51636 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices

We published the preliminary results

on June 6, 1997 (62 FR 31079). We

invited interested parties to comment on

the preliminary results. We received no

comments from any of the parties.

Applicable Statute

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.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments from Sweden of regular

viscose rayon staple fiber from Sweden

of regular viscose rayon staple fiber and

high-wet modulus (modal) viscose

rayon staple fiber. Such merchandise is

classifiable under item number

5504.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). The HTS item is

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon the responses to our

questionnaire, we determine the

following:

I. Programs Found Not To Confer

Subsidies

A. Investment Grants from the Working Life

Fund

B. Recruitment Incentive Program

C. Trainee Temporary Replacement

D. Recruitment Subsidy Program

In the preliminary results, we found

that these programs did not confer

countervailable subsidies on the subject

merchandise. We did not receive any

comments on these programs from the

interested parties, and our review of the

record has not led us to change our

findings from the preliminary results.

We will examine the Recruitment

Subsidy Program in any future

administrative reviews of this order

because we did not make a specificity

determination in this review since, even

if the program were found to be specific,

the subsidy rate would be so small that

it would not change the overall subsidy

rate of Svenska.

II. Programs Found To Be Not Used

In the preliminary results, we found

that Svenska did not apply for or receive

benefits under the following programs:

A. Manpower Reduction Grants

B. Grants for Temporary Employment for

Public Works

C. Regional Development Grant

D. Transportation Grants

E. Location-of-Industry Loans

We did not receive any comments on

these programs from the interested

parties, and our review of the record has

not led us to change our findings from

the preliminary results.

III. Programs Found To Be Terminated

In the preliminary results, we found

the following program to be terminated

and that no residual benefits were being

provided:

Elderly Employment Compensation

Program

We did not receive any comments on

this program from the interested parties,

and our review of the record has not led

us to change our findings from the

preliminary results.

Final Results of Review

For the reasons discussed in the

preliminary determination, we

determine that no countervailable

subsidies were conferred on Svenska for

the period January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995. We will instruct the

U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’) to

liquidate without regard to

countervailing duties, all shipments of

this merchandise exported on or after

January 1, 1995, and on or before

December 31, 1995. The Department

will also instruct Customs to collect a

cash deposit of estimated countervailing

duties of zero percent ad valorem, as

provided for by section 751(a) of the

Act, on all shipments of this

merchandise from Svenska, entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of this

review.

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 § 777A(e)(2)(B) of the

Act. The requested review will normally

cover only those companies specifically

named. See 19 CFR § 355.22(a) (1997).

Pursuant to 19 CFR § 355.22(g), 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 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 virtually

identical to 19 CFR § 355.22(g)).

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all

companies except those covered by this

review will be unchanged by the results

of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies at the most recent

company-specific or country-wide rate

applicable to the company. Accordingly,

the cash deposit rates that will be

applied to non-reviewed companies

covered by this order are those

established in the most recently

completed administrative proceeding

conducted pursuant to the statutory

provisions that were in effect prior to

the URAA amendments. These rates

shall apply to all non-reviewed

companies until a review of a company

assigned these rates is conducted. In

addition, for the period January 1, 1995

through December 31, 1995, the

assessment rates applicable to all nonreviewed companies covered by this

order are the cash deposit rates in effect

at the time of entry.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

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.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–26194 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of application to amend

certificate.

SUMMARY: The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’),

International Trade Administration,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Notices 51637

Department of Commerce, has received

an application to amend an Export

Trade Certificate of Review. This notice

summarizes the proposed amendment

and requests comments relevant to

whether the amended Certificate should

be issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Dawn Busby, Director, Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131.

This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to issue Export

Trade Certificates of Review. A

Certificate of Review protects the holder

and the members identified in the

Certificate from state and federal

government antitrust actions and from

private, treble damage antitrust actions

for the export conduct specified in the

Certificate and carried out in

compliance with its terms and

conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Act

and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the

Secretary to publish a notice in the

Federal Register identifying the

applicant and summarizing its proposed

export conduct.

