13866 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Notices

1See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States,

688 F. Supp. 639, 642–44 (CIT 1988); High

Information Content Flat Panel Displays and

Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final

Determination; Rescission of Investigation and

Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380–

81 (July 16, 1991).

percent of the f.o.b. invoice price on all

shipments of subject merchandise from

Canada, except from Timminco Limited

(which was excluded from the order in

the original investigation).

The Department also intends to

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

collect a cash deposit of estimated

countervailing duties of 7.13 percent of

the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments

of the subject merchandise from Canada,

except from Timminco Limited (which

was excluded from the order during the

original investigation), entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of these

reviews.

Parties to these proceedings may

request disclosure of the calculation

methodology and 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 these proceedings 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 (e).

Representatives of parties to the

proceedings 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 proceedings, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR 355.38(c), are due. The Department

will publish the final results of these

administrative reviews, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any case or rebuttal briefs or at a

hearing.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 355.22.

Dated: March 12, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7359 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–428–823, C–274–803, C–122–827, and

C–307–814]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing

Duty Investigations: Steel Wire Rod

from Germany, Trinidad and Tobago,

Canada and Venezuela

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

A. Malmrose (Germany), Vince Kane

(Trinidad and Tobago), Robert Bolling

(Canada) and Chris Cassel (Venezuela),

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 3099, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)

482–5414, 482–2815, 482–1386 and

482–4847, respectively.

Initiation of Investigations

The 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 effective January 1,

1995 (the Act).

The Petition

On February 26, 1997, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) received

a petition filed in proper form by

Connecticut Steel Corp., Co-Steel

Raritan, GS Industries, Inc., Keystone

Steel & Wire Co., North Star Steel Texas,

Inc. and Northwestern Steel and Wire

Co. (the petitioners), six U.S. producers

of wire rod. Supplements to the

petitions were filed on March 4, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 17, and 18, 1997.

In accordance with section 701(a) of

the Act, petitioners allege that

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of the subject merchandise in Germany,

Trinidad and Tobago, Canada and

Venezuela receive countervailable

subsidies.

The petitioners state that they have

standing to file the petition because they

are interested parties, as defined under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act.

Determination of Industry Support for

the Petition

Section 702(b)(1)of the Act requires

that a petition be filed on behalf of the

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)

of the Act provides that a petition meets

this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the

petition account for: (1) at least 25

percent of the total production of the

domestic like product; and (2) more

than 50 percent of the production of the

domestic like product produced by that

portion of the industry expressing

support for, or opposition to, the

petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a

domestic like product. Thus, to

determine whether the petition has the

requisite industry support, the statute

directs the Department to look to

producers and workers who account for

production of the domestic like product.

The International Trade Commission

(ITC), which is responsible for

determining whether ‘‘the domestic

industry’’ has been injured, must also

determine what constitutes a domestic

like product in order to define the

industry. However, while both the

Department and the ITC must apply the

same statutory definition of domestic

like product, they do so for different

purposes and pursuant to separate and

distinct authority. In addition, the

Department’s determination is subject to

limitations of time and information.

Although this may result in different

definitions of the like product, such

differences do not render the decision of

either agency contrary to the law.1

Section 771(10) of the Act defines

domestic like product as ‘‘a product that

is like, or in the absence of like, most

similar in characteristics and uses with,

the article subject to an investigation

under this title.’’ Thus, the reference

point from which the like product

analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to

an investigation,’’ i.e., the class or kind

of merchandise to be investigated,

which normally will be the scope as

defined in the petition.

The petition refers to the single

domestic like product defined in the

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, above.

The Department has no basis on the

record to find the petition’s definition of

the domestic like product clearly

inaccurate. In this regard, we have

found no basis on which to reject

petitioners’ representations that there

are clear dividing lines, in terms of

characteristics or uses, between the

product under investigation on the one

hand and, on the other hand, other

carbon and alloy coiled steel products.

