147 personnel and the

renovation and construction projects

required to accommodate these

transferring personnel. Of these

positions, approximately 636 military

will be attached to Fort Detrick for

quarters, rations, and UCMJ purposes

only. These 636 military and 158

civilian personnel will continue to work

at the Alternate National Military

Command Center, control of which will

be transferred from the Military District

of Washington to the Medical Command

as a result of this action. The remaining

personnel will be attached to Fort

Detrick for all purposes.

No significant project environmental

impacts were identified. Potential for

only minor or insignificant impacts in

anticipated in the areas of noise, water

quality, stormwater, geology, soils,

traffic, asbestos and radon management,

visual and aesthetic values, on-post

housing, and shops and services. Minor

impacts from the construction of new

facilities and the renovation of existing

buildings are not expected to be

significant with the implementation of

Best Management Practices, other

required procedures, surveys and

studies. Potential asbestos or random

impacts will be mitigated by conducting

the proper testing and taking action as

necessary. Traffic impacts are not

expected to be significant, and any