Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices 34791

collection for which approval has

expired.

Burden: 10 hours.

Number of Respondents: 40.

Avg Hours Per Response: 15 minutes.

Needs and Uses: Planning is currently

underway for the 1996 Community

Census, which is an integral part of the

overall planning process for the 2000

decennial census. The Census Bureau

must provide everyone in our test sites

the opportunity to be counted,

including individuals living in group

quarters (GQs) (student dorms, shelters,

group homes, etc.) and in housing units

(HUs) that are part of/or associated with

special places (SPs). We are conducting

this operation by phoning each SP and

conducting interviews to identify and

collect updated information about the

GQs and HUs at each SP. This operation

replaces the Special Place Prelist field

operation conducted in previous

censuses. The goal of this operation is

to make improvements over the 1990

Special Place Prelist operation. We

expect to improve the quality/accuracy

of assigning the correct GQ type code

and the associated geographic coding

compared to the 1990 census Special

Place Prelist operation. We also expect

to apply some new/improved GQ type

codes. We plan to make additional

modifications to our questionnaire,

instructions, and letters based on results

of using these forms in the 1996

Community Census.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for profit, Individuals or households,

Not–for–profit institutions.

Frequency: One time.

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.

OMB Desk Officer: Jerry Coffey, (202)

395–7314.

Copies of the above information

collection proposal can be obtained by

calling or writing Linda Engelmeier,

Acting DOC Forms Clearance Officer,

(202) 482–3272, Department of

Commerce, room 5312, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230.

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collection should be sent

within 30 days of publication of this

notice to Jerry Coffey, OMB Desk

Officer, room 10201, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: June 27, 1996.

Linda Engelmeier,

Acting Departmental Forms Clearance

Officer, Office of Management and

Organization.

[FR Doc. 96–16941 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–F

Economic Development

Administration

Notice of Petitions by Producing Firms

for Determination of Eligibility To

Apply for Trade Adjustment

Assistance

AGENCY: Economic Development

Administration (EDA).

ACTION: To give firms an opportunity to

comment.

Petitions have been accepted for filing

on the dates indicated from the firms

listed below.

LIST OF PETITION ACTION BY TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

[For period 5/21/96–06/19/96]

Firm name Address Date petition accepted Product

Brahmin Leather Works, Inc .................. 77 Alden Road, Fairhaven, MA 02719 06/18/96 Leather Handbags, belts and accessories.

Foundation Steel & Wire Mf., Inc .......... 3050 West 26th St., Houston, TX

77008.

06/10/96 Wire mesh for concrete.

Health-Pak, Inc ...................................... 2005 Beechgrove Place, Utica, NY

13501.

06/10/96 Lab coats and jackets; nonwoven disposable apparel for use in hospitals,

clinics and labs.

Hoy Shoe Co ......................................... 4970 Kemper Ave., St. Louis, MO

63139.

5/29/96 Sandals for girls.

Mainelli Tool & Die, Inc ......................... 30 Houghton St., Providence, RI 02904 06/18/96 Jewelry findings.

Maynard Steel Casting Co .................... 2856 South 27th Street, Milwaukee, WI

53215.

06/18/96 Cast steel mining equipment components, construction equipment components and railroad components.

Mid-States Uniform & Lettering, Inc ...... 715 South Minnesota Ave., P.O. Box

519, SD 57101.

06/18/96 T-shirts.

Raintree Buckles & Jewelry, Inc ............ 7115 Laurel Canyon Blvd., North Hollywood, CA 91605.05/29/96 Belt buckles and insignia.

The petitions were submitted

pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341). Consequently,

the United States Department of

Commerce has initiated separate

investigations to determine whether

increased imports into the United States

of articles like or directly competitive

with those produced by each firm

contributed importantly to total or

partial separation of the firm’s workers,

or threat thereof, and to a decrease in

sales or production of each petitioning

firm.

Any party having a substantial

interest in the proceedings may request

a public hearing on the matter. A

request for a hearing must be received

by the Trade Adjustment Assistance

Division, Room 7023, Economic

Development Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230, no later than the close of

business of the tenth calendar day

following the publication of this notice.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance official program number and title

of the program under which these petitions

are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

Dated: June 21, 1996.

