Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48607

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–815]

Pure and Alloy Magnesium From

Canada; Final Results of the Second

(1993) Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

countervailing duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: On March 24, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on pure and

alloy magnesium from Canada for the

period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993 (see Pure

Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium From

Canada; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews (Preliminary Results), 62 FR

13863). We have completed these

reviews and determine the net subsidy

to be 7.34 percent ad valorem for Norsk

Hydro Canada, Inc. (NHIC) and all other

producers/exporters except Timminco

Limited, which has been excluded from

these orders. We will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as indicated

above.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia Thirumalai or Sally Hastings.

AD/CVD Enforcement, Group 1, Office

1, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4087 or

(202) 482–3464, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 24, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 13863) the preliminary results of its

administrative reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on pure and

alloy magnesium from Canada (62 FR

13863). The Department has now

completed these administrative reviews

in accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

We invited interested parties to

comment on the Preliminary Results.

On April 23, 1997, case briefs were

submitted by NHCI, a producer of

subject merchandise which export pure

and alloy magnesium to the United

States during the review period, and the

Government of Que ́bec (GOQ). At the

request of respondents, the Department

held a public hearing on May 13, 1997.

These reviews cover the period

January 1, 1993 through December 31,

1993. The reviews involve one company

(NHCI) and the following programs:

Exemption from Payment of Water Bills,

Article 7 Grants from the Que ́bec

Industrial Development Corporation

(SDI), 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,

Financial Assistance Program For

Research Formation and for the

Improvement of the Recycling Industry,

and Transportation Research and

Development Assistance Program.

Applicable Statute

The Department is conducting these

administrative reviews in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act. Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scopes 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

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. Secondary and granular

magnesium are not included in the

scope of the orders. Pure and alloy

magnesium are classifiable under

subheadings 8104.11.000 and

8104.19.0000, respectively, of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon the analysis of the

questionnaire responses and written

comments from the interested parties,

we determine the following:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Exemption From Payment of Water

Bills

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. Our analysis of the

comments of the interested parties,

summarized below, has not led us to

change our findings with respect to the

countervailability of this program. The

net subsidy rate for this program is as

follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Rate

(percent)

NHCI ......................................... 1.00

B. Article 7 Grants From the Que ́bec

Industrial Development Corporation

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred

countervailable benefits on the subject

merchandise. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to change our findings with respect

to the countervailability of this program.

The net subsidy for this program is as

follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Rate

(percent)

NHCI ......................................... 6.34

II. Programs Found Not To Be Used

In the preliminary results, we found

that the producers and/or exporters of

the subject merchandise did not apply

for or receive benefits under the

following programs:

• St. Lawrence River Environment

Technology Program

• Program for Export Market

Development

• 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
48608 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

• Business Financing Program

• Research and Innovation Activities

Program

• Export Assistance Program

• Energy Technologies Development

Program

• Financial Assistance Program for

Research Formation and for the

Improvement of the Recycling

Industry

• Transportation Research and

Development Assistance Program.

We received no comments on these

programs from the interested parties;

therefore, we have not changed our

findings from the Preliminary Results.

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: Countervailable Benefit

Received From the Exemption From

Payment of Water Bills

While agreeing that NHCI’s contract

with its supplier of water, La Societe ́ du

Parc Industriel et Portuaire de

Be ́cancour (‘‘Industrial Park’’), was

linked with the credit it received from

the GOQ to offset its water bills and

reflected a forecasted annual rate of

consumption, respondents argue that

the GOQ’s recalculation of NHCI’s water

bills reflecting actual consumption is a

more accurate measure of the

countervailable benefit than is the water

bill credit received by NHCI during the

review period. Respondents state that a

different billing arrangement would

have been made if a water credit had not

been received. In summary, respondents

argue that the Department should look

to what NHCI would have paid absent

the water credit and the contract

compared to what NHCI paid with the

credit and the contract to determine the

amount of the benefit conferred by the

credit.

