23728 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

separate programs. See Swine Tenth

Review Results. During the POR,

producers of the subject merchandise

received assistance under the three

component programs of the Agri-Food

Agreement for which the GOC and the

GOQ have requested green box

treatment.

Specifically, with regard to the

Research program as discussed above in

the section II, we have preliminarily

determined that this program does not

confer countervailable benefits because

the results of the research are publicly

available. As such, there is no need to

address whether it is noncountervailable in the context of section

771(5B)(F). With regard to the

Technology Innovations program and

the Support for Strategic Alliances

program, any benefit to the subject

merchandise under either program or

both programs combined is so small

(Can$ 0.0000013 and Can$ 0.0000008

per kilogram, respectively) that there is

no cumulative impact on the overall

subsidy rate. Accordingly, because there

is no impact on the overall subsidy rate

in the instant review, we have not

included the benefits from Technology

Innovations program and the Support

for Strategic Alliances program in the

calculated subsidy rate for the POR, and

do not consider it necessary to address

the issue of whether benefits under

these programs are noncountervailable

as green box subsidies pursuant to

section 771(5B)(F) of the Act. See, e.g.,

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Steel Wire Rod from

Germany, 62 FR 54990, 54995 (October

22, 1997); Certain Carbon Steel Products

from Sweden; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review 61 FR 64062, 64065 (December

3, 1996) and Certain Carbon Steel

Products from Sweden; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review 62 FR 16549 (April 7, 1997);

Final Negative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Laminated

Hardwood Trailer Flooring (‘‘LHF’’)

From Canada 62 FR 5201 (February 4,

1997); Industrial Phosphoric Acid From

Israel; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review 61 FR 28845 (June 6, 1996) and

Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review 61 FR 53351

(October 11, 1996).

In addition, some farmers in Prince

Edward Island received payments

during the POR under the Agricultural

Disaster Insurance Program (ADIP),

which is authorized under section 12(5)

of the Farm Income Protection Act

(FIPA) and a provincial statute. ADIP is

a voluntary whole farm program under

which a farmer may apply for income

support when his current income

margin falls below 70 percent of the

average of the three previous years.

Because ADIP provides income

assistance based on a ‘‘whole farm’’

basis, it is not possible to segregate out

benefits to individual agricultural

products. Furthermore, it is not clear

whether live swine producers benefitted

from this program during the POR. The

GOC stated that this program was

designed to meet the ‘‘green box’’

criteria under the 1994 WTO Agreement

on Agriculture. With regard to the ADIP

program, any benefit to the subject

merchandise under this program is so

small (Can$ 0.0000081 per kilogram)

that there is no impact on the overall

subsidy rate, even when taking into

account the assistance provided under

the Technology Innovations program

and the Support for Strategic Alliances

program. In other words, when the

benefits from the Technology

Innovations program and the Support

for Strategic Alliances program and the

ADIP program are summed, the

aggregate benefit from these three

programs has no impact on the overall

subsidy rate. Accordingly, because there

is no impact on the overall subsidy rate

in the instant review, we have not

included the benefits from ADIP in the

calculated subsidy rate for the POR, and

do not consider it necessary to address

the issue of whether benefits under this

program are countervailable in this

review.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine the total

net subsidy on live swine from Canada

to be Can$0.0041 per kilogram for the

period April 1, 1996 through March 31,

1997. This rate is de minimis. If the final

results of this review remain the same

as these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct Customs

to liquidate without regard to

countervailing duties all shipments of

the subject merchandise from Canada.

Because the calculated net subsidy of

Can$0.0041 per kilogram is de minimis,

the cash deposit rate will be zero.

Accordingly, for all shipments of the

subject merchandise from Canada,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of this

review, the cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties will be zero, if the

final results remain the same as the

preliminary results.

Public Comment

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 30 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 five 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 two 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 351.303(f).

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 351.309(c)(ii), 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. section 1675(a)(1)),

19 CFR section 351.213.

Dated: April 23, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11528 Filed 4–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–122–815]

Preliminary Results of the Fifth

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews; Pure Magnesium and Alloy

Magnesium From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting administrative reviews of

the countervailing duty orders on pure

magnesium and alloy magnesium from

Canada. For information on the net

subsidy for the reviewed company, as
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 23729

well as for all non-reviewed companies,

see the Preliminary Results of Reviews

section of this notice. If the final results

remain the same as these preliminary

results, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as detailed in the

Preliminary Results of Reviews section

of this notice. Interested Parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hong-Anh Tran or Beth Graham, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group 1, Office 1,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0176 or (202) 482–4105,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 31, 1992, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 39392) the countervailing duty

orders on pure and alloy magnesium

from Canada. On August 4, 1997, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (62 FR 41925)

of these orders. We received a timely

request for review from Norsk Hydro

Canada Inc. (NHCI) on August 29, 1997,

and we initiated these reviews, covering

the period January 1, 1996, through

December 31, 1996, on September 25,

1997 (62 FR 50292).

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.213(b), these reviews cover NHCI,

the only producer or exporter of the

subject merchandise for which a review

was specifically requested. Also, these

reviews cover 17 subsidy programs.

On October 15, 1997, the Department

issued questionnaires to NHCI, the

Government of Canada (GOC), and the

Government of Quebec (GOQ). We

received a questionnaire response from

NHCI, the GOC and the GOQ on

November 21, 1997. The Department

issued a supplemental questionnaire to

NHCI on December 19, 1997, and

received a response to it on December

23, 1997. On February 2, 1998, the GOQ

submitted additional factual

information.

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 these

administrative reviews in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act. All other

references are to the Department’s

regulations of 19 CFR Part 351 et al.

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296; May

19, 1997, unless otherwise indicated.

Scope of the Reviews

The products covered by these

reviews are shipments of pure and alloy

magnesium from Canada. Pure

magnesium contains at least 99.8

percent magnesium by weight and is

sold in various slab and ingot forms and

sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less

than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight

with magnesium being the largest

metallic element in the alloy by weight,

and are sold in various ingot and billet

forms and sizes. Pure and alloy

magnesium are currently classifiable

under subheadings 8104.11.0000 and

8104.19.0000, respectively, of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Secondary and granular magnesium

are not included in the scopes of these

orders. Our reasons for excluding

granular magnesium are summarized in

the Preliminary Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Pure and Alloy

Magnesium From Canada (57 FR 6094,

February 20, 1992).

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Previously Determined to

Confer Subsidies

A. Exemption from Payment of Water

Bills

Pursuant to a December 15, 1988,

agreement between NHCI and La Socie ́te ́

du Parc Industriel et Portuaