34794 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

days from the issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between USP and

NV may vary from the percentage stated

above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

Customs. The final results of this review

shall be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of high-tenacity rayon filament yarn

from Germany entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after publication date of the final results

of these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) the cash deposit rate for Akzo will

be that established in the final results of

this review; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in this review but covered

in the original LTFV investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit will

continue to be the most recent rate

published in the final determination or

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received a company-specific

rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, or the original

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of this

review, or the LTFV investigation; and

(4) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or

any previous reviews, the cash deposit

rate will be the ‘‘all others rate’’ of 24.58

percent established in the LTFV

investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary 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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act.

Dated: June 24, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–17014 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS-P

[C–549–802]

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From

Thailand; 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 countervailing duty order

on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from

Thailand was revoked effective January

1, 1995, as a result of a changed

circumstances review and pursuant to

section 782(h)(2) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act (60 FR 40568).

The Department is conducting an

administrative review of this order to

determine the appropriate assessment

rate for entries made during the last

review period prior to the revocation of

the order (January 1, 1994, through

December 31, 1994). For information on

the net subsidy for reviewed companies

and 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 detailed

in the Preliminary Results of Review

section of this notice. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. Because this order

has been revoked, the Department will

not issue further instructions with

respect to cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak or Kelly Parkhill, Office

of Countervailing Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–2209 and (202)

482–4126, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 3, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 19130) the countervailing duty order

on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from

Thailand. On May 10, 1995, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (60 FR 24831)

of this countervailing duty order. We

received a timely request for review,

and we initiated the review, covering

the period January 1 through December

31, 1994, on June 15, 1995 (60 FR

31447).

In accordance with section 355.22(a)

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). This review was requested

for the Minebea Group of Companies in

Thailand, NMB Thai, Pelmec, and NMB

Hi-Tech, which manufacture and export

the subject merchandise. During this

review, the Department learned of

another Minebea company, NMB

Precision Ball, Ltd., which

manufactures balls. The company does

not export to the United States but it

does sell balls to the other three

companies which in turn export

finished ball bearings to the United

States and elsewhere. This company,

like the other three Minebea producers

in Thailand, is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Minebea Japan, and

because NMB Precision Ball, Ltd.

received export subsidies during the

period of review (see, ‘‘Programs

Conferring Subsidies’’ section below) for

its sales of balls to the related Thai ball

bearing producers, we preliminarily

determine that it is appropriate to

include the subsidies to NMB Precision

Ball, Ltd. in our calculations of the net

subsidy.

On November 2, 1995, we extended

the period for completion of the

preliminary and final results pursuant

to section 751(a)(3) of the Act (see

Extension of the Time Limit for Certain

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 60 FR 55699). 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. As a result of these extensions, the

deadline for these preliminary results is

no later than June 27, 1996, and the

deadline for the final results of this
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices 34795

review is no later than 180 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.

Calculation Methodology

In the first administrative review,

respondents claimed that the F.O.B.

value of the subject merchandise

entering the United States is greater

than the F.O.B. price charged by the

companies in Thailand (57 FR 26646

(June 15, 1992)). They explained that

this discrepancy is due to a mark-up

charged by the parent company, located

in a third country, through which the

merchandise is invoiced. However, the

subject merchandise is shipped directly

from Thailand to the United States and

is not transshipped, combined with

other merchandise, or repackaged with

other merchandise. In other words, for

each shipment of subject merchandise,

there are two invoices and two

corresponding F.O.B. export prices: (1)

The F.O.B. export price at which the

subject merchandise leaves Thailand,

and on which subsidies from the Royal

Thai Government (RTG) are earned by

the companies, and upon which the

subsidy rate is calculated; and (2) the

F.O.B. export price which includes the

parent company mark-up, and which is

listed on the invoice accompanying the

subject merchandise as it enters the

United States, and upon which the cash

deposits are collected and the

countervailing duty is assessed. In prior

reviews, we verified on a transactionspecific basis the direct correlation

between the invoice which reflects the

F.O.B. price on which the subsidies are

earned and the invoice which reflects

the marked-up price that accompanies

each shipment as it enters the United

States.

Respondents argued that the

calculated ad valorem rate should be

adjusted by the ratio of the export value

from Thailand to the export value

charged by the parent company to the

U.S. customer so that the amount of

countervailing duties collected would

reflect the amount of subsidies

bestowed. The Department agreed and

made this adjustment in prior

administrative reviews (57 FR 26646,

(June 15, 1992); and 58 FR 36392 (July

7, 1993)). Since the mark-up is not part

of the export value upon which the

respondents earn subsidies, the

Department has followed the

methodology adopted in prior

administrative reviews, and calculated

the ad valorem rate as a percentage of

the original export value from Thailand

and then multiplied this rate by the

adjustment ratio—the original export

value from Thailand divided by the

marked-up value of the goods entering

the United States.

NMB Thai, Pelmec, NMB Hi-Tech,

and NMB Precision Ball, Ltd. are

wholly-owned by one parent company,

and are therefore affiliated companies

within the meaning of section 771(33) of

the Act. See Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination:

Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) from Italy, 60 FR

30288, 30290 (June 14, 1996).

Furthermore, all four sister companies

produce the subject merchandise. As a

result, these four companies warrant

treatment as a single company with a

combined rate. This is consistent with

our approach in the investigation and

all prior reviews of this order. See Ball

Bearings and Parts Thereof from

Thailand; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 22563 (May 8, 1995); see

also Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof

from Thailand; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 42532 (August 16, 1995).

To avoid double counting, the sales

value was adjusted to account for

intercompany sales of subject

merchandise. We calculated the

countervailing duty rate by first totaling

the benefits received by the four

companies for each program used.

Dividing these sums by the total Thai

export value for the four companies, we

calculated the unadjusted subsidy rate

for each program used. As described

above, we adjusted these rates by

multiplying them by the ratio of the

original export price from Thailand to

the marked-up price of the goods

entering the United States. Finally, we

summed the adjusted subsidy rate for

each program, to arrive at the total

countervailing duty rate.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

ball bearings and parts thereof. Such

merchandise is described in detail in

the Appendix to this notice. The

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers listed in the Appendix are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information submitted

by the Royal Thai Government and the

Minebea Group of companies. 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).

Analysis of Programs

I. Program Conferring Subsidies

Investment Promotion Act of 1977—

Sections 28, 31, 36(1), and 36(4)

The Investment Promotion Act of

1977 (IPA) is administered by the Board

of Investment (BOI) and is designed to

provide incentives to invest in

Thailand. In order to receive IPA

benefits, each company must apply to

the BOI for a Certificate of Promotion

(license), which specifies goods to be

produced, production and export

requirements, and benefits approved.

These licenses are granted at the

discretion of the BOI and are

periodically amended or reissued to

change benefits or requirements. Each

IPA benefit for which a company is

eligible must be specifically stated in

the license.

We have previously determined that

the BOI licenses of Pelmec, NMB Thai,

and NMB Hi-Tech constitute export

subsidies (58 FR 36392, July 7, 1993 and

60 FR 52374, October 6, 1995). No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances has been provided to

warrant reconsideration of this finding.

NMB Precision Ball, Ltd. held one

license during the period of review, and

this license was tied to export

performance and is, therefore,

countervailable like the others.

In past reviews, the Minebea Group

received benefits under sections 28, 31,

and 36(1) of the IPA. In this review, they

received benefits under these sections,

as well as under section 36(4).

Section 28: Prior to the review period,

IPA Section 28 allowed companies to

import machinery free of import duties,

the business tax and the local tax.

However, effective January 1, 1992, the

RTG eliminated both the business and

the local tax and instituted a value

added tax (VAT) system.

