64568 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 36.62

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate in the

LTFV investigation. These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

We will calculate importer-specific

duty assessment rates as a per ton unit

value for EP sales. To calculate the per

ton unit value for assessment, we

summed the margins on U.S. sales with

positive margins, and then divided this

sum by the total entered tonnage of all

U.S. sales.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are published in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32064 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–412–811]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Preliminary Results

of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting an administrative review

of the countervailing duty order on

certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth

carbon steel products from the United

Kingdom. The period covered by this

administrative review is January 1, 1996

through December 31, 1996. For

information on the net subsidy for each

reviewed company, as well for all nonreviewed companies, please see the

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section

of this notice. If the final results remain

the same as these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as indicated in the

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section

of this notice. Interested parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Cassel, Suzanne King, or

Dana Mermelstein, Office of CVD/AD

Enforcement VI, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 22, 1993, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register (58 FR 15327)

the countervailing duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom. On

March 7, 1997, the Department

published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ (62

FR 10521) of this countervailing duty

order. We received a timely request for

review from Inland Steel Bar Co., an

interested party to this proceeding. We

initiated the review, covering the period

January 1, 1996, through December 31,

1996, on April 24, 1997 (62 FR 19988).

In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a),

this review covers only those producers

or exporters for which a review was

specifically requested. Accordingly, this

review covers British Steel Engineering

Steels Holdings, British Steel

Engineering Steels Limited, and British

Steel plc.

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

hot-rolled bars and rods of non-alloy or

other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

or more of bismuth, in coils or cut

lengths, and in numerous shapes and

sizes. Excluded from the scope of this

review are other alloy steels (as defined

by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1(f)), except steels classified as

other alloy steels by reason of

containing by weight 0.4 percent or

more of lead or 0.1 percent or more of

bismuth, tellarium, or selenium. Also

excluded are semi-finished steels and

flat-rolled products. Most of the

products covered in this review are

provided for under subheadings

7213.20.00.00 and 7214.30.00.00 of the

HTSUS. Small quantities of these

products may also enter the United

States under the following HTSUS

subheadings: 7213.31.30.00, 60.00;

7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90;

7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and

7228.30.80. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and for Customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of

this proceeding is dispositive.

Change in Ownership

(I) Background

On March 21, 1995, British Steel plc

(BS plc) acquired all of Guest, Keen &

Nettlefolds’ (GKN) shares in United

Engineering Steels (UES), the company

which produced and exported the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the original investigation.

Thus, UES became a wholly-owned

subsidiary of BS plc and was renamed

British Steel Engineering Steels (BSES).

Prior to this change in ownership,

UES was a joint venture company

formed in 1986 by British Steel

Corporation (BSC), a government-owned

company, and GKN. In return for shares

in UES, BSC contributed a major portion

of its Special Steels Business, the

productive unit which produced the

subject merchandise. GKN contributed

its Brymbo Steel Works and its forging

business to the joint venture. BSC was

privatized in 1988 and now bears the

name BS plc.

In the investigation of this case, the

Department found that BSC had

received a number of nonrecurring

subsidies prior to the 1986 transfer of its

Special Steels Business to UES. See

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead

and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products

From the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6237,

6243 (January 27, 1993) (Lead Bar).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices 64569

Further, the Department determined

that the sale to UES did not alter these

previously bestowed subsidies, and thus

the portion of BSC’s pre-1986 subsidies

attributable to its Special Steels

Business transferred to UES. Lead Bar at

6240.

In the 1993 certain steel products

investigations, the Department modified

the allocation methodology developed

for Lead Bar. Specifically, the

Department stated that it would no

longer assume that all subsidies

allocated to a productive unit follow it

when it is sold. Rather, when a

productive unit is spun-off or acquired,

a portion of the sales price of the

productive unit represents the

reallocation of prior subsidies. See the

General Issues Appendix (GIA),

appended to the Final Countervailing

Duty Determination; Certain Steel

Products From Austria, 58 FR 37217,

37269 (July 9, 1993) (Certain Steel). In

a subsequent Remand Determination,

the Department aligned Lead Bar with

the methodology set forth in the

‘‘Privatization’’ and ‘‘Restructuring’’

sections of the GIA. Certain Hot-Rolled

Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products from the United Kingdom:

Remand Determination (October 12,

1993) (Remand).

(II) Analysis of BS plc’s Acquisition of

UES

On March 21, 1995, BS plc acquired

100 percent of UES. In determining how

this change in ownership affects our

attribution of subsidies to the subject

merchandise, we relied on Section

771(5)(F) of the Act, which states that a

change in ownership does not require a

determination that past subsidies

received by an enterprise are no longer

countervailable, even if the transaction

is accomplished at arm’s length. The

Statement of Administrative Action,

H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.

(1994) (SAA), explains that the aim of

this provision is to prevent the extreme

interpretation that the arm’s length sale

of a firm automatically, and in all cases,

extinguishes any prior subsidies

conferred. While the SAA indicates that

the Department retains the discretion to

determine whether and to what extent a

change in ownership eliminates past

subsidies, it also indicates that this

discretion must be exercised carefully

by considering the facts of each case.

SAA at 928.

In accordance with the Act and the

SAA, we examined the facts of BS plc’s

acquisition of GKN’s shares of UES, and

we determined that the change in

ownership does not render previously

bestowed subsidies attributable to UES

no longer countervailable. However, we

also determined that a portion of the

purchase price paid for UES is

attributable to its prior subsidies.

Therefore, we reduced the amount of

the subsidies that ‘‘traveled’’ with UES

to BS plc, taking into account the

allocation of subsidies to GKN, the

former joint-owner of UES. See Certain

Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon

Steel Products From the United

Kingdom; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53306 (October 14, 1997)

(Lead Bar 95 Final Results) and Certain

Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon

Steel Products From the United

Kingdom; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 16555 (April 7, 1997)

(Lead Bar 95 Preliminary Results). To

calculate the amount of UES’s subsidies

that passed through to BS plc as a result

of the acquisition, we applied the

methodology described in the

‘‘Restructuring’’ section of the GIA. See

GIA, 58 FR at 37268–37269. This

determination is in accordance with our

changes in ownership finding in Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination; Pasta From Italy, 61 FR

30288, 30289–30290 (June 14, 1996),

and our finding in the 1994

administrative review of this case, in

which we determined that ‘‘[t]he URAA

is not inconsistent with and does not

overturn the Department’s General

Issues Appendix methodology or its

findings in the Lead Bar Remand

Determination.’’ Certain Hot-Rolled

Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel

Products From the United Kingdom;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 58377,

58379 (November 14, 1996).

With the acquisition of UES, we also

had to determine whether BS plc’s

remaining subsidies are attributable to

the subject merchandise. Where the

Department finds that a company has

received untied countervailable

subsidies, to determine the

countervailing duty rate, the

Department attributes those subsidies to

that company’s total sales of

domestically produced merchandise,

including the sales of 100-percentowned domestic subsidiaries. If the

subject merchandise is produced by a

subsidiary company, and the only

subsidies in question are the untied

subsidies received by the parent

company, the countervailing duty rate

calculation for the subject merchandise

is the same as described above.

Similarly, if such a company purchases

another company, as was the case with

BS plc’s purchase of UES, then the

current benefit from the parent

company’s allocable untied subsidies is

attributed to total sales, including the

sales of the newly acquired company.

See, e.g., GIA, 58 FR at 3762 (‘‘the

Department often treats the parent entity

and its subsidiaries as one when

determining who ultimately benefits

from a subsidy’’); Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determinations:

Certain Steel Products from Germany,

58 FR 37315 (July 9, 1993). Accordingly,

in the Lead Bar 95 Final Results, we

determined that it is appropriate to

collapse BSES with BS plc for purposes

of calculating the countervailing duty

for the subject merchandise. BSES, as a

wholly-owned subsidiary of BS plc,

continues to benefit from the remaining

benefit stream of BS plc’s untied

subsidies.

