66848 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 1997 / Notices

reviewers of draft environmental impact

statements must structure their

participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts the agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft environmental

statement stage but that are not raised

until after completion of the final

environmental statement may be waived

or dismissed by the courts. City of

Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F 2d 1016, 1022

(9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages,

Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338

(E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court

rulings, it is very important that those

interested in this proposed action

participate by the close of the 45-day

comment period so that substantive

comments and objections are made

available to the Forest Service at a time

when it can meaningfully consider them

and respond to them in the final

environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in

identifying and considering issues and

concern on the proposed action,

comments on the draft environmental

impact statement should be as specific

as possible. It is also helpful if

comments refer to specific pages or

chapters of the draft statement.

Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft environmental

impact statement or the merits of the

alternatives formulated and discussed in

the statement. Reviews may wish to

refer to the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in its programs on the

basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs,

and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require

alternatives means of communication of

program information (braille, large

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center ad (202) 720–

2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the

Secretary of Agriculture, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC 20250, or call 1–800–245–6340

(voice) or 202–720–1127 (TDD). USDA

is an equal employment opportunity

employer.

Dated: December 11, 1997.

Bradley Burmark,

Deputy District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 97–33346 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Posting of Stockyards

Pursuant to the authority provided

under Section 302 of the Packers and

Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 202), it was

ascertained that the livestock market

named below is a stockyard as defined

by Section 302 (a). Notice was given to

the stockyard owner and to the public

as required by Section 302 (b), by

posting notices at the stockyard on the

date specified below, that the stockyard

is subject to the provisions of the

Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).

Facility No., name, and location of stockyardDate of posting

PA–159, Troy Sales, Troy,

Pennsylvania.

September 17,

1997.

Done at Washington, D.C. this 12th day of

December 1997.

Daniel L. Van Ackeren,

Director, Livestock Marketing Division,

Packers and Stockyards Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–33331 Filed 12–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–824]

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final

Results of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances antidumping

duty administrative review, and

revocation in part of antidumping duty

order.

SUMMARY: On November 10, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published a notice of

initiation of a changed circumstances

antidumping duty administrative review

and preliminary results of review with

intent to revoke, in part, the

antidumping duty order on certain

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products from Japan. We are now

revoking this order in part, with respect

to corrosion-resistant steel flat products

with certain dimensions and coatings,

based on the fact that domestic parties

have expressed no interest in the

importation or sale of this product,

imported from Japan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gideon Katz or Maureen Flannery, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–5255 and (202)

482–3020, respectively. The 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. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as codified at 19

CFR by Part 351, 62 FR 27295 (May 19,

1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 19, 1997, Sudo

Corporation (Sudo) requested that the

Department conduct a changed

circumstances administrative review to

determine whether to partially revoke

the order with regard to imports of

certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel

flat products from Japan. The order with

regard to imports of other types of

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat

products is not affected by this request.

On October 28, 1997, domestic

producers AK Steel Corporation,

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Inland

Steel Industries, Inc., LTV Steel

Company, Inc., National Steel

Corporation, and U.S. Steel Group, a

unit of USX Corporation, informed the

Department in writing that they did not

object to the changed circumstances

review and had no interest in the

importation or sale of electrolytic zinccoated steel coiled rolls produced in

Japan as described in detail in Sudo’s

letter.

We preliminarily determined that

domestic producers’ affirmative

statement of no interest constituted

changed circumstances sufficient to

warrant a partial revocation of this

order. Consequently, on November 10,

1997, the Department published a notice

of initiation and preliminary results of