According to Section 21(4) of the VAT

Act, if Section 28 benefits were granted

by BOI to a company before January 1,
34796 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

1992, that company, when importing

fixed assets under Section 28, would

continue to be subject to the business

tax provisions under Chapter IV, Title II,

of the Revenue Code before being

amended by the VAT Act. In accordance

with Section 21(4), the company would

be required to pay the business and

local taxes only if its BOI license

requirements were violated. Section

21(4) of the VAT Act applies to Pelmec,

NMB Thai, NMB Hi-Tech, and NMB

Precision Ball, Ltd. because all of their

licenses were granted before January 1,

1992, and contain Section 28 benefits.

The respondents have argued that

given the provisions of the VAT Act

and, specifically Section 21(4), their

exemption from the business and local

taxes no longer constitutes a benefit to

the companies because: (1) no other

companies are required to pay the

business and local taxes; and (2) under

Section 21(4), payment of the business

and local taxes serves only as a penalty

for noncompliance with BOI license

requirements. We verified that under

the new VAT law, companies are no

longer required to pay business and

local taxes with the exception of the

noncompliance penalty noted above.

For these reasons, we preliminarily

determine that the business and local

tax exemptions under Section 28 no

longer constitute a countervailable

benefit for companies subject to Section

21(4) of the VAT Act.

However, under provisions of Section

21(4) of the VAT Act, companies that

were granted Section 28 benefits under

the IPA before January 1, 1992, are not

required to pay VAT on imports of fixed

assets. The respondents have argued

that this exemption from VAT on

imports of fixed assets did not

constitute a benefit to the companies

because all companies, promoted and

non-promoted alike, are effectively

exempted from VAT on their imports of

fixed assets. According to the Section 82

of the VAT Act, the VAT liability is

computed by subtracting the ‘‘input tax’’

(the VAT paid) from the ‘‘output tax’’

(the VAT collected). Consequently,

companies that pay VAT on imports of

fixed assets are effectively exempted

from this VAT payment as they receive

a credit for the VAT they paid on

purchases of inputs, including imports

of fixed assets, when their monthly VAT

liability is computed. We examined this

issue through questionnaires and at

verification. We confirmed that under

the VAT system, companies receive

credit for the VAT paid on the

purchases of inputs and, as a result, no

VAT is effectively paid by companies on

these purchases. Since VAT liability is

computed on a monthly basis, any

possible time-value-of-money benefit

under Section 21(4) of the VAT Act in

the review would be insignificant. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine

that the exemption of the VAT on

imports of fixed assets under Section

21(4) of the VAT Act does not constitute

a countervailable benefit to the

companies specified in Section 21(4).

Since the business and local tax

exemptions under Section 28 of the IPA

and the VAT exemption under Section

21(4) of the VAT Act do not confer

countervailable benefits to companies

subject to Section 21(4) of the VAT Act,

we preliminarily determine that only

the exemptions of import duties on

fixed assets under Section 28 of IPA

continue to provide countervailable

benefits to the respondent companies.

Section 31: IPA Section 31 allows

companies an exemption from payment

of corporate income tax on profits

derived from promoted exports. The

corporate income tax rate in Thailand is

30 percent. NMB Thai and NMB HiTech claimed an income tax exemption

under Section 31 on the income tax

returns filed during the review period.

The income tax exemption continues to

provide countervailable benefits to the

respondent companies.

Section 36(1): IPA Section 36(1)

allows companies to import raw and

‘‘essential’’ materials free of import

duties. As Pelmec, NMB Thai, NMB HiTech and Precision Ball Ltd. have

bonded warehouses for the purchase of

raw materials, they have only claimed

Section 36(1) duty exemptions on their

imports of essential materials.

Respondents’ questionnaire response

included a range of items that were

categorized by the BOI as essential

materials (e.g., grinding wheels, blades,

lubricating cleaning solutions, gloves,

and packing materials) for which they

received duty exemptions. Energy and

fuel were not included as they are not

eligible for section 36(1) duty

exemption.