DOC Position: We disagree with

respondents that we are required to

hypothesize what NHCI would have

paid for its water in the absence of the

credit and the contract it entered into to

measure the benefit conferred by the

credit. Simply put, the GOQ gave NHCI

a credit based on and because of the

contract and NHCI’s forecasted usage.

The water contract and the credit are

inextricably linked. Again, we compare

NHCI’s argument to a situation in which

a company that received a low-interest

loan from a government argues to the

Department that because of the low

interest rate, it borrowed a greater

amount of money than it otherwise

would have. Therefore, the company

would contend, to calculate the benefit

conferred by the low-interest loan, the

Department should compare the actual

amount of interest paid on the lowinterest loan with the amount of interest

the company would have paid on a

smaller loan at a higher benchmark

interest rate. In this loan situation, we

would not enter into a hypothetical

calculation of what amount the

company would have borrowed absent

the low-interest loan. Instead, consistent

with section 771(5)(A)(II)(c) of the Act,

we would simply countervail the

difference between the two interest rates

regardless of the effect the interest rate

has on the other terms of the loan, i.e.,

the amount borrowed.

In these reviews, the terms of the

contract between NHCI and the

Industrial Park unambiguously state that

NHCI is required to pay an amount

based, in part, on forecasted

consumption. To the extent the GOQ’s

provision of the credit relieved NHCI

from paying its water bills, a

countervailable benefit existed

regardless of any hypothetical

alternative arrangements. Therefore, as

stated in the Preliminary Results we

determine that the countervailable

benefit is the full amount of the credit.

Comment 2: Article 7 Assistance

under the SDI Act: Respondents argue

that the Department improperly applied

its grant methodology to the Article 7

assistance provided to NHCI. According

to respondents, the Department should

calculate the benefit using its loan

methodology and reduce the interest

rate charged by the amount of the

interest rebated because NHCI knew it

would receive interest rebates from SDI

prior to taking out loans. Respondents

state that this would be consistent with

the Department’s methodology, and cite

a number of cases in support thereof

(e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination; Certain Steel

Products From the United Kingdom (UK

Steel), 58 FR 37393, 37397 (July 9,

1993)).

Respondents further contend that the

Preliminary Results were based on

significant errors of fact regarding the

interest rebates received by NHCI. First,

the interest rebates received by NHCI

reduced NHCI’s costs of borrowing for

the construction of its plant, not its

costs of purchasing environmental

equipment. Second, respondents argue

that the relationship between the

interest rebates and the underlying

loans was not indirect.

With respect to the first point,

respondents argue that since the

Department wrongly assumed that the

Article 7 assistance was provided solely

for the purchase of environmental

equipment, the Department was able to

conclude that the interest rebates

exceeded the interest that would be

expended in connection with the

purchase of the environmental

equipment. Hence, the Department

concluded that the Article 7 assistance

should not be treated as an interest

rebate. However, because the Article 7

assistance was intended to reduce the

cost of financing for the project as a

whole, the assistance was not excessive

in the sense described by the

Department.

With respect to the second point,

respondents argue that the Department

was incorrect in its assertion that the

Article 7 assistance was more closely

linked to the acquisition of certain

assets than the accumulation of interest

costs. Moreover, respondents maintain

that the SDI assistance was not intended

solely for the purchase of environmental

protection equipment, but was also

intended to facilitate the construction of

NHCI’s facility in Que ́bec. The fact that

the Article 7 assistance was intended to

achieve more than one objective does

not distinguish the Article 7 assistance

from other interest rebate programs

which the Department has treated under

its loan methodology, according to

respondents.

DOC Position: The issue presented by

this case is whether the Article 7

assistance received by NHCI should be

treated as an interest rebate or as a grant.

If it is treated as a interest rebate, then

under the methodology adopted by the

Department in 1993 steel cases, the

benefit of the Article 7 assistance would

be countervailed according to our loan

methodology (Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determinations:

Certain Steel Products From Belgium,

(Belgium Steel) 58 FR 37273, 37276,

July 9, 1993). However, if treated as a

grant, the benefits would be allocated

over a period of corresponding to the

life of the company’s assets.

