61270 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Notices

1The Act expired on August 20, 1994. Executive

Order 12924 (3 CFR, 1994 Comp. 917 (1995)),

extended by Presidential Notices of August 15, 1995

(3 CFR, 1995 Comp. 501 (1996)), August 14, 1996

(3 CFR, 1996 Comp. 298 (1997)) and August 13,

1997 (62 FR 43629, August 15, 1997) continued the

Export Administration Regulations in effect under

IEEPA.

2Pursuant to appropriate delegations of authority,

the Director, Office of Exporter Services, in

consultation with the Director, Office of Export

Enforcement, exercises the authority granted to the

Secretary of Section 11(h) of the Act.

States District Court for the District of

Columbia of violating the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act (50

U.S.C.A. 1701–1706 (1991 & Supp.

1997)) (IEEPA). McNeil was convicted

of knowingly and willfully exporting,

and causing to be exported, United

States-origin electronic riot shields from

the United States to Romania, without

applying for and obtaining from the

Department of Commerce the required

authorization.

Section 11(h) of the Export

Administration Act of 1979, as amended

(50 U.S.C.A. app. 2401–2420 (1991 &

Supp. 1997)) (the Act),1 provides that, at

the discretion of the Secretary of

Commerce,2 no person convicted of

violating IEEPA, or certain other

provisions of the United States Code,

shall be eligible to apply for or use any

license, including any License

Exception, issued pursuant to, or

provided by, the Act or the Export

Administration Regulations (currently

codified at 15 CFR Parts 730–774

(1997)) (the Regulations), for a period of

up to 10 years from the date of the

conviction. In addition, any license

issued pursuant to the Act in which

such a person had any interest at the

time of conviction may be revoked.

Pursuant to Sections 766.25 and

750.8(a) of the Regulations, upon

notification that a person has been

convicted of violating IEEPA, the

Director, Office of Exporter Services, in

consultation with the Director, Office of

Export Enforcement, shall determine

whether to deny that person permission

to apply for or use any license,

including any License Exception, issued

pursuant to, or provided by, the Act and

the Regulations, and shall also

determine whether to revoke any license

previously issued to such a person.

Having received notice of McNeil’s

conviction for violating IEEPA and

following consultations with the Acting

Director, Office of Export Enforcement,

I have decided to deny McNeil

permission to apply for or use any

license, including any License

Exception, issued pursuant to, or

provide by, the Act and the Regulations,

for a period of five years the date of his

conviction. The denial period ends on

August 8, 2001. I have also decided to

revoke all licenses issued pursuant to

the Act in which McNeil had an interest

at the time of his conviction.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered

I. Until August 8, 2001, William F.

McNeil, #5 Woodland Road, Pittsfield,

Massachusetts 01201, may not, directly

or indirectly, participate in any way, in

any transaction involving any

commodity, software or technology

(hereinafter collectively referred to as

‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from

the United States, that is subject to the

Regulations, or in any other activity

subject to the Regulations, including but

not limited to:

A. Applying for, obtaining, or using

any license, License Exception, or

export control document;

B. Carrying on negotiations

concerning, or ordering, buying,

receiving, using, selling, delivering,

storing, disposing of, forwarding,

transporting, financing, or otherwise

servicing in any way, any transaction

involving any item exported or to be

exported from the United States that is

subject to the Regulations, or in any

other activity subject to the Regulations;

or

C. Benefiting in any way from any

transaction involving any item exported

or to be exported from the United States

that is subject to the Regulations, or in

any other activity subject to the

Regulations.

II. No person may directly or

indirectly, do any of the following:

A. Export or reexport to or on behalf

of the denied person any item subject to

the Regulations;

B. Take any action that facilitates the

acquisition or attempted acquisition by

the denied person of the ownership,

possession, or control of any item

subject to the Regulations that has been

or will be exported from the United

States, including financing or other

support activities related to a

transaction whereby the denied person

acquires or attempts to acquire such

ownership, possession or control;

C. Take any action to acquire from or

to facilitate the acquisition or attempted

acquisition from the denied person of

any item subject to the Regulations that

has been exported from the United

States;

D. Obtain from the denied person in

the United States any item subject to the

Regulations with knowledge or reason

to know that the item will be, or is

intended to be, exported from the

United States; or

E. Engage in any transaction to service

any item subject to the Regulations that

has been or will be exported from the

United States and that is owned,

possessed or controlled by the denied

person, or service any item, of whatever

origin, that is owned, possessed or

controlled by the denied person if such

service involves the use of any item

subject to the Regulations that has been

or will be exported from the United

States. For purposes of this paragraph,

servicing means installation,

maintenance, repair, modification or

testing.

III. After notice and opportunity for

comment as provided in Section 766.23

of the Regulations, any person, firm,

corporation, or business organization

related to McNeil by affiliation,

ownership, control, or position of

responsibility in the conduct of trade or

related services may also be subject to

the provisions of this Order.

IV. This Order does not prohibit any

export, reexport, or other transaction

subject to the Regulations where the

only items involved that are subject to

the Regulations are the foreignproducted direct product of U.S.-origin

technology.

V. This Order is effective immediately

and shall remain in effect until August

8, 2001.

VI. A copy of this Order shall be

delivered to McNeil. This Order shall be

published in the Federal Register.

Dated: November 3, 1997.

Eileen M. Albanese,

Director, Office of Exporter Services.

[FR Doc. 97–30063 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–056]

Melamine From Japan; Notice of

Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by an

importer, Taiyo America, Inc., the

Department of Commerce initiated an

administrative review of the

antidumpting duty finding on melamine

from Japan for the period of review,

February 1, 1996, through January 31,

1997. The importer’s request covered

two producers/exporters of subject

merchandise. Because no other

interested party requested a review, this

review has now been terminated as a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Notices 61271

result of the withdrawal of the request

for administrative review by the

importer.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–4195 or (202) 482–

3814.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 353

(April 1, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Commerce (the

Department) published an antidumping

duty finding on melamine from Japan

on February 2, 1977 (42 FR 6866). On

February 3, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty finding on melamine

from Japan (62 FR 4978). On February

7, 1997, an importer, Taiyo America,

Inc., requested an administrative review

of two producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise to the United

States. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(c), we initiated the review on

March 18, 1997 (62 FR 12793) covering

the period of February 1, 1996 through

January 31, 1997. On September 2, 1997,

the importer withdrew its request for

administrative review.

Termination of Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations, the

Department may allow a party that

requests an administrative review to

withdraw such request not later than 90

days after the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the administrative

review. The Department may extend

this time limit if the Department decides

it is reasonable to do so.

This request for withdrawal was made

early in the review process and there

were no requests for review from other

interested parties. Therefore, the

Department is terminating this review.

This notice is in accordance with

section 353.22(a)(5) of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.22(a)(5)).

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning disposition of

proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with § 353.34(d) of

the Department’s regulations. Timely

written 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 sanctionable violation.

Dated: October 30, 1997.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II

Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–30145 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–429–601]

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review of Solid Urea

From the Former German Democratic

Republic

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative review

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on solid

urea from the Former German

Democratic Republic (GDR). The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter, SKW

Stickstoffwerke Piesteritz GmbH

(SKWP), and the period July 1, 1995

through June 30, 1996. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nithya Nagarajan or Steven Presing,

Office VII, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the regulations, as

codified at 19 C.F.R. part 353 (1996).

Background

On July 8, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 35712) a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ for the

July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996,

period of review (POR) of the

antidumping duty order on solid urea

from the former GDR. In accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22, the Ad Hoc

Committee of Domestic Nitrogen

Producers (petitioners) requested a

review for the aforementioned period.

On August 15, 1996, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

antidumping review (61 FR 42416,

42417). The Department is conducting a

review of this respondent pursuant to

section 751 of the Act.

On July 8, 1997, the Department

published the preliminary results of

review ( 62 FR 36492). The Department

has now completed the review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

those of solid urea. At the time of the

publication of the antidumping duty

order, such merchandise was

classifiable under item 480.30 of the

Tariff Schedules of the United States

Annotated (TSUSA). This merchandise

is currently classified under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) item number

3102.10.00. These TSUSA and HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes only. The

Department’s written description of the

scope remains dispositive for purposes

of the order.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: Affiliation. Petitioners

argue that the Department must adjust

SKWP’s cost of production to reflect an

appropriate amount for depreciation of

production equipment transferred to

SKWP by Stickstoffwerke AG

Wittenberg-Piesteritz (STAG).

Petitioners contend that STAG is under

the ‘‘control’’ of SKWP and that in

accordance with section 771(33) of the

Act, the Department must find SKWP

and STAG to be ‘‘affiliated’’ persons.

According to petitioners, the

Department is required by sections

773(f)(2) and (3) of the Act to disregard

STAG’s ‘‘transfer’’ price to SKWP of the

production equipment and substitute, in