Prior to the Uruguay Round

Agreement, only duty exemptions on

inputs that were physically

incorporated into the product being

exported (e.g., raw material inputs and

packing materials) were considered noncountervailable. Under the Agreement

on Subsidies and Countervailing

Measures (the Agreement), this has been

broadened to include duty exemptions

on products that are ‘‘consumed in

production.’’ Respondents claim that

the essential materials for which BOI

grants duty exemptions meet the

‘‘consumed in production’’ standard,

and, therefore, any duty exemptions on

these materials should be found not

countervailable. However, Annex II of

the Agreement contains a footnote (fn

61) which defines inputs consumed in

the production process as: ‘‘[i]nputs

consumed in the production process are

inputs physically incorporated, energy,

fuels and oils used in the production

process and catalysts which are

consumed in the course of their use to

obtain the exported product.’’

At verification, we requested

respondents to break out the ‘‘essential

materials’’ according to the definition in

the Annex II footnote, and provide that

break-out in a supplemental response.

Their break-out continued to include a

number of BOI essential materials that

fall outside the definition in footnote 61.

Respondents argue that the term

‘‘consumed in production’’ should

include all items that are worn out

during the production process and that

physically touch the product (e.g.,

grinding wheels, drill bits, lubricating

cleaning solutions) as well as items such

as packing materials. However, it is the

Department’s position that the

definition in Annex II is clear, and

therefore, the only duty exemptions that

we find not countervailable are those on

oils, lubricating cleaning solutions,

packing materials, and materials which

are physically incorporated into the

exported product. The remaining duty

exemptions, received by the respondent

companies, continue to be

countervailable. Because energy and

fuels were not eligible for Section 36(1)

duty exemptions, we have not

addressed whether duty exemptions on

those products would be

countervailable under the URAA.

Section 36(4): While the Minebea

Group had not, prior to the period of

review, claimed any benefits under

Section 36(4) of the IPA, its BOI

licenses, discussed in greater detail

above, always included eligibility to

claim them. Thus, the general

discussion of the IPA above applies to

Section 36(4) as well. In this review

period, NMB Hi-Tech claimed benefits

under Section 36(4) of the IPA for the

first time. Under Section 36(4) of the

IPA, promoted persons can deduct from

their assessable income for payment of

income tax an amount equal to five

percent of the increased income over the

previous year, derived from the export

of products produced by the promoted

persons. This benefit is calculated

across the first ten years of a license,

and it can be used as a loss carried

forward in any year the promoted

person wishes to use it, either during or

after the promoted period. As Section

36(4) is conditioned upon exports, we

preliminarily find this program to be

countervailable.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices 34797

Calculation of Benefit from IPA Sections

28, 31, 36(1) and 36(4)

To calculate the benefit from Sections

31, 28, and 36(1), of the IPA, we

followed the same methodology that has

been used in past administrative

reviews (see, e.g., 58 FR 16174, March

25, 1993; 57 FR 9413, March 18, 1992).

For Section 31, we calculated the

benefit by calculating the difference

between what each company paid in

corporate income tax during the review

period and what it would have paid

absent the exemption. We did this by

multiplying the corporate income tax

rate in effect during the review period

by the amount of each company’s

income that was exempted from income

tax. For Sections 28 and 36(1), we

calculated the benefit by obtaining the

amount of import duties that would

have been paid on the imports absent

the exemption.

Prior to this review, none of the

Minebea group had ever claimed

benefits under Section 36(4). During the

period of review, NMB Hi-Tech claimed

benefits under Section 36(4) for the first

time. We calculated the Section 36(4)

benefit by determining the amount of

tax which would have been paid absent

this deduction.