The Department has, therefore, adopted

the like product definition set forth in

the petition. In this case, petitioners

established industry support

representing approximately 75 percent

of the production of the domestic like

product.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Notices 13867

On March 12, 1997, the Department

held consultations with representatives

of the Government of Canada (GOC) and

the Government of Quebec (GOQ)

pursuant to 702(b)(4)(ii), during which

they submitted certain information with

respect to industry support for the

petition (See March 18, 1997 memos to

the file regarding these consultations

and Consultations section, below). On

March 13, 1997, Stelco Inc. (Stelco), a

producer of wire rod in Canada, alleged

that the petition covering imports from

Canada did not contain information

concerning support from domestic

coiled bar producers. Stelco argued that

domestic bar producers’ support was

necessary because petitioners’ March 4,

1997, submission specifically included

‘‘other coiled products known in the

industry as ‘bar.’ ’’ Accordingly, Stelco

argued that the Department should poll

the industry in order to evaluate the

question of industry support.

The Department has determined that

the petition contained adequate

evidence of sufficient industry support

and that polling is therefore

unnecessary. Petitioners established

industry support representing

approximately 75 percent of the

production of the domestic like product,

which percentage includes the coiled

bar. The GOC, GOQ and Stelco did not

allege and have not demonstrated that

coiled bar is a separate domestic like

product requiring a separate

determination as to industry support.

Further, we note that both the American

Iron and Steel Institute and HTSUS

statistics treat coiled bars and coiled

rods as one category. Because it is

reasonable to find a single domestic like

product for purposes of evaluating

industry support in these

circumstances, petitioners are well

within the statutory requirements for

industry support—both among all

producers and among producers

expressing an opinion—for the single

like product covered by the petition.

Finally, the Department notes that the

inclusion or exclusion in industry

support calculations of ‘‘tire cord’’ wire

rod—which is excluded from the scope

of these proceedings—does not

materially affect petitioners’

approximate support level of 75 percent

(see Antidumping Initiation Checklist,

dated March 18, 1997, and found in the

official file in Room B–099).

Accordingly, the Department

determines that the petition is filed on

behalf of the domestic industry within

the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the

Act.

Injury Test

Because Germany, Trinidad and

Tobago, Canada and Venezuela are

‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’

within the meaning of section 701(b) of

the Act, Title VII of the Act applies to

this investigation. Accordingly, the U.S.

International Trade Commission (ITC)

must determine whether imports of the

subject merchandise from Germany,

Trinidad and Tobago, Canada and

Venezuela materially injure, or threaten

material injury to, a U.S. industry.

Consultations

Pursuant to Section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of

the Act, the Department invited

representatives of the relevant foreign

governments for consultations with

respect to the petitions filed. On March

12, 13 and 17, consultations were held

with representatives from Canada;

Trinidad and Tobago; and the European

Commission (EC) and Germany,

respectively. On March 14 and 17, 1997,

we received submissions from the GOQ

and the GOC.

Scope of the Investigation

The products covered by these

investigations are certain hot-rolled

carbon steel and alloy steel products, in

coils, of approximately round cross

section, between 5.00 mm (0.20 inch)

and 19.0 mm (0.75 inch), inclusive, in

solid cross-sectional diameter.

Specifically excluded are steel products

possessing the above noted physical

characteristics and meeting the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) definitions for

(a) Stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high

nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; (e)

free machining steel that contains by

weight 0.03 percent or more of lead,

0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08

percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.4

percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05

percent of selenium, and/or more than

0.01 percent of tellurium; or (f) concrete

reinforcing bars and rods.

The following products are also

excluded from the scope of these

investigations:

• Coiled products 5.50 mm or less in

true diameter with an average partial

decarburization per coil of no more than

70 microns in depth, no inclusions

greater than 20 microns, containing by

weight the following: Carbon greater

than or equal to 0.68 percent; aluminum

less than or equal to 0.005 percent;

phosphorous plus sulfur less than or

equal to 0.040 percent; maximum

combined copper, nickel and chromium

content of 0.13 percent; and nitrogen

less than or equal to 0.006 percent. This

product is commonly referred to as

‘‘Tire Cord Wire Rod.’’