In their brief, respondents argue that

the interest rebate methodology reflects

the fact that companies face a choice

between debt and equity financing. If a

company knows that the government is

willing to rebate interest charges before

the company takes out a loan, the

government is encouraging the company

to borrow rather than sell equity. Hence,

respondents conclude the benefit

should be measured with reference to

the duration of the borrowing for which

the rebate is provided.

We disagree that the Department’s

interest rebate methodology was

intended to reflect the choice between

equity and loan financing. In the 1993

steel cases, we examined a particular

type of subsidy, interest rebates, and

determined which of our valuation

methodologies was most appropriate

(See, e.g., Belgium Steel). The possible

choices were between the grant and loan

methodologies. Where the company had
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48609

knowledge prior to taking the loan out

that it would receive an interest rebate,

we decided that the loan methodology

was most appropriate because there is

virtually no difference between the

government offering a loan at 5 percent

interest (which would be countervailed

according to the loan methodology) and

offering to rebate half of the interest

paid on a 10 percent loan from a

commercial bank each time the

company makes an interest payment.

Hence, we were seeking the closest

methodological fit for different types of

interest rebates.

However, the interest rebate

methodology described in the 1993 steel

cases was never intended to dictate that

the Department should apply the loan

methodology in every situation in

which a government makes

contributions towards a company’s

interest obligations. The appropriate

methodology depends on the nature of

the subsidy. For example, assume that

the government sold a company that it

would make all interest payments on all

construction loans the company took

out during the next year up to $6

million. This type of ‘‘interest rebate’’

operates essentially like a $6 million

grant restricted to a specific purpose.

Whether the purpose is to pay interest

expenses or buy a piece of equipment

does not change the nature of the

subsidy. In contrast, the interest rebate

methodology is appropriate for the type

of interest rebate programs investigated

in the 1993 steel cases, i.e., partial

interest rebates paid over a period of

years on particular long-term loans.

In these reviews, as in the 1993 steel

cases, the Department is seeking the

most appropriate methodology for the

assistance. We erred in our Preliminary

Results of First Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews: Pure

Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from

Canada, 61 FR 11186 (March 19, 1996),

in stating that the primary purpose of

the Article 7 assistance was to

underwrite the purchase of

environmental equipment. However, it

cannot be disputed that the

environmental equipment played a

crucial role in the agreement between

SDI and NHCI. Most importantly, the

aggregate amount of assistance to be

provided was determined by reference

to the cost of environmental equipment

to be purchased. In this respect, the

Article 7 assistance is like a grant for

capital equipment.

Further, the assistance provided by

SDI is distinguishable from the interest

rebates addressed in the 1993 steel cases

in that the interest payments in the steel

cases rebated a portion of the interest

paid on particular long-term loans.

Here, although the disbursement of

Article 7 assistance was contingent,

inter alia, on NHCI making interest

payments, the disbursements were not

tied to the amount borrowed, the

number of loans taken out or the interest

rates charged on those loans. Instead,

the disbursements were tied to NHCI

meeting specific investment targets and

generally to NHCI having incurred

interest costs on borrowing related to

the construction of its facility.

Therefore, while we recognize that

NHCI had to borrow and pay interest in

order to receive individual

disbursements of the Article 7

assistance, we do not agree that this fact

is dispositive of whether the interest

rebate methodology used in the 1993

steel cases is appropriate. We believe

this program more closely resembles the

scenario described above where the

government agrees to pay all interest

incurred on construction loans taken

out by a company over the next year up

to a specified amount. Because, in this

case, the amount of assistance is

calculated by reference to capital

equipment purchases (something

extraneous to the interest on the loan)

and the reimbursements do not relate to

particular loans, we determine that the

Article 7 assistance should be treated as

a grant.