Request for Public Comments

Interested parties may submit written

comments relevant to the determination

whether an amended Certificate should

be issued. If the comments include any

privileged or confidential business

information, it must be clearly marked

and a nonconfidential version of the

comments (identified as such) should be

included. Any comments not marked

privileged or confidential business

information will be deemed to be

nonconfidential. An original and five

copies, plus two copies of the

nonconfidential version, should be

submitted no later than 20 days after the

date of this notice to: Office of Export

Trading Company Affairs, International

Trade Administration, Department of

Commerce, Room 1800H, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Information submitted by

any person is exempt from disclosure

under the Freedom of Information Act

(5 U.S.C. 552). However,

nonconfidential versions of the

comments will be made available to the

applicant if necessary for determining

whether or not to issue the Certificate.

Comments should refer to this

application as ‘‘Export Trade Certificate

of Review, application number 89–

3A018.’’

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute,

Inc.’s (‘‘OPEI’’) original Certificate was

issued on March 19, 1990 (55 FR 11041,

March 26, 1990) and previously

amended on April 20, 1990 (55 FR

21766, May 29, 1990); and July 12, 1990

(55 FR 29398, July 19, 1990). A

summary of the application for an

amendment follows.

Summary of the Application

Applicant: Outdoor Power Equipment

Institute, Inc. (‘‘OPEI’’), 341 South

Patrick Street, Alexandria, Virginia

22314.

Contact: Laurence J. Lasoff, Counsel,

Telephone: (202) 342–8530.

Application No.: 89–3A018.

Date Deemed Submitted: September

16, 1997.

Proposed Amendment: OPEI seeks to

amend its Certificate to:

1. Add the following company as a

new ‘‘Member’’ of the Certificate within

the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the

Regulations (15 C.F.R. 325.2(1)): Excel

Industries, Inc., Hesston, Kansas; and

2. Delete as ‘‘Members’’ the following

companies: Engineering Products

Company, Inc., Waukesha, Wisconsin;

E-Z Rake, Inc., Lebanon, Indiana; Falls

Products Inc., Geona, Illinois; Merry

Tiller, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama;

NOMA Outdoor Product, Inc., Jackson,

Tennessee; Roto-Hoe Company,

Newbury, Ohio; Sarlo Power Mowers,

Inc., Fort Myers, Florida; Snapper

Power Equipment, McDonough,

Georgia; and Trailmate, Inc., Sarasota,

Florida.

Dated: September 26, 1997.

W. Dawn Busby,

Director, Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–26066 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 070197A]

Small Takes of Marine Mammals

Incidental to Specified Activities; Oil

and Gas Exploration Drilling Activities

in the Beaufort Sea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of an

incidental harassment authorization.

SUMMARY: In accordance with provisions

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) as amended, notification is

hereby given that an Incidental

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take

small numbers of marine mammals by

harassment incidental to conducting oil

exploration drilling activities in

Camden Bay, Beaufort Sea in waters off

Alaska has been issued to ARCO Alaska,

Inc. (ARCO).

DATES: This authorization is effective

from September 25, 1997, through

September 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The application and

monitoring plan, authorization, and

environmental assessment (EA) are

available by writing to the Chief, Marine

Mammal Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–

3225, or by telephoning one of the

contacts listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of

Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–

2055, Brad Smith, Western Alaska Field

Office, NMFS, (907) 271–5006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs

the Secretary of Commerce to allow,

upon request, the incidental, but not

intentional, taking of marine mammals

by U.S. citizens who engage in a

specified activity (other than

commercial fishing) within a specified

geographical region if certain findings

are made and either regulations are

issued or, if the taking is limited to

harassment, notice of a proposed

authorization is provided to the public

for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS

finds that the taking will have a

negligible impact on the species or

stock(s), will not have an unmitigable

adverse impact on the availability of the

species or stock(s) for subsistence uses,

and the permissible methods of taking

and requirements pertaining to the

monitoring and reporting of such taking

are set forth. NMFS has defined

‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103

as ‘‘ * * * an impact resulting from the

specified activity that cannot be

reasonably expected to, and is not

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the

species or stock through effects on

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’

On April 10, 1996 (61 FR 15884),

NMFS published an interim rule

establishing, among other things,

procedures for issuing incidental

harassment authorizations under section

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for activities

in Arctic waters, including requirements

for peer-review of a monitoring program

and a plan of cooperation between the

applicant and affected subsistence

users. For additional information on the

procedures followed for this