• Coiled products 7.9 to 18 mm in

diameter, with a partial decarburization

of 75 microns or less in depth and

seams no more than 75 microns in

depth; containing 0.48 to 0.73 percent

carbon by weight. This product is

commonly referred to as ‘‘Valve Spring

Quality Wire Rod.’’

The products under investigation are

currently classifiable under subheadings

7213.91.3000, 7213.91.4500,

7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030,

7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0000, and

7227.90.6050 of the HTSUS. Although

the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of

these investigations is dispositive.

Allegation of Subsidies

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the

Department to initiate a countervailing

duty proceeding whenever an interested

party files a petition, on behalf of an

industry, that (1) alleges the elements

necessary for an imposition of a duty

under section 701(a), and (2) is

accompanied by information reasonably

available to petitioners supporting the

allegations.

Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigations

The Department has examined the

petitions on wire rod from Germany,

Trinidad and Tobago, Canada and

Venezuela and found that it complies

with the requirements of section 702(b)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 702(b) of the Act, we are

initiating countervailing duty

investigations to determine whether

manufacturers, producers, or exporters

of wire rod from these countries receive

subsidies.

A. Germany

Petitioners have made specific

subsidy allegations with respect to two

German wire rod producers: Saarstahl

and Hamburger Stahlwerke (HSW). We

are including in our investigation the

following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided subsidies to

producers of the subject merchandise in

Germany:

1. Saarstahl Debt Forgiveness

2. Assumption of Saarstahl’s

Guaranteed Debt

3. Saarstahl’s Private Bank Debt

Forgiveness/Assurances of Liquidity

Provided to Private Banks

4. Post-Bankuptcy Assistance to

Saarstahl

5. Worker Assistance under Article 56 of

the European Coal and Steel

Community

6. 1984 Assistance to HSW

7. 1984 State Aid to HSW
13868 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Notices

8. 1984 Loan Guarantee to HSW

9. 1994 Assistance to HSW

We note that the EC has ordered

repayment of the 1994 assistance to

HSW. Consultations with

representatives of the EC indicate that

the assistance is being repaid, regardless

of the fact that the EC decision is under

appeal. We intend to look into this

possibility.

Petitioners allege that Saarstahl was

uncreditworthy from 1986 to present,

and in prior years if the Department

should deem such years relevant.

However, petitioners only allege nonrecurring countervailable subsidies in

1989 and 1993–1996. Therefore, we will

only examine Saarstahl’s

creditworthiness in these years.

Petitioners also allege that Saarstahl

was unequityworthy from 1986 to

present, and in prior years if the

Department should deem such years

relevant. However, petitioners provide

no information that Saarstahl received

equity infusions in the relevant years.

Therefore, we will not examine

Saarstahl’s equityworthiness in our

investigation.

Petitioners allege that HSW was

uncreditworthy and unequityworthy

from 1984 to 1994. However, petitioners

only allege non-recurring

countervailable subsidies in 1984 and

1994. For those years in which nonrecurring subsidies were not alleged we

will not examine HSW’s

creditworthiness and equityworthiness.

B. Trinidad and Tobago

We are including in our investigation

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided subsidies to

producers of the subject merchandise in

Trinidad and Tobago:

1. Government Equity Infusions in the

Iron and Steel Corporation of

Trinidad and Tobago (ISCOTT) over

the Period 1983 though 1990 for

Investment in Plant, Loss Coverage,

Debt Service, or Other Purposes

2. Ongoing Government Support of

ISCOTT from 1989–1994

During this period ISCOTT’s assets

were leased by a private company,

Caribbean Ispat, Ltd. (Ispat). Information

provided by petitioners indicates that

the government of Trinidad and Tobago

assumed the debt incurred by ISCOTT

prior to the lease. We intend to

investigate the assumption of debt and

any other ongoing support to the

production of wire rod during the

leasing period.