In collapsing UES with BS plc, we

also determined that UES’s untied

subsidies ‘‘rejoined’’ BS plc’s pool of

subsidies with the company’s 1995

acquisition. All of these subsidies were

untied subsidies originally bestowed

upon BSC (BS plc). After the formation

of UES in 1986, the subsidies that

‘‘traveled’’ with the Special Steels

Business were also untied, and were

found to benefit UES as a whole. See

Lead Bar 95 Final Results; Lead Bar 95

Preliminary Results.

(III) Calculation of Benefit

To calculate the countervailing duty

rate for the subject merchandise in 1996,

we first determined BS plc’s benefits in

1996, taking into account all spin-offs of

productive units (including the Special

Steel Business) and BSC’s full

privatization in 1988. See Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination; Certain Steel Products

from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 37393

(July 9, 1993) (UK Certain Steel). We

then calculated the amount of UES’s

subsidies that ‘‘rejoined’’ BS plc after

the 1995 acquisition, taking into

account the reallocation of subsidies to

GKN. See Lead Bar 95 Final Results;

Lead Bar 95 Preliminary Results. As

indicated above, in determining both

these amounts, we followed the

methodology outlined in the GIA. After

adding BS plc’s and UES’s benefits for

each program, we then divided that

amount by BS plc’s total sales of

merchandise produced in the United

Kingdom in 1996.

Allocation Methodology

In British Steel plc v. United States,

879 F. Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995), the U.S.

Court of International Trade ruled

against the Department’s allocation

methodology, which relied on U.S.

Internal Revenue Service information on

the industry specific average useful life
64570 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

of assets for determining the allocation

period for non-recurring subsidies. In

accordance with the Court’s remand

order, the Department calculated a

company-specific allocation period

based on the AUL of non-renewable

physical assets for BS plc. This

allocation period was 18 years. This

remand determination was affirmed by

the Court on June 4, 1996. British Steel

plc v. United States, 929 F. Supp. 426,

439 (CIT 1996).

The Department’s acquiescence to the

CIT’s decision in the Certain Steel cases

resulted in different allocation periods

between the UK Certain Steel and Lead

Bar proceedings (18 years vs. 15 years).

Different allocation periods for the same

subsidies in two proceedings involving

the same company generate significant

inconsistencies. Moreover, UES became

a wholly-owned subsidiary of BS plc in

1995. In the 1995 review of Lead Bar, in

order to maintain a consistent allocation

period across the UK Certain Steel and

Lead Bar proceedings, as well as in the

different segments of Lead Bar, we

altered the allocation methodology

previously used to determine the

allocation period for non-recurring

subsidies previously bestowed on BSC

and attributed to UES. In the 1995

review, we applied the companyspecific 18-year allocation period to all

non-recurring subsidies. See Lead Bar

95 Final Results. Based on our decision

in the 1995 administrative review of this

order, we preliminarily determine that it

is appropriate in this review to continue

to allocate all of BSC’s non-recurring

subsidies over BS plc’s companyspecific average useful life of renewable

physical assets (i.e., 18 years).

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

(A) Equity Infusions

In each year from 1978/79 through

1985/86, BSC/BS plc received equity

capital from the Secretary of State for

Trade and Industry pursuant to section

18(1) of the Iron and Steel Acts 1975,

1981, and 1982. According to section

18(1), the Secretary of State for the

Department of Trade and Industry may

‘‘pay to the Corporation (BSC) such

funds as he sees fit.’’ The Government

of the United Kingdom’s equity

investments in BSC/BS plc were made

pursuant to an agreed external financing

limit which was based upon mediumterm financial projections. BSC’s

performance was monitored by the

Government of the United Kingdom on

an ongoing basis and requests for capital

were examined on a case-by-case basis.

The UK government did not receive any

additional ownership, such as stock or

additional rights, in return for the

capital provided to BSC/BS plc under

section 18(1) since it already owned 100

percent of the company.

In Lead Bar (58 FR at 6241), the

Department found BSC/BS plc to be

unequityworthy from 78/79 through

1985/86, and thus determined that the

Government of the United Kingdom’s

equity infusions were inconsistent with

commercial considerations. Although,

prior to the formation of UES, BSC’s

section 18(1) equity capital was written

off in two stages (£3,000 million in 1981

and £1,000 million in 1982) as part of

a capital reconstruction of BSC, the

Department determined that BSC/BS plc

benefitted from these equity infusions,

notwithstanding the subsequent writeoff of equity capital. Therefore, the

Department countervailed the equity

investments as grants given in the years

the equity capital was received. No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances was presented in this

review to warrant a reconsideration of

that finding.

Because the Department determined

in Lead Bar that the infusions are nonrecurring, we have allocated the benefits

over BS plc’s company-specific average

useful life of renewable physical assets

(18 years).

Although uncreditworthiness was not

specifically alleged or investigated

during the investigation on lead bar, in

UK Certain Steel the Department found

that BSC/BS plc was uncreditworthy

from 1977/78 through 1985/86. 58 FR at

37395. No new information or evidence

of changed circumstances was presented

in this review to warrant a

reconsideration of that finding.

Therefore, we have used a discount rate

which includes a risk premium to

calculate the benefit from the grants.

See, e.g., Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determinations:

Certain Steel Products From Mexico, 58

FR 37352, 37354 (July 9, 1993) (Mexican

Steel).

To calculate the benefit to the subject

merchandise from this program, we first

summed the benefit to BS plc from all

infusions allocated to 1996. Then, we

determined the portion of that benefit

still remaining with BS plc after

accounting for privatization and spinoffs. To that we added the portion of

UES’s subsidies under this program that

‘‘rejoined’’ BS plc with the acquisition.

See the ‘‘Change in Ownership’’ section

of the notice. We then divided the result

by BS plc’s total sales of merchandise

produced in the United Kingdom in

1996. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidy for this

program to be 4.69 percent ad valorem

in 1996.

(B) Regional Development Grant

Program

Regional development grants were

paid to BSC/BS plc under the Industry

Act of 1972 and the Industrial

Development Act of 1982. In order to

qualify for assistance under these two

Acts, an applicant had to be engaged in

manufacturing and located in an

assisted area. Assisted areas are older,

industrial regions identified as having

deep-seated, long-term problems such as

high levels of unemployment,

migration, slow economic growth,

derelict land, and obsolete factory

buildings. Regional development grants

were given for the purchase of specific

assets. According to the Government of

the United Kingdom, the program

involved one-time grants, sometimes

disbursed over several years.

BSC/BS plc received regional

development grants during the period

between fiscal years 1978/79 and 1985/

86. The Department found this program

countervailable in Lead Bar (58 FR at

6242), because it is limited to specific

regions. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances was

presented in this review to warrant a

reconsideration of that finding.

In Lead Bar, we determined that,

because each grant required a separate

application, these grants are nonrecurring. Accordingly, we have

calculated the benefits from this

program by allocating the benefits over

BS plc’s company-specific average

useful life of renewable physical assets

(18 years). Since BSC/BS plc was

uncreditworthy from 1978/79 through

1985/86 (as discussed under the ‘‘Equity

Infusions’’ section, above), we have

used a discount rate which includes a

risk premium (see Mexican Steel, 58 FR

at 37354) to calculate the benefits from

these grants.

To calculate the benefit from this

program, we followed the methodology

described above in the section on

‘‘Equity Infusions’’. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

for this program to be 0.15 percent ad

valorem in 1996.

(C) National Loan Funds Loan

Cancellation

In conjunction with the 1981/1982

capital reconstruction of BSC, section

3(1) of the Iron and Steel Act of 1981

extinguished certain National Loans

Fund (NLF) loans, as well as the interest

accrued thereon, at the end of BSC’s

1980/81 fiscal year. Because this loan

cancellation was provided specifically

to BSC, the Department determined in

Lead Bar (58 FR at 6242) that it

provided a countervailable benefit. No
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices 64571

new information or evidence of changed

circumstances was presented in this

review to warrant a reconsideration of

that finding.