The Department has in past cases

classified subsidies according to their

characteristics. For example, in the

General Issues Appendix (GIA)

appended to Final Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Steel Products

from Austria, 58 FR 37082, at 37226,

(July 9, 1993), we developed a hierarchy

for determining whether so-called

‘‘hybrid instruments’’ should be

countervailed according to our loan,

grant or equity methodologies. In short,

we were asking whether the details of

particular government ‘‘contributions’’

made them more like a loan, a grant or

an equity infusion. Similarly, when a

company receives a grant, we look to the

nature of the grant to determine whether

the grant should be treated as recurring

or non-recurring. In these reviews, we

have undertaken the same type of

analysis, i.e., determining an

appropriate calculation methodology

based on the nature of the subsidy in

question. As with hybrid instruments

and recurring/non-recurring grants, it is

appropriate to determine which

methodology is most appropriate based

on the specific facts of the Article 7

assistance. Although the Article 7

assistance exhibits characteristics of

both an interest rebate and a grant,

based on an overview of the contract

under which the assistance was

provided, we determine that the weight

of the evidence in this case supports our

treatment of the Article 7 assistance as

a grant.

Comment 3: Re-Examination of

Specificity of the Article 7 Assistance: In

the event the Department continues to

treat the Article 7 assistance as a nonrecurring grant, respondents state that

the Department is obliged to make a

finding that the Article 7 assistance

conferred a subsidy to NHCI during the

POR. The Department may not, as it has

here, rely on a factual finding of

disproportionality during a different

time period and different amounts of

assistance. Respondents state that a

finding of de facto specificity requires a

case-by-case analysis, citing PPG

Industries, Inc. v. United States (928

F.2d 1568, 1577 (Fed.Cir. 1991)),

Geneva Steel v. United States (914

F.Supp. 563, 598 (CIT 1996)), and Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations: Certain Steel Products

from Brazil (58 FR 37295, 37303 (July 9,

1993)) to support their reasoning.

Respondents also cite the sixth

administrative review of Live Swine

from Canada: Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review (Live Swine) (59 FR 12243

(March 16, 1994)) as an example where

the Department reexamined the

countervailability of benefits found to

be de facto specific in prior reviews.

Respondents maintain that the

Department is obliged to evaluate the

countervailability of a program

previously determined to be de facto

specific, regardless of whether the

parties have provided new information.

According to the GOQ, assistance under

Article 9 should be included in the

Article 7 specificity analysis because

Article 9 was the predecessor of Article

7 and the provisions of Article 9

functioned basically the same as those

of Article 7.

Respondents then present a

methodology they believe should be

employed whereby the Department

would compare the portion of NHCI’s

original grant allocated to the POR,

based on the Department’s standard

allocation methodology, and the

portions of benefits allocated to the POR

for all assistance bestowed to all other

enterprises receiving SDI assistance

under Articles 7 and 9 to determine

whether NHCI received a

disproportionate share of benefits.

DOC Position: It is the Department’s

policy not to revisit specificity

determinations absent the presentation

of new facts or evidence (see e.g.,

Carbon Steel Wire Rod From Saudi

Arabia; Final Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation of Countervailing Duty
48610 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices

Order, 59 FR 58814, November 15,

1994). In these reviews, no new facts or

evidence have been presented which

would lead us to question our previous

determination.

Respondents refer to the various

reviews of the countervailing duty order

on live swine from Canada as

demonstrating that the Department has,

as a matter of course, revisited its de

facto specificity determinations from

one segment of a proceeding to another.

While distinct de facto specificity

determinations were made with respect

to the Tripartite program in the fourth,

fifth and sixth reviews of the order on

live swine from Canada, these were not

done as a matter of course. The

Department reexamined specificity in

these reviews of live swine only as a

result of an adverse decision by the

Binational Panel. Because the Binational

Panel overturned the Department’s

finding of specificity regarding the

Tripartite program in the fourth review

of live swine for lack of evidence (and

eventually rejected its analysis

regarding specificity in the fifth review

but upheld its decision), the Department

continued to collect information in the

sixth review, which was running

concurrently with the Binational

proceedings. In explaining its actions in

the sixth review, the Department

recognized that it does not routinely

revisit specificity determinations, as

respondents would have us believe, in

stating the following:

Although our practice is not to reexamine

a specificity determination (affirmative or

negative) made in the investigation or in a

review absent new facts or evidence of

changed circumstances, the record in the

prior reviews did not contain all of the

information we consider necessary to define

the agricultural universe in Canada.