3. Preferential Natural Gas Prices

4. Preferential Electricity Rates

5. Loan Guarantee from the Trinidad

and Tobago Electric Commission

6. Preferential Terms for the Point Lisas

Lease

7. Tax Credits for Exports

8. Export Promotion Allowance for Tax

Purposes

9. Corporate Tax Exemption under the

Fiscal Incentives Act

10. Import Duty Concessions under

Section 56 of the Customs Act

Petitioners have alleged that ISCOTT

was uncreditworthy and

unequityworthy during the years 1980–

1995. We are not investigating

creditworthiness or equityworthiness in

the years prior to 1983. In Carbon Steel

Wire Rod From Trinidad and Tobago:

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination and Countervailing Duty

Order (49 FR 480, January 4, 1984)

(1984 final), we determined that

investments in, and loans to the

company were on terms consistent with

commercial considerations. Petitioners

have not provided any new evidence to

lead us to change our previous

determination. With respect to the

period 1983 to 1990, we will investigate

whether ISCOTT was creditworthy or

equityworthy during the years in which

petitioners have alleged non-recurring

countervailable subsidies.

We are not including in our

investigation the following programs

alleged to be benefitting the production

of the subject merchandise in Trinidad

and Tobago:

1. ISCOTT’s Rent-Free Use of a Dock

Facility

In 1984, the Department determined

that ISCOTT’s rent-free use of a dock

facility was countervailable. Press

reports filed with the petition indicate

that Ispat has been paying a rental fee

for this facility. (See petition Exhibit 9

B–7.) Petitioners assume that this rental

fee is preferential but offer no support

for their assumption. Therefore, we are

not including this program in our

investigation.

2. Exemption From the Value Added

Tax (VAT)

Petitioners allege that companies

exporting at least 80 percent of

production may receive an exemption

from the VAT on manufacturing inputs.

Because exemptions from VAT or

rebates of VAT paid on inputs used to

produce for export are regarded as

permissible, we are not including this

program in our investigation.

3. Trinidad and Tobago Free Trade

Zones

The petition documents the existence

of free trade zones in Trinidad and

Tobago established under the Free

Trade Zones (Amendment) Act of 1995.

Certain of the benefits available to

companies within the zones appear to

be countervailable. However, as

described in the petition, Ispat’s plant is

adjacent to, and not within, the

designated free zone; therefore

petitioners have not demonstrated that

it is eligible for these benefits.

C. Canada

Petitioners have made specific

subsidy allegations with respect to only

one Canadian wire rod producer:

Sidbec-Dosco, Inc. We are including in

our investigation the following

programs alleged in the petition to have

provided subsidies to producers of the

subject merchandise in Canada:

1. 1982 Assistance to Sidbec-Dosco

2. Assistance to Reduce Sidbec-Dosco’s

Accumulated Deficit during the

period 1984 to 1986

3. Sidbec-Dosco Debt-to-Equity

Conversion in 1987

4. Sidbec Dosco Debt-to-Equity

Conversion in 1988

5. 1987 Grant to Sidbec-Dosco

Petitioners allege that Sidbec-Dosco

was uncreditworthy during the years

1977–1988. We will investigate the

creditworthiness of Sidbec-Dosco in

1982 and 1984–1988. These are the

years in which we will be investigating

the receipt of non-recurring subsidies.

We are not including in our

investigation at this time the following

program alleged to be benefitting

producers of the subject merchandise in

Canada:

Assistance Prior to 1982

Petitioners allege that Sidbec-Dosco

received some form of assistance prior

to 1982. In addition, petitioners allege

that Sidbec-Dosco was uncreditworthy

and unequityworthy during this period.

