Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 1997 / Notices 5213

loan term to be forgiven; (3) use a

benchmark interest rate of 20 percent;

(4) assume there will be no extension of

due dates; (5) assume any shares of

Leclerc that SDI might acquire will have

no value; and (6) treat the SDI loans as

export subsidies.

Such measures are justified, according

to petitioner, because Leclerc failed to

provide the Department with pertinent

information about the SDI loans prior to

verification. This omission constitutes a

serious material misrepresentation, in

petitioner’s view. Despite being

requested by the Department in the

questionnaire to provide such

information, Leclerc failed to do so.

Petitioner asserts that it is Department

practice to use facts available when a

party ‘‘withholds information that has

been requested’’ (see 776(a) of the Act).

Additionally, because the SDI

regulations state that it can enter into

agreements with distressed borrowers,

any SDI loan terms are suspect and,

thus, cannot be used for benefit

calculations.

Leclerc argues that petitioner’s

insistence on the use of adverse facts

available is without merit because

Leclerc has cooperated fully with the

Department. The Department has

conducted two successful verifications

with the GOQ, the GOC and Leclerc.

Leclerc claims that its voluntary

submission of minor additional

information discovered during the

course of preparing for verification

substantiates its cooperation.

Specifically, Leclerc states that the

Department’s standard questionnaire

simply asks that parties report

differences between what the loan

agreement requires and what a party

actually paid.

Additionally, Leclerc claims that

there is no legal precedent or argument

that would justify treating the SDI loans

as grants, and that there is no evidence

on the record that the loans are grants.

Thus, the Department should continue

to analyze the SDI financing as loans.

Leclerc and the GOQ argue that Leclerc

continues to have a legal obligation to

repay its SDI loans, thus no forgiveness

has occurred. Moreover, section

355.44(k) of the Proposed Regulations

requires the Department to recognize

loan forgiveness as a grant ‘‘at the time

of the assumption or forgiveness.’’

Leclerc asserts that petitioner’s other

methodological suggestions are

groundless. The events subsequent to

the POI affecting the SDI loans are

indeed on the record and verified, but

these events are irrelevant because they

occurred after the POI.

DOC Position

In this instance, we do not believe

that Leclerc’s late submission of

information concerning events

subsequent to the POI requires that the

Department use adverse facts available.

While we have included the post-POI

information in our calculations to make

them more accurate, our investigation

has clearly focussed on information

from years prior to and including the

POI.

Further, we agree with Leclerc and

the GOQ that the Proposed Regulations

state that a benefit from loan forgiveness

usually occurs when the loan is

forgiven. We disagree with petitioner

that the loans should be treated as

grants simply because SDI can

renegotiate loan terms with its clients.

Commercial lenders also typically have

the freedom to change the terms when

dealing with a distressed borrower.

Regarding treating the SDI financing

as a grant, the Department’s GIA at

37255 sets out the standard for

determining whether an instrument

should be considered a grant:

We have distinguished grants from both

debt and equity by defining grants as funds

provided without expectation of a: (1)

Repayment of the grant amount, (2) payment

of any kind stemming directly from the

receipt of the grant, or (3) claim on any funds

in case of company liquidation. (parenthesis

omitted)

Based on the above, the SDI loans

should not be considered grants because

the SDI financing does not meet any of

the three criteria. Moreover, in

distinguishing between equity and

loans, the GIA at 37255 states:

Loans typically have a specified date on

which the last remaining payments will be

made and the obligation of the company to

the creditor is fulfilled. Even if the

instrument has no pre-set repayment date,

but a repayment obligation exists when the

instrument is provided, the instrument has

characteristics more in line with loans than

equity.

While certain aspects of repayment

under the SDI loans are more flexible

than that of a standard commercial bank

loan, as reflected in its financial

statements, Leclerc had a repayment

obligation to SDI during the POI. Thus,

we find no basis on which to consider

the SDI loans to be a grant.

Summary

Based on the four countervailable

programs described above, the aggregate

ad valorem rate is 0.57 percent. This

rate is de minimis, pursuant to 703(b)(4)

of the Act. Therefore, we determine that

no benefits which constitute bounties or

grants within the meaning of the

countervailing duty law are being

provided to manufacturers, producers or

exporters of LHF in Canada.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we verified the information

used in making our final determination.

We followed standard verification

procedures, including meeting with

government and company officials, and

examination of relevant accounting

records and original source documents.

Our verification results are outlined in

detail in the public versions of the

verification reports, which are on file in

the Central Records Unit (Room B–099

of the Main Commerce Building).

Return or Destruction of Proprietary

Information

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

Administrative Protective Order (APO)

of their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 355.34(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 705(d) of the Act.

Dated: January 27, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–2715 Filed 2–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

U.S. Automotive Parts Advisory

Committee; Closed Meeting

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Closed meeting of U.S.

Automotive Parts Advisory Committee.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Automotive Parts

Advisory Committee (the ‘‘Committee’’)

advises U.S. Government officials on

matters relating to the implementation

of the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act of

1988. The Committee: (1) reports

annually to the Secretary of Commerce

on barriers to sales of U.S.-made auto

parts and accessories in Japanese

markets; (2) assists the Secretary in

reporting to the Congress on the

progress of sales of U.S.-made auto parts

in Japanese markets, including the

formation of long-term supplier

relationships; (3) reviews and considers

data collected on sales of U.S.-made

auto parts to Japanese markets; (4)

advises the Secretary during

consultations with the Government of

Japan on these issues; and (5) assists in

establishing priorities for the
5214 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 1997 / Notices

Department’s initiatives to increase

U.S.-made auto parts sales to Japanese

markets, and otherwise provide

assistance and direction to the Secretary

in carrying out these initiatives. At the

meeting, committee members will

discuss the current status of U.S-Japan

automotive trade and APAC’s future

activities.

DATE AND LOCATION: The meeting will be

held on February 18, 1996 from 10:00

a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department

of Commerce in Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Robert Reck, Office of Automotive

Affairs, Trade Development, Room

4036, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–1418.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Assistant Secretary for Administration,

with the concurrence of the General

Counsel formally determined on July 10,

1996, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the

Federal Advisory Act, as amended, that

the series of meetings or portions of

meetings of the Committee and of any

subcommittee thereof, dealing with

privileged or confidential commercial

information may be exempt from the

provisions of the Act relating to open

meeting and public participation therein

because these items are concerned with

matters that are within the purview of

5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (9)(B). A copy of

the Notice of Determination is available

for public inspection and copying in the

Department of Commerce Records

Inspection Facility, Room 6020, Main

Commerce.

Dated: January 27, 1997.

John White,

Acting Director, Office of Automotive Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–2671 Filed 2–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

Technology Administration

Technical Advisory Committee to

Develop a Federal Information

Processing Standard for the Federal

Key Management Infrastructure;

Meeting

AGENCY: Technology Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.,

notice is hereby given that the Technical

Advisory Committee to Develop a

Federal Information Processing

Standard for the Federal Key

Management Infrastructure will hold a

meeting on February 19–20, 1997. The

Technical Advisory Committee to

Develop a Federal Information

Processing Standard for the Federal Key

Management Infrastructure was

established by the Secretary of

Commerce to provide industry advice to

the Department on encryption key

recovery for the federal government. All

sessions will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

February 19 and 20 from 9:00 a.m. to

6:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place

at the Sheraton Hotel at 2500 Mason

Street, San Francisco, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Roback, Committee Secretary

and Designated Federal Official,

Computer Security Division, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

Building 820, Room 426, Gaithersburg,

Maryland, 20899; telephone 301–975–

3696. Please do not call the conference

facility regarding details of this meeting.

Agenda

February 19, 1997

Opening Remarks

Chairperson’s Remarks

News Updates

Status Update of Working Group

Formation and Activities

Federal Agency Requirements/

Perspectives Briefings

Foreign Government Perspectives

February 20, 1997

Intellectual Property Briefing

Federal Standards Background Briefing

Discussion of Requirements

Working Group Issues/Activities

Public Participation

Plans for Next Meeting

Closing Remarks

Note that the items in this agenda are

tentative and subject to change due to

logistics and speaker availability.

Public Participation

The Committee meeting will include

a period of time, not to exceed thirty

minutes, for oral comments from the

public. Each speaker will be limited to

five minutes. Members of the public

who are interested in speaking are asked

to contact the individual identified in

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section. In

addition, written statements are invited

and may be submitted to the Committee

at any time. Written comments should

be directed to the Technical Advisory

Committee to Develop a Federal

Information Processing Standard for the

Federal Key Management Infrastructure,

Building 820, Room 426, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899. It would

be appreciated if sixty copies could be

submitted for distribution to the

Committee and other meeting attendees.

Additional information regarding the

Committee is available at its world wide

web homepage at: http://csrc.nist.gov/

tacdfipsfkmi/.

Should this meeting be canceled, a

notice to that effect will be published in

the Federal Register and a similar

notice placed on the Committee’s

electronic homepage.

Mark Bohannon,

Chief Counsel for Technology.

[FR Doc. 97–2739 Filed 2–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Adjustment of Import Limits for Certain

Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textile

Products Produced or Manufactured in

Pakistan

January 29, 1997.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs reducing

limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross

Arnold, International Trade Specialist,

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212. For information on the quota

status of these limits, refer to the Quota

Status Reports posted on the bulletin

boards of of each Customs port or call

(202) 927–6714. For information on

embargoes and quota re-openings, call

(202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854); Uruguay Round Agreements

Act.

The current limits for Categories 339

and 638/639 are being reduced for

carryforward applied to 1996 limits.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 61 FR 66263,

published on December 17, 1996). Also

see 61 FR 68245, published on

December 27, 1996.

The letter to the Commissioner of

Customs and the actions taken pursuant

to it are not designed to implement all

of the provisions of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round