(See Live Swine (59 FR 12243 (March

16, 1994)).) As can be seen from the

foregoing, the facts surrounding the live

swine reviews do not correspond to the

situation presented here. In particular,

the issue of specificity had not been

conclusively settled in the live swine

reviews and was in the process of

litigation, and different information was

available; unlike this case in which a

definitive specificity determination had

already been established.

As for respondents’ arguments that de

facto specificity determinations should

be done on a case-by-case basis, we

agree. However, once again we state that

we disagree with respondents as to what

‘‘case-by-case’’ means. In each of the

citations respondents refer to, ‘‘case’’

referred not to a separate segment of the

same proceeding (e.g., the first review of

an order distinct from the second

review), but to a separate proceeding

involving different products (e.g.,

carbon black from Mexico as opposed to

steel products from Brazil). It is this

latter definition of ‘‘case’’ we find to be

the proper basis for examination of de

facto specificity determinations. Since a

separate de facto specificity

determination was made in the

investigations of pure and alloy

magnesium, we find that the analysis

was properly conducted.

In proposing that the Department base

a POR-specific de facto specificity

finding on the portions of non-recurring

grants allocated to the POR, the

respondents appear to be confusing the

initial specificity determination based

on the action of the granting authority

at the time of bestowal with the

allocation of the benefit over time.

Again, we state that these are two

separate processes. The portions of

grants allocated to periods of time using

the Department’s standard allocation

methodology are irrelevant to an

examination of the actual distribution of

benefits by the granting government at

the time of bestowal.

In addition, we find that the GOQ has

not provided new information which

would cause us to revisit our original

specificity determination. As a result,

the bases of the original specificity

determination and the conclusions of

that determination are still valid. We,

therefore, maintain that assistance

provided to NHCI under Article 7 of the

SDI Act is specific and, therefore,

countervailable.

Comment 4: FOB Adjustment:

Respondents argue that the Department

used the correct sales denominator in

the Preliminary Results, but in the

alternative has submitted NHCI’s F.O.B.

(port) value of total sales during the

POR.

DOC Position: We have used NHCI’s

submission of its F.O.B. (port) value of

total sales in these reviews in

determining the ad valorem subsidy

rate. In the Preliminary Results, we used

NHCI’s total sales figure as recorded in

the company’s books. Due to this

change, the rates calculated in these

final results differ from those in the

Preliminary Results.

Final Results of Review

For the period January 1, 1993

through December 31, 1993, we

determine the net subsidy for NHCI to

be 7.34 percent ad valorem.

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess the following

countervailing duties:

Manufacturer/exporter Rate

(percent)

NHCI and all others, except for

Timminco Ltd ......................... 7.34

Prior to these 1993 results, the final

results of the 3rd (1994) administrative

reviews were published (see 12994

Final Results). The 1994 reviews were

conducted under the statutory

provisions subject to the URAA

amendments. These statutory provisions

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. As a result,

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.

Therefore, 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)).)

Accordingly, the cash deposit rate that

will be applied to companies not

reviewed during the 1994 reviews is

that established in the most recently

completed administrative proceeding

conducted pursuant to the statutory

provisions that were in effect prior to

the URAA amendments, i.e., these 1993

administrative reviews. (See Pure and

Alloy Magnesium from Canada: Final

Results of the First (1992)

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews (62 FR 13857 (March 24,

1997).) Since NHCI was reviewed in the

1994 reviews, we will instruct Customs

to collect cash deposits for NHCI at the

company-specific rate established for it

in the 1994 reviews of 4.48 percent ad

valorem; for non-reviewed companies,

the cash deposit will be the rate

calculated in these 1993 reviews of 7.34

percent ad valorem, except from

Timminco Limited (which was

excluded from the order in the original

investigations). In addition, for the

period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993, the assessment rates

applicable to all non-reviewed

companies covered by these orders are

the cash deposit rates in effect at the

time of entry.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / Notices 48611

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 355.34(d). Timely written

notification of return destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.