We calculated the benefit for this

review using our standard methodology

for non-recurring grants. We allocated

the benefits from this loan cancellation

over BS plc’s company-specific average

useful life of renewable physical assets

(18 years). Because BSC/BS plc was

found to be uncreditworthy in 1981/82

(as discussed under ‘‘Equity Infusions’’

section, above), we have used a discount

rate which includes a risk premium. See

Mexican Steel, 58 FR at 37354.

To calculate the benefit from this

program, we followed the methodology

described above in the section on

‘‘Equity Infusions’’. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

for this program to be 0.44 percent ad

valorem in 1996.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined

To Be Not Used

We examined the following programs

and preliminarily find that the

producers and/or exporters of the

subject merchandise subject to this

review did not apply for or receive

benefits under these programs during

the POR:

(A) New Community Instrument Loans

(B) ECSC Article 54 Loan Guarantees

(C) NLF Loans

(D) ECSC Conversion Loans

(E) European Regional Development

Fund Aid

(F) Article 56 Rebates

(G) Regional Selective Assistance

(H) ECSC Article 56(b)(2) Redeployment

Aid

(I) Inner Urban Areas Act of 1978

(J) LINK Initiative

(K) European Coal and Steel Community

(ECSC) Article 54 Loans/Interest

Rebates

III. Program Previously Determined To

Be Terminated

Transportation Assistance

The Department found this program

to be terminated in the 1995

administrative review of this

countervailing duty order. See Lead Bar

1995 Final Results.

IV. Other Programs Examined

We also examined the following

programs:

BRITE/EuRAM and Standards

Measurement and Testing Program

BS plc received assistance under

these two European Union programs to

fund research and development. The

European Union claimed that assistance

provided under both of these programs

is non-countervailable in accordance

with Article 8.2(a) of the WTO

Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures and section

771(5B)(B) of the Act (which provide

that certain research and development

subsidies are not countervailable). We

preliminarily determine that it is not

necessary to determine whether BRITE/

EuRAM and the Standards

Measurement and Testing Program

qualify for non-countervailable

treatment because combined, the

assistance provided under both of these

programs would result in a rate of less

than 0.005 percent ad valorem, and thus

would have no impact on the overall

countervailing duty rate calculated for

this POR. For this same reason we have

not conducted a specificity analysis of

these programs. See, e.g., Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Steel Wire Rod from

Germany, 62 FR 54990, 54995–54996

(October 22, 1997); Certain Carbon Steel

Products from Sweden; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997) and

Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Sweden; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 64062, 64065 (December

3, 1996); Final Negative Countervailing

Duty Determination: Certain Laminated

Hardwood Trailer Flooring (‘‘LHF’’)

From Canada, 62 FR 5201 (February 4,

1997); Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Israel; Final Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

53351 (October 11, 1996) and Industrial

Phosphoric Acid From Israel;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

28845 (June 6, 1996).

Preliminary Results of Review

In accordance with 19 CFR

355.22(c)(4)(ii), we have calculated an

individual subsidy rate for each

producer/exporter subject to this

administrative review. As discussed in

the ‘‘Change in Ownership’’ section of

the notice, above, we are treating British

Steel plc and British Steel Engineering

Steels as one company for purposes of

this proceeding. For the period January

1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

for British Steel plc/British Steel

Engineering Steels (BS plc/BSES) to be

5.28 percent ad valorem. If the final

results of this review remain the same

as these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties for BS plc/BSES at

5.28 percent ad valorem. The

Department also intends to instruct the

U.S. Customs Service to collect a cash

deposit of 5.28 percent of the f.o.b.

invoice price on all shipments of the

subject merchandise from BS plc/BSES/

UES, 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 section 777A(e)(2)(B) of

the Act. The requested review will

normally cover only those companies

specifically named. See 19 CFR

355.22(a). 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 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)).

