25910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices

Product within scope Company Citation

Keystone 2000 ................................................... Keystone Stainless Inc .................................... 63 FR 6722 (February 10, 1998).

Product within scope Company Citation

M35FL steel bar ................................................. Tohoku Steel Co .............................................. 64 FR 50273 (September 16, 1999).

These reviews cover all imports from

all manufacturers and exporters of SSB

from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in these cases by

parties to these sunset reviews are

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision Memo’’)

from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of

Policy, Import Administration, to Troy

H. Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated April 28,

2000, which is hereby adopted by this

notice. The issues discussed in the

Decision Memo include the likelihood

of continuation or recurrence of

dumping and the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail were the orders

revoked. Parties can find a complete

discussion of all issues raised in these

reviews and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum, which is on file in room

B–099 of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn/. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Reviews

We determine that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on SSB from

Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the following

percentage weighted-average margins:

Margin

(percent)

Brazilian Manufacturers/Exporters:

Acos Villares, S.A ..................... 19.43

All Others .................................. 19.43

Indian Manufacturers/Exporters:

Grand Foundry Limited ............. 3.87

Mukand, Limited ........................ 21.02

All Others .................................. 12.45

Japanese Manufacturers/Exporters:

Aichi Steel Works, Ltd .............. 61.47

Daido Steel Co., Ltd ................. 61.47

Sanyo Special Steel Co., Ltd .... 61.47

All Others .................................. 61.47

Spanish Manufacturers/Exporters:

Acensor, S.A. (And all successor companies including

Digeco, S.A. and Clorimax,

SRL) ...................................... 62.85

Roldan, S.A ............................... 7.72

All Others .................................. 25.77

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility

concerning the return or destruction of

proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR

351.305 of the Department’s regulations.

Timely notification of the return or

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and terms of an

APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these

results and notice in accordance with

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the

Act.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11170 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–815]

Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium

From Canada: Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting administrative reviews of

the countervailing duty orders on pure

magnesium and alloy magnesium from

Canada for the period January 1, 1998

through December 31, 1998. We have

preliminarily determined that certain

producers/exporters have received net

subsidies during the period of review. If

the final results remain the same as

these preliminary results, we will

instruct the Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as detailed in the

Preliminary Results of Reviews section

of this notice. Interested Parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results (see the Public

Comment section of this notice).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Annika O’Hara or Craig Matney, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group I, Office 1,

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3798 or

(202) 482–1778, respectively.

Case History

On August 31, 1992, the Department

of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published in the Federal Register the

countervailing duty orders on pure

magnesium and alloy magnesium from

Canada (57 FR 39392). On August 11,

1999, the Department published a notice

of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ of these

countervailing duty orders (64 FR

43649). We received timely requests for

review from Norsk Hydro Canada Inc.

(‘‘NHCI’’), the Government of Que ́bec

(‘‘GOQ’’), and the petitioner. We

initiated these reviews, covering

calendar year 1998, on October 1, 1999

(64 FR 53318). In accordance with 19

CFR 351.213(b), these reviews cover

NHCI, the only producer or exporter of

the subject merchandise for which a

review was specifically requested.

These reviews cover 16 subsidy

programs.

On November 30, 1999, we issued

countervailing duty questionnaires to

NHCI, the GOQ, and the Government of

Canada (‘‘GOC’’). We received

questionnaire responses from the GOC

on January 12, 2000, and from NHCI and

the GOQ on January 14, 2000.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’), effective January 1, 1995

(‘‘the Act’’). Unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Scope of the Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews are shipments of pure and alloy

magnesium from Canada. Pure

magnesium contains at least 99.8

percent magnesium by weight and is

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices 25911

sold in various slab and ingot forms and

sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less

than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight

with magnesium being the largest

metallic element in the alloy by weight,

and are sold in various ingot and billet

forms and sizes.

The pure and alloy magnesium

subject to review is currently

classifiable under items 8104.11.0000

and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written descriptions of the merchandise

subject to the orders are dispositive. Secondary and granular magnesium

are not included in the scope of these

orders. Our reasons for excluding

granular magnesium are summarized in

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Pure and Alloy

Magnesium From Canada, 57 FR 6094

(February 20, 1992).

Period of Review

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) for

which we are measuring subsidies is

from January 1, 1998 through December

31, 1998.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Discount Rate

As noted below, the Department

preliminarily finds that NHCI benefitted

from one countervailable subsidy

program during the POR: Article 7

grants from the Que ́bec Industrial

Development Corporation. As in the

investigations and previous

administrative reviews of this case, we

have used the company’s cost of longterm, fixed-rate debt in the year in

which this grant was approved as the

discount rate for purposes of calculating

the benefit pertaining to the POR.

Allocation Period

In the investigations and previous

administrative reviews of this case, the

Department used, as the allocation

period for non-recurring subsidies, the

average useful life (‘‘AUL’’) of

renewable physical assets in the

magnesium industry as recorded in the

Internal Revenue Service’s 1977 Class

Life Asset Depreciation Range System

(‘‘the IRS tables’’), i.e., 14 years. In these

administrative reviews, the Department

is applying for the first time its new

countervailing duty regulations.

Pursuant to section 351.524(d)(2) of

these regulations, the Department will

use the AUL in the IRS tables as the

allocation period unless a party can

show that the IRS tables do not

reasonably reflect the company-specific

AUL or the country-wide AUL for the

industry. If a party can show that either

of these time periods differs from the

AUL in the IRS tables by one year or

more, the Department will use the

company-specific AUL or the countrywide AUL for the industry as the

allocation period. Neither NHCI nor the petitioner has

contested using the AUL reported for

the magnesium industry in the IRS

tables. We are, therefore, continuing to

allocate non-recurring benefits over 14

years.

Analysis of Programs

I. Program Preliminarily Determined to

Confer Countervailable Subsidies

A. Article 7 Grant from the Que ́bec

Industrial Development Corporation

(‘‘SDI’’)

SDI (Socie ́te ́ de ́ De ́veloppement

Industriel du Que ́bec) administers

development programs on behalf of the

GOQ. SDI provides assistance under

Article 7 of the SDI Act in the form of

loans, loan guarantees, grants,

assumptions of costs associated with

loans, and equity investments. This

assistance involves projects capable of

having a major impact upon the

economy of Que ́bec. Article 7 assistance

greater than 2.5 million dollars must be

approved by the Council of Ministers

and assistance over 5 million dollars

becomes a separate budget item under

Article 7. Assistance provided in such

amounts must be of ‘‘special economic

importance and value to the province.’’

(See Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determinations: Pure Magnesium

and Alloy Magnesium from Canada, 57

FR 30946, 30948 (July 13, 1992)

(‘‘Magnesium Investigation’’).)

In 1988, NHCI was awarded a grant

under Article 7 to cover a large

percentage of the cost of certain

environmental protection equipment. In

the Magnesium Investigation, the

Department determined that NHCI

received a disproportionately large

share of assistance under Article 7. On

this basis, we determined that the

Article 7 grant was limited to a specific

enterprise or industry, or group of

enterprises or industries, and, therefore,

countervailable. In these reviews,

neither the GOQ nor NHCI has provided

new information which would warrant

reconsideration of this determination.

In the Magnesium Investigation, the

Department found that the Article 7

assistance received by NHCI constituted

a non-recurring grant because it

represented a one-time provision of

funds. In the Preliminary Results of First

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews: Pure Magnesium and Alloy

Magnesium From Canada, 61 FR 11186,

11187 (March 19, 1996), we found this

determination to be consistent with the

principles enunciated in the Allocation

section of the General Issues Appendix

(‘‘GIA’’) appended to the Final

Countervailing Duty Determination;

Certain Steel Products from Austria, 58

FR 37225, 37226 (July 9, 1993). In the

current review, no new information has

been placed on the record that would

cause us to depart from this treatment.

Therefore, in accordance with section

351.524(b)(2) of our regulations, we

have continued to allocate the benefit of

this grant over time. We used our

standard grant methodology as

described in section 351.524(d) of the

regulations to calculate the

countervailable subsidy. We divided the

benefit attributable to the POR by

NHCI’s total sales of Canadianmanufactured products in the POR. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine

the countervailable subsidy from the

Article 7 SDI grant to be 1.38 percent ad

valorem for NHCI.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined

To Be Not Used

We examined the following programs

and preliminarily determine that NHCI

did not apply for or receive benefits

under these programs during the POR:

• St. Lawrence River Environment

Technology Development Program

• Program for Export Market

Development

• The Export Development

Corporation

• Canada-Que ́bec Subsidiary

Agreement on the Economic

Development of the Regions of Que ́bec

• Opportunities to Stimulate

Technology Programs

• Development Assistance Program

• Industrial Feasibility Study

Assistance Program

• Export Promotion Assistance

Program

• Creation of Scientific Jobs in

Industries

• Business Investment Assistance

Program

• Business Financing Program

• Research and Innovation Activities

Program

• Export Assistance Program

• Energy Technologies Development

Program

• Transportation Research and

Development Assistance Program

III. Program Previously Determined To

Be Terminated

• Exemption from Payment of Water

Bills

In the last administrative reviews,

covering calendar year 1997, the

Department found that this program was

terminated during the POR. In our final

results, we stated that we, therefore, did

not intend to continue to examine this

25912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices

program in the future (see Pure

Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from

Canada: Final Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR

48805, 48806 (September 8, 1999)).