We then added all duty and tax

savings under all the IPA programs and

divided this aggregate benefit by the

total export value of the subject

merchandise. We then made the

adjustment for the parent company

mark-up discussed in the ‘‘Calculation

Methodology’’ section above. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine the

countervailing duty rate from IPA

Sections 31, 28, 36(1), and 36(4) to be

5.25 percent ad valorem during the

review period.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined to

be Not Used

We examined the following programs

and preliminarily determine that the

producers and/or exporters of the

subject merchandise did not apply for or

receive benefits under these programs

during the period of review:

A. Tax Certificates for Exporters

B. Electricity Discounts for Exporters

C. Export Packing Credits

D. Rediscount of Industrial Bills

E. IPA Section 33

F. Export Processing Zones

G. Reduced Business Taxes for

Producers of Intermediate Goods for

Export Industries

H. International Trade Promotion Fund

Preliminary Results of Review

In accordance with section

355.22(c)(4)(ii) of the Department’s

Interim Regulations, we calculated an

individual subsidy rate for each

producer/exporter subject to this

administrative review. As stated in the

Calculation Methodology section above,

since the Minebea companies are

affiliated, we are treating them as one

company, and calculating one

countervailing duty rate for the group.

Thus, for the period January 1, 1994,

through December 31, 1994, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

for NMB Thai, Pelmec, NMB Hi-Tech,

and NMB Precision Ball, Ltd. to be 5.25

percent ad valorem.

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.

As stated in the‘‘Summary’’ section

above, the Department revoked this

countervailing duty order, effective

January 1, 1995, pursuant to section

782(h)(2) of the Act. Ball Bearings and

Parts Thereof from Thailand; Final

results of Changed Circumstances

Countervailing Duty Review and

Revocation of Countervailing Duty

Order, 61 FR 20799 (May 8, 1996).

Accordingly, suspension of liquidation

was terminated effective January 1,

1995; thus, the Department will not

issue further instructions with respect to

cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties.

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 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act.

Requests for administrative reviews

must now specify the companies to be

reviewed. See section 355.22(a) of the

Interim Regulations. The requested

review will normally cover only those

companies specifically named. Pursuant

to 19 C.F.R. § 355.22(g), for all

companies for which a review was not

requested, duties must be assessed at

the cash deposit rate previously

ordered. Accordingly, for the period

January 1 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.

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

C.F.R. § 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

C.F.R. § 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: June 27, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix

Scope of Review

Ball Bearings, Mounted or Unmounted,

and Parts Thereof

The products covered by this review,

ball bearings, mounted or unmounted,

and parts thereof, include all

antifriction bearings which employ balls

as the rolling element. During the

review period, imports of these products

were classifiable under the following

categories: antifriction balls; ball

bearings with integral shafts; ball

bearings (including radial ball bearings)

and parts thereof; ball bearing type

pillow blocks and parts thereof; ball

bearing type flange, take-up, cartridge,

and hanger units, and parts thereof; and

other bearings (except tapered roller

bearings) and parts thereof. Wheel hub

units which employ balls as the rolling

element are subject to the review.

Finished but unground or semiground

balls are not included in the scope of

this review.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the
34798 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

following HTS item numbers:

8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00,

8482.91.00, 8482.99.10, 8482.99.70,

8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40,

8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30,

8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50,

8708.99.50. This review covers all of the

subject bearings and parts thereof

outlined above with certain limitations.

With regard to finished parts (inner

race, outer race, cage, rollers, balls,

seals, shields, etc.), all such parts are

included in the scope of this review. For

unfinished parts (inner race, outer race,

rollers, balls, etc.), such parts are

included if (1) they have been heat

treated, or (2) heat treatment is not

required to be performed on the part.

Thus, the only unfinished parts that are

not covered by this review are those

parts which will be subject to heat

treatment after importation.

[FR Doc. 96–17015 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 960516133–6133–01]

RIN 0693–XX19

Announcement of Amendments to

Voluntary Product Standard PS 20–94

American Softwood Lumber Standard

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice, announcement of

amendments to Voluntary Product

Standard PS 20–94.

SUMMARY: The American Lumber

Standard Committee (ALSC), acting as

the Standing Committee for Voluntary

Product Standard PS 20–94 American

Softwood Lumber Standard, approved

two amendments to the standard on

November 17, 1995 at its annual

meeting in Corpus Christi, TX:

Amendment 1 pertains to the

certification functions of the Board of

Review with regard to grading rules and

revises § 10.2.3 as follows:

The originating agency shall make the rules

fully and fairly available to all

manufacturers, distributors, users, and

consumers of lumber on equal terms and

conditions and without discrimination.