Although we found sufficient evidence

to investigate whether Sidbec-Dosco

was subsidized in 1982 (see the program

listed under item (1) above), for

assistance which may have been

provided earlier, petitioners only cite to

a 1982 news article which states that

Sidbec-Dosco had been provided a

certain amount of funds from either the

GOC or GOQ since Sidbec-Dosco’s

inception. Sidbec-Dosco was founded in

1964, and petitioners provided no

evidence or indication of when during

the 1964 to 1982 period these other

funds may have been provided to the

company. In particular, petitioners

provided no evidence that any of these

funds—whatever their precise nature

might be—were provided to SidbecDosco during or after 1977, i.e., the

allocation period captured by

petitioners’ allegation of a company-
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Notices 13869

specific 20 years average useful life of

assets for Sidbec-Dosco. Consequently,

we do not have sufficient information to

initiate an investigation of a specific

program based on this allegation of

assistance.

D. Venezuela

We are including in our investigation

the following programs alleged in the

petition to have provided subsidies to

producers of the subject merchandise in

Venezuela:

1. Government Equity Infusions in

SIDOR in 1977, 1978, 1981, 1982 and

1983

2. Government Conversion of SIDOR’s

Debt to Equity in 1981, 1986, 1989

and 1992

3. Government Guarantees of SIDOR’s

Private Debt in 1987 and 1988

4. 1990 Government Loan to SIDOR

5. Government Provision of Iron Ore for

less than Adequate Remuneration

6. Preferential Tax Incentives Under

Decree 1477

Petitioners also allege that SIDOR was

uncreditworthy in the following years:

1977, 1978, 1981–1983, 1986–1990 and

1992. We will investigate SIDOR’s

creditworthiness in each of these years

because these are the years in which we

will be investigating either government

equity infusions, loans or loan

guarantees.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of the

public version of the petitions have

been provided to the representatives of

Germany, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada

and Venezuela. We will attempt to

provide copies of the public version of

the petitions to all the exporters named

in the petition.

ITC Notification

Pursuant to section 702(d) of the Act,

we have notified the ITC of these

initiations.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

The ITC will determine by April 14,

1997, whether there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is being materially

injured, or is threatened with material

injury, by reason of imports from

Germany, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada

and Venezuela of wire rod. Any ITC

determination which is negative will

result in the investigations being

terminated; otherwise, the

investigations will proceed according to

statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to

Section 702(c)(2) of the Act.

Dated: March 18, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7356 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

March 19, 1997.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National

and Community Service (CNCS), as part

of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,

conducts a preclearance consultation

program to provide the general public

and Federal agencies with an

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing collections of

information in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3508(c)(2)(A)). This

program helps to ensure that requested

data can be provided in the desired

format, reporting burden (time and

financial resources) is minimized,

collection instruments are clearly

understood, and the impact of collection

requirement on respondents can be

properly assessed. Currently, the

Corporation for National and

Community Service is soliciting

comments concerning its proposed

Evaluation Information System (EIS)

Form for Learn and Serve America:

School and Community-Based

Programs.

Copies of the information collection

requests can be obtained by contacting

the office listed below in the address

section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

addresses section on or before May 19,

1997. The Corporation for National and

Community Service is particularly

interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Corporation, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Learn

and Serve America, Attn: Brad Lewis,

Program Officer, Corporation for

National and Community Service, 1201

New York Ave., NW., Washington, DC

20525.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad

Lewis, (202) 606–5000, ext. 113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Office of Evaluation has engaged

Brandeis University and Abt Associates

to do qualitative evaluations on Learn

and Serve America: School and

Community-based Programs. Additional

information regarding quantitative

descriptive data on programs needs to

be sought to provide a complete

overview of program success.

II. Current Action

The Office of Evaluation plans to

distribute, through the mail, the

Evaluation Information System (EIS)

forms to recipients of Learn and Serve

America: School and Community-Based

grants. The EIS forms will collect

grantee and sub-grantee information for

the purpose of maintaining records and

disseminating grant/program

information to several audiences. The

Corporation for National and

Community Service seeks approval of a

new form to evaluate the impact of the

program on student participants.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Corporation for National and

Community Service.

Title: Evaluation Information System

Form.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Grantees and subgrantee recipients only.

Total Respondents: 200.

Frequency: Annual.

Average Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 200

hrs.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintenance): 0.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request; they will

also become a matter of public record.