Preliminary Results of Reviews

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated a subsidy

rate for NHCI, the sole producer/

exporter subject to these administrative

reviews. For the period January 1, 1998,

through December 31, 1998, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

rate for NHCI to be 1.38 percent ad

valorem. We will disclose our

calculations to the interested parties

upon request pursuant to section

351.224(b) of the regulations.

If the final results of these reviews

remain the same as these preliminary

results, the Department intends to

instruct the Customs Service

(‘‘Customs’’) to assess countervailing

duties at the net subsidy rate. The

Department also intends to instruct

Customs to collect cash deposits of

estimated countervailing duties at the

rate of 1.38 percent on the f.o.b. value

of all shipments of the subject

merchandise from NHCI entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of these

administrative reviews.

Because 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

establishing countervailing duty rates,

including those for non-reviewed

companies, are now essentially the same

as those in antidumping cases, except as

provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of

the Act. The requested reviews will

normally cover only those companies

specifically named. See 19 CFR

351.213(b)(2). Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.212(c), for all companies for which

a review was not requested, duties must

be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and

cash deposits must continue to be

collected, at the rate previously ordered.

As such, the countervailing duty cash

deposit rate applicable to a company

can no longer change, except pursuant

to a request for a review of that

company. See Federal-Mogul

Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp.

782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council

v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT

1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e),

the antidumping regulation on

automatic assessment, which is

identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g), the

predecessor to 19 CFR 351.212(c)).

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all

companies except the company covered

by these reviews, will be unchanged by

the results of these reviews.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies, (except Timminco

Limited which was excluded from the

orders during the investigations) at the

most recent company-specific or

country-wide rate applicable to the

company. Accordingly, the cash deposit

rate that will be applied to nonreviewed companies covered by these

orders is that established in Pure and

Alloy Magnesium From Canada; Final

Results of the Second (1993)

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 62 FR 48607 (September 16,

1997) or the company-specific rate

published in the most recent final

results of an administrative review in

which a company participated. These

rates shall apply to all non-reviewed

companies until a review of a company

assigned these rates is requested. In

addition, for the period January 1, 1998,

through December 31, 1998, the

assessment rates applicable to all nonreviewed companies covered by these

orders are the cash deposit rates in

effect at the time of entry, except for

Timminco Limited which was excluded

from the orders in the original

investigations.

Public Comment

Interested parties may request a

hearing within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held two days after

the scheduled date for submission of

rebuttal briefs (see below). Interested

parties may submit written arguments in

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to issues raised in case

briefs, may be filed no later than five

days after the date of filing the case

briefs. Parties who submit briefs in these

proceedings should provide a summary

of the arguments not to exceed five

pages and a table of statutes,

regulations, and cases cited. Copies of

case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be

served on interested parties in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

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

CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), are due.

The Department will publish a notice

of the final results of these

administrative reviews within 120 days

from the publication of these

preliminary results.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–11173 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 042700A]

Marine Mammals; File No. 782–1438

and P77–4#2

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of applications for

amendment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

National Marine Mammal Laboratory,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,

Seattle, Washington 98115–0070; and

Northeast Fisheries Science Center,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

NOAA, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole,

MA 02546–1026, have requested an

amendment to scientific research Permit

No. 782–1438 and 917, respectively.

DATES: Written or telefaxed comments

must be received on or before June 5,

2000.

ADDRESSES: The amendment requests

and related documents are available for

review upon written request or by

appointment in the following offices:

File Nos. 782–1438 and P77–4#2:

Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,

Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713–

2289);

File No. 782–1438: Southwest Region,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

NOAA, 501 West Ocean Boulevard,

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213

(562/980–4001);

File No. 782–1438: Alaska Region,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

NOAA, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK

99802 (907/586–7235);

File No. P77–4#2 (Permit No. 917):

Northeast Region, NMFS, One

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930,

(978/281–9250).

Written comments or requests for a

public hearing on these requests should