Amendment 2 pertains to the

membership of the American Lumber

Standard Committee and revises § 9.3.7

as follows:

Balance of representation—Upon request,

the Secretary of Commerce may consider

making changes in the constitution of the

Committee or making additional

appointments to ensure that the Committee

has a balance of interest and is not

dominated by a single interest category. In

such considerations, the Secretary of

Commerce shall consult the Committee for

advice regarding balance and the criteria by

which it may be determined.

Until the standard is republished, the

amendments shall be listed as an

addendum to the standard.

ADDRESSES: Standards Management

Program, Office of Standards Services,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara M. Meigs, Office of Standards

Services, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, telephone: (301) 975–

4025, fax: (301) 926–1559.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST

announced on October 23, 1995, at 60

FR 54338–54339, that the ALSC would

consider three proposed amendments to

Voluntary Product Standard PS 20–94 at

its annual meeting on November 17,

1995. Proposed Amendments 1 and 2

were approved by the Committee;

proposed Amendment 3 pertaining to

Canadian representation was rejected.

Voluntary Product Standard PS 20–94

American Softwood Lumber Standard

was developed under procedures

published by the Department of

Commerce in part 10, title 15, of the

Code of Federal Regulations. In accord

with the provisions of the procedures,

this announcement is to provide public

notice of these amendments to PS 20–

94 and to indicate that the amendments

shall be listed an addendum to the

standard until the standard is

republished.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272 and 15 CFR part

10.

Dated: June 27, 1996.

Samuel Kramer,

Associate Director.

[FR Doc. 96–17032 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 061196A]

RIN 0648–AC73

Fishing Vessel and Gear Damage

Compensation Fund Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

Fishing Vessel and Gear Damage

Compensation Fund’s (Fund) capital

will be depleted before the end of this

fiscal year. There are no alternative

sources of capital, and the Fund will

cease to do business.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael L. Grable, Chief, Financial

Services Division (301–713–2390).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 10

of the Fishermen’s Protective Act

established this fund. This fund has

since 1979 paid fishermen’s claims for

damage to their vessels and gear caused

by the actions of other vessels. Claims

have typically involved the unobserved

loss of fixed fishing gear presumptively

caused by other vessels transiting

through fixed-gear deployment areas.

The Fund’s only significant source of

capital has been the statutory ability to

levy a surcharge of up to 20 percent on

fees imposed on foreign fishing vessels

formerly fishing in the U.S. exclusive

economic zone (EEZ). The last levy

occurred in 1984, and foreign fishing in

the EEZ has since virtually ceased. The

Fund has, since 1984, been husbanding

capital reserved from earlier surcharges.

There are now enough claims on hand

to potentially deplete the Fund’s

remaining capital.

Although the Fund has statutory

authority to borrow up to $5,000,000

from the U.S. Treasury with which to

pay claims, it cannot do so, because it

has no source of funds with which to

repay the borrowing.

NMFS will, consequently:

1. Accept no further claim

applications against the Fund (NMFS

will return to claimants all claim

applications submitted after the date of

this notice).

2. Pay claims already submitted,

provided sufficient Fund capital is

available, in the chronological order in

which claimants’ applications are

determined by NMFS to be complete for

processing and are approved by NMFS

(NMFS may return claim applications

when NMFS determines there is

insufficient Fund capital available).

3. Refund claim application fees to

applicants whose claims NMFS cannot

process due to insufficient Fund capital.

4. Maintain a list of returned claims,

and advise claimants, in chronological

order of claim submission, to resubmit

them if unobligated Fund capital proves

sufficient to pay additional claims.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Fishing Vessel and Gear Damage

Compensation Fund Program is listed in

the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance under number 11.409.