Dated: August 6, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–24565 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 090597D]

Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application for

amendment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Whale Conservation Institute, 191

Weston Road, Lincoln, Massachusetts

01773, has requested an amendment to

Permit No. 1004.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before October 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The amendment request

and related documents are available for

review upon written request or by

appointment in the following office(s):

Permits Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring,

MD 20910 (301/713–2289); and

Regional Administrator, Northeast

Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive,

Gloucester, MA 01930 (508/281–9250).

Written data or views, or requests for

a public hearing on this request should

be submitted to the Chief, Permits

Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring,

MD 20910. Those individuals requesting

a hearing should set forth the specific

reasons why a hearing on this particular

request would be appropriate.

Concurrent with the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

NMFS is forwarding copies of this

application to the Marine Mammal

Commission and its Committee of

Scientific Advisors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

subject amendment is requested under

the authority of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations

Governing the Taking and Importing of

Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U..S.C. 1531 et seq.), and

the regulations governing the taking,

importing, and exporting of endangered

fish and wildlife (50 CFR 222.23).

Permit No. 1004 authorizes the

importation of biopsy tissue samples

taken from several species of cetaceans

in South America, through June 30,

1998. The Holder is now requesting

that: 1) the expiration date of the permit

be extended from June 30, 1998 to

November 30, 1998; 2) the number of

imported southern right whale

(Eubalaena australis) tissue samples

taken at Peninsula Valdez, Argentina be

increased from 20 to 340; and 3) these

‘‘tissues samples’’ taken from southern

right whales include baleen, blood and

bone, skin/blubber and organ tissues

(from dead/stranded whales), and

sloughed skin (from live free-ranging

whales). Amendment of the permit to

allow for this adjustment is considered

administrative in nature and is therefore

planned to take place upon close of the

public comment period.

Dated: September 8, 1997.

Ann D. Terbush,

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24520 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 090997D]

Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of scientific research

permit no. 875–1401.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr.

Christopher W. Clark, Laboratory of

Ornithology, Cornell University, Ithaca,

New York 14850, has been issued a

permit to ‘‘take’’ blue whales

(Balaenoptera musculus) and fin whales

(B. physalus) for purposes of scientific

research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related

documents are available for review

upon written request or by appointment

in the following offices:

Permits Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Room

13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/

713–2289); and

Regional Administrator, Southwest

Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean

Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA

90802–4213 (310/980–4001).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

17, 1997, notice was published in the

Federal Register (62 FR 10259) that the

above-named applicant had submitted a

request for a scientific research permit

to ‘‘take’’ (i.e., harass) blue whales

(Balaenoptera musculus) and fin whales

(B. physalus) in order to study the

effects on these species of lowfrequency sound produced by the

Navy’s Surface Towed Array

Surveillance System Low Frequency

Active (SURTASS LFA) system. The

research will be conducted in the

Southern California Bight during

September/October of 1997 and/or 1998.

The requested permit has been issued

under the authority of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the

Regulations Governing the Taking and

Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR

Part 216); the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.

1531 et seq.), the Regulations Governing

the Taking, Importing, and Exporting of

Endangered Fish and Wildlife (50 CFR

part 222); and the Fur Seal Act of 1966

(16 U.S.C. 1151–1175). Issuance of this

permit, as required by the ESA, was

based on a finding that such permit: (1)

Was applied for in good faith; (2) will

not operate to the disadvantage of the

endangered species which is the subject

of this permit; and (3) is consistent with

the purposes and policies set forth in

section 2 of the ESA.

Dated: September 10, 1997.

Ann D. Terbush,

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24521 Filed 9–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F