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. See Certain

Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon

Steel Products from the United

Kingdom; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 60 FR 54841 (October 26, 1995).

These rates shall apply to all nonreviewed companies until a review of a

company assigned these rates is

requested. In addition, for the period

January 1, 1996 through December 31,

1996, the assessment rates applicable to

all non-reviewed companies covered by
64572 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

this order are the cash deposit rates in

effect at the time of entry.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology; interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 10 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted seven

days after the time limit for filing the

case brief. Parties who submit argument

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held seven days

after the scheduled date for submission

of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs

and rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR 355.38.

Representatives of parties to the

proceeding may request disclosure of

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR 355.38, are due. The Department

will publish the final results of this

administrative review including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.

This administrative review and notice

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

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

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32062 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

North American Free-Trade

Agreement, Article 1904, NAFTA Panel

Reviews; Request for Panel Review

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United

States Section, International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of First Request for Panel

Review.

SUMMARY: On November 21, 1997, Ispat

Sidbec Inc. filed a First Request for

Panel Review with the United States

Section of the NAFTA Secretariat

pursuant to Article 1904 of the North

American Free Trade Agreement. A

second request was also filed on

November 21, 1997 on behalf of the

Gouvernement du Quebec. Panel review

was requested of the final

countervailing duty determination made

by the International Trade

Administration, respecting Steel Wire

Rod From Canada. This determination

was published in 62 Federal Register

54972, on October 22, 1997. The

NAFTA Secretariat has assigned Case

Number USA–97–1904–08 to this

request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James R. Holbein, United States

Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite

2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482–

5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter

19 of the North American Free-Trade

Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) establishes a

mechanism to replace domestic judicial

review of final determinations in

antidumping and countervailing duty

cases involving imports from a NAFTA

country with review by independent

binational panels. When a Request for

Panel Review is filed, a panel is

established to act in place of national

courts to review expeditiously the final

determination to determine whether it

conforms with the antidumping or

countervailing duty law of the country

that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the Agreement,

which came into force on January 1,

1994, the Government of the United

States, the Government of Canada and

the Government of Mexico established

Rules of Procedure for Article 1904

Binational Panel Reviews (‘‘Rules’’).

These Rules were published in the

Federal Register on February 23, 1994

(59 FR 8686).

A first Request for Panel Review was

filed with the U.S. Section of the

NAFTA Secretariat, pursuant to Article

1904 of the Agreement, on November

21, 1997, requesting panel review of the

final countervailing duty determination

described above.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may

challenge the final determination in

whole or in part by filing a Complaint

in accordance with Rule 39 within 30

days after the filing of the first Request

for Panel Review (the deadline for filing

a Complaint is December 22, 1997);

(b) A Party, investigating authority or

interested person that does not file a

Complaint but that intends to appear in

support of any reviewable portion of the

final determination may participate in

the panel review by filing a Notice of

Appearance in accordance with Rule 40

within 45 days after the filing of the first

Request for Panel Review (the deadline

for filing a Notice of Appearance is

January 5, 1998); and

(c) The panel review shall be limited

to the allegations of error of fact or law,

including the jurisdiction of the

investigating authority, that are set out

in the Complaints filed in the panel

review and the procedural and

substantive defenses raised in the panel

review.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

James R. Holbein,

United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 97–31952 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 120197B]

Marine Mammals; Scientific Research

Permit No.782–1399

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the National Marine Mammal

Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science

Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Bin

C15700, Seattle, Washington 98115–

0070, has been issued a permit to import

and export marine mammal specimens

for scientific purposes.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related

documents are available for review

upon written request or by appointment.

(see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

7, 1997, notice was published in the

Federal Register (62 FR 442511) that a

request for a scientific research permit

to import and export marine mammal

specimen materials had been submitted

by the above-named institution. 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.) and the Regulations

Governing the Taking and Importing of

Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA,

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations

governing the taking, importing and

exporting of endangered fish and

wildlife (50 CFR 222.23), and the Fur

Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).