Lewis R. Podolske,

Director, Trade Adjustment Assistance

Division.

[FR Doc. 96–17054 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–24–M
34792 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

International Trade Administration

[A–428–810]

High-Tenacity Rayon Filament Yarn

From Germany; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the North American Rayon Corporation

(petitioner), and from Akzo Nobel Faser

A.G., Akzo Nobel Industrial Fibers Inc.,

and Akzo Nobel Fibers Inc.

(collectively, Akzo; respondent), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping order on high-tenacity

rayon filament yarn from Germany. This

review covers one manufacturer of the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the June 1, 1994 through

May 31, 1995 period of review (POR).

We have preliminarily determined

that U.S. sales have been made below

normal value (NV) during the POR. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service (Customs) to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the NV. In accordance

with section 353.25(a)(2)(i) of the

Department’s regulations, we do not

intend to revoke the antidumping duty

order with respect to Akzo, as

requested, because even if we find a de

minimis margin in the final results of

this review, it would mark only the

second consecutive year in which Akzo

sold the subject merchandise at not less

than NV, and therefore, the conditions

for revocation have not been satisfied.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the

issue; and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor,

Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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). 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 225130).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on hightenacity rayon filament yarn from

Germany on June 30, 1992 (57 FR

29062). The Department published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping order for the 1994–95

review period on June 6, 1995 (60 FR

29821). On June 30, 1995, both

petitioner and respondent requested

that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on hightenacity rayon filament yarn from

Germany. In its June 30, 1995 letter,

Akzo requested revocation of the order

pursuant to section 353.25(b) of the

Department’s regulations. We initiated

the review on July 14, 1995 (60 FR

36260).

The Department fully extended the

time limits for the deadlines for the

preliminary and final results of review,

because of the scheduling difficulties in

arranging the mandatory verification for

this review. See Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews; Time Limits,

60 FR 11613 (March 21, 1996). See also,

Memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini

to Susan G. Esserman (March 14, 1996).

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this

administrative review is high-tenacity

rayon filament yarn from Germany.

During the review period, such

merchandise was classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

number 5403.10.30.40. High-tenacity

rayon filament yarn is a multifilament

single yarn of viscose rayon with a twist

of five turns or more per meter, having

a denier of 1100 or greater, and a

tenacity greater than 35 centinewtons

per tex. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of

the product coverage. This review

covers Akzo and the period June 1,

1994, through May 31, 1995.

Verification

In accordance with section

353.25(c)(2)(ii) of the Department’s

regulations, we verified information

provided by Akzo using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s

facilities, the examination of relevant

sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public version of the verification

reports.

United States Price

We based our margin calculations on

export price (EP), as defined in section

772(a) of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold to unaffiliated

U.S. purchasers prior to the date of

importation. EP sales were based on

packed, f.o.b. prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States. We

made adjustments, where applicable, for

U.S. and foreign inland freight,

brokerage and handling, U.S. duty,

foreign insurance, and international

freight, in accordance with section

772(c) of the Act, because these

expenses were incident to bringing the

subject merchandise from the original

place of shipment in the exporting

country to the place of delivery in the

United States. We made an additional

adjustment to certain EP sales to

account for post-sale price adjustments

reported on a transaction-specific basis

and granted by Akzo in connection with

having obtained the services of a new

U.S. sales agent. No other adjustments

to EP were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

A. Viability

In order to determine whether there

was sufficient volume of sales in the

home market (HM) to serve as a viable

basis for calculating NV, we compared

Akzo’s volume of home market sales of

the foreign like product to the volume

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)

of the Act. Because Akzo’s aggregate

volume of HM sales of the foreign like

product was greater than five percent of

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the HM provides a viable basis for

calculating NV for Akzo, pursuant to

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices 34793

B. Cost of Production Analysis

In the last review, we disregarded

Akzo’s sales found to be below the cost

of production (COP). Therefore, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)

of the Act, the Department has

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales below the COP may have

occurred during this review period.

Thus, pursuant to section 773(b) of the

Act, we initiated a COP investigation of

Akzo in this review. Before making any

fair value comparisons, we conducted

the COP analysis described below.

1. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of Akzo’s cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

foreign like product, plus amounts for

home market selling, general, and

administrative expenses (SG&A) and

packing costs in accordance with

section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied

on the home market sales and COP

information provided by Akzo in its

original and supplemental questionnaire

responses.

2. Test of Home Market Prices

After calculating COP, we tested

whether within an extended period of

time home market sales of high-tenacity

rayon filament yarn were made at prices

below COP in substantial quantities,

and whether such prices permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time. We compared modelspecific COP to the reported home

market prices less any applicable

movement charges, discounts, rebates,

and direct and indirect selling expenses.

3. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of Akzo’s

sales of a given model were at prices

less than COP, we did not disregard any

below-cost sales of that product because

we determined that the below-cost sales

were not made in substantial quantities.

We found that, for certain models of

high-tenacity rayon filament yarn, 20

percent or more of the home market

sales were sold at below-cost prices.

Where 20 percent or more of home

market sales of a given model were at

prices less than the COP, we

disregarded the below-cost sales

because such sales were found to be

made in substantial quantities during

the POR (i.e., within an extended period

of time) at prices which would not

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act (i.e.,

the sales were made at prices below the

weighted average per unit COP for the

POR). We used the remaining above-cost

sales as the basis of determining NV if

such sales existed, in accordance with

section 773(b)(1). For those models of

the subject merchandise for which there

were no above-cost sales available for

matching purposes, we compared EP to

constructed value (CV).

C. Price-to-Price Comparisons

Pursuant to section 777(A)(d)(2), we

compared the EP of individual

transactions to the monthly weightedaverage price of sales of the foreign like

product where there were sales at prices

above COP, as discussed above. We

based NV on the f.o.b. price to

unaffiliated purchasers in the HM. We

made adjustments, where applicable, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act. Where applicable, we made

adjustments to HM price for early

payment discounts, other discounts,

handling charges, rebates, inland freight

(post-sale), inland insurance, interest

revenue, and third party payments. To

adjust for differences in circumstances

of sale between the HM and the U.S., we

deducted HM credit expenses from HM

price, and increased HM price by an

amount for technical services and credit

expenses incurred in the U.S. In order

to adjust for differences in packing

between the two markets, we increased

HM price by U.S. packing cost and

reduced it by HM packing costs. Prices

were reported net of value added taxes

(VAT) and, therefore, no deduction for

VAT was necessary.

Akzo reported that its sales in the

home and U.S. markets were made at

the same level of trade and channel of

distribution (direct to end users/

converters). Therefore, Akzo did not

request a level of trade adjustment. Our

analysis and verification of Akzo’s

response confirmed that the selling

functions performed for EP sales are not

sufficiently different than for home

market sales to consider EP sales and

home market sales to be at different

level of trade. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we

did not make a level of trade adjustment

to NV for these preliminary results.

D. Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of Akzo’s cost of materials and

fabrication employed in producing the

subject merchandise, SG&A and profit

incurred and realized in connection

with production and sale of the foreign

like product, and U.S. packing costs. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A),

we based SG&A and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by Akzo

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. We

used the costs of materials, fabrication,

and G&A as reported in the CV portion

of Akzo’s questionnaire response. We

used the U.S. packing costs as reported

in the U.S. sales portion of Akzo’s

response. We based selling expenses

and profit on the information reported

in the home market sales portion of

Akzo’s responses. See Certain Pasta

from Italy; Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value and Postponement of Final

Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349

(January 19, 1996). For selling expenses,

we used the average of above-cost perunit home market selling expenses

weighted by the total quantity sold. For

actual profit, we first calculated the

difference between the home market

sales value and home market COP for all

above-cost home market sales, and

divided the sum of these differences by

the total HM COP for these sales. We

then multiplied this percentage by the

COP for each U.S. model to derive an

actual profit.

We adjusted CV for technical services,

credit expenses, and packing as reported

in the U.S. sales portion of Akzo’s

original and supplemental questionnaire

responses.

Preliminary Results

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Akzo Nobel Faser A.G., Akzo

Nobel Industrial Fibers, Inc.,

Akzo Nobel Fibers, Inc.

(Akzo) ..................................... 0.54

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first working day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

the administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at the hearing, within 90
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