45232 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 165 / Tuesday, August 26, 1997 / Notices

indicate that these loans are at

noncommercial rates, or otherwise

provide a benefit to producers of subject

merchandise. Of the loans identified by

petitioners, one loan appears to have

been on preferential terms to a producer

of subject merchandise. However, that

loan was provided under law 46, which

we have included in this investigation.

Therefore, we are not initiating on this

allegation regarding ‘‘other government

loans.’’

5. Government Loan Guarantees:

Petitioners allege that several third party

loan guarantees listed in the producers’

annual reports are likely to have been

provided by the government at

preferential rates. Petitioners claim that

these guarantees may be the same, or

similar to, loan guarantees

countervailed by the Department in

Certain Steel.

The Department countervailed

government loan guarantees provided

by IRI and Finsider in Certain Steel

based on BIA. However, in Electrical

Steel, these loan guarantees were found

to have been provided only by Finsider,

not IRI. Since Finsider was in

liquidation, and therefore could not

have paid the loan even if required to,

the Department found that these loan

guarantees provided no benefit.

Petitioners have not provided any

information that indicates that the

guarantees listed in the company’s

annual reports are provided by the

government at preferential rates, nor

have they provided any information

demonstrating that these guarantees, if

provided by the government, were done

so on a specific basis. Therefore, we are

not initiating on these loan guarantees.

6. Bolzano/Trentino-Alto Adige Law

9/91: Petitioners allege that Law 9/91,

which provides easy term loans to

stimulate local economic activity,

provides countervailable benefits to

producers of subject merchandise.

Loans under this law are available to

companies in tourism, agriculture, crafts

and services. Petitioners have not

shown that producers of subject

merchandise would be eligible for

benefits under this provision. Moreover,

they have not provided sufficient

information to indicate that Law 9/91

would be specific. Therefore, we are not

initiating on this program.

7. Trentino-Alto Adige Law 8/95:

Petitioners allege that the region of

Trentino-Alto Adige provides various

incentives under Law 8/95 to promote

local industry, commerce, services,

crafts and tourism. However, they have

not provided sufficient information to

indicate that the incentives provided

under this law are specific. Therefore,

we are not initiating on Law 8/95 of the

region of Trentino-Alto Adige.

8. Veneto Law 39/87: Petitioners

allege that Law 39/87 of the Veneto

region provides countervailable benefits

to producers of subject merchandise.

This law establishes a registry for

financial assistance in the province.

Based on the information contained in

the petition, this law seems to be simply

an administrative measure that requires

companies to register with the province

before applying for assistance.

Petitioners have provided no basis to

believe that Law 39/87 provide any

benefits; therefore, we are not initiating

on this program.

9. Veneto Law 16/93: Petitioners

allege that Law 16/93 of the Veneto

region provides countervailable benefits

to producers of subject merchandise.

This law established various initiatives

designed to promote the economic and

social development of Veneto’s eastern

region. However, based on evidence in

the petition, Valbruna, the only

producer of subject merchandise located

in the Veneto Region, is not located in

the eastern portion of the region and

there is no indication that other parts of

the region are eligible for benefits. As no

producers of subject merchandise

appear eligible for benefits under this

law, we are not initiating on this

program.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and section

351.203(c)(2) of the Department’s

regulations, copies of the public version

of the petition have been provided to

the representatives of the GOI and the

EC. We will attempt to provide copies

of the public version of the petition to

all the exporters named in the petition.

ITC Notification

Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act

and section 351.203(c)(1) of the

Department’s regulations, we have

notified the ITC of this initiation.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by September

15, 1997, whether there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is being materially

injured, or is threatened with material

injury, by reason of imports from Italy

of SSWR. Any ITC determination which

is negative will result in the

investigation being terminated;

otherwise, the investigation will

proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

section 702(c)(2) of the Act and section

351.203(c)(1) of the Department’s

Regulations.

Dated: August 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–22687 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of New Mexico Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 97–043. Applicant:

University of New Mexico,

Albuquerque, NM 87131–6041.

Instrument: X-Ray Photoelectron

Spectrometer, Model AXIS HSi.

Manufacturer: Kratos Analytical, United

Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 62

FR 32766, June 17, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, was being

manufactured in the United States at the

time of purchase (December 19, 1996).

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides magnetic charge equalization

for uniform charge compensation across

the sample surface. The U.S.

Department of Energy advises that (1)

this capability is pertinent to the

applicant’s intended purpose and (2) it

knows of no domestic instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument for the

applicant’s intended use at the time of

purchase.

We know of no other instrument or

apparatus of equivalent scientific value

to the foreign instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–22691 Filed 8–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P