Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Notices 16549

Dated: March 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8769 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Arizona; Notice of

Decision on Application for Duty-Free

Entry of Scientific Instrument

This decision is made pursuant to

Section 6(c) of the Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Materials

Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–

651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301).

Related records can be viewed between

8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

Docket Number: 96–129. Applicant:

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

85721. Instrument: Surface Forces

Apparatus, Model Mark 4.

Manufacturer: Australian National

University, Australia. Intended Use: See

notice at 62 FR 4032, January 28, 1997.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instrument, for such purposes as it is

intended to be used, is being

manufactured in the United States.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides measurement of the forces

between two surfaces in vapor or liquid

with a sensitivity of 10 nN and a

distance resolution of about 0.1 nm with

a positioning accuracy to 50 nm. This

capability is pertinent to the applicant’s

intended purposes and we know of no

other instrument or apparatus of

equivalent scientific value to the foreign

instrument which is being

manufactured in the United States.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 97–8768 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–401–401]

Certain Carbon Steel Products from

Sweden; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on Certain

Carbon Steel Products from Sweden for

the period January 1, 1994 through

December 31, 1994 (61 FR 64062;

December 3, 1996). The Department has

now completed this administrative

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended. For information on the net

subsidy for the reviewed company, and

for all non-reviewed companies, please

see the Final Results of Review section

of this notice. We will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as detailed in the

Final Results of Review section of this

notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gayle Longest or Lorenza Olivas, 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

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 355.22(a), this

review covers only those producers or

exporters of the subject merchandise for

which a review was specifically

requested. Accordingly, this review

covers SSAB Svenskt Stal AB (‘‘SSAB’’),

the sole known producer/exporter of the

subject merchandise during the review

period. This review also covers the

period January 1, 1994 through

December 31, 1994, and 10 programs.

We published the preliminary results

on December 3, 1996 (61 FR 64062). We

invited interested parties to comment on

the preliminary results. We received no

comments from any of the parties.

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

shipments of certain carbon steel

products from Sweden. These products

include cold-rolled carbon steel, flatrolled products, whether or not

corrugated, or crimped: whether or not

pickled, not cut, not pressed and not

stamped to non-rectangular shape; not

coated or pleated with metal and not

clad; over 12 inches in width and of any

thickness; whether or not in coils.

During the review period, such

merchandise was classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 7209.11.0000, 7209.12.0000,

7209.13.0000, 7209.21.0000,

7209.22.0000, 7209.23.0000,

7209.24.5000, 7209.31.0000,

7209.32.0000, 7209.33.0000,

7209.34.0000, 7209.41.0000,

7209.43.0000, 7209.44.0000,

7209.90.0000, 7211.30.5000,

7211.41.7000 and 7211.49.5000. The

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description remains dispositive.

Allocation Methodology

In the past, the Department has relied

upon information from the U.S. Internal

Revenue Service on the industryspecific average useful life (‘‘AUL’’) of

assets in determining the allocation

period for nonrecurring grant benefits.

See General Issues Appendix appended

to Final Countervailing Duty

Determination; Certain Steel Products

from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37226 (July

9, 1993) (‘‘General Issues Appendix’’).

However, in British Steel plc. v. United

States, 879 F. Supp. 1254 (CIT 1995)

(‘‘British Steel’’), the U.S. Court of

International Trade (‘‘the Court’’) ruled

against this allocation methodology. In

accordance with the Court’s remand

order, the Department calculated a

company-specific allocation period for

nonrecurring subsidies based on the

AUL of non-renewable physical assets.

This remand determination was

affirmed by the Court on June 4, 1996.

British Steel, 929 F. Supp. 426, 439 (CIT

1996).

The Department has decided to

acquiesce to the Court’s decision and, as

such, we intend to determine the

allocation period for nonrecurring

subsidies using company-specific AUL

data where reasonable and practicable.

In the preliminary results (61 FR 64062),

the Department preliminarily

determined that it is reasonable and

practicable to allocate all new

nonrecurring subsidies (i.e., subsidies

that have not yet been assigned an

allocation period) based on a companyspecific AUL. However, if a subsidy has

already been countervailed based on an

allocation period established in an

earlier segment of the proceeding, it

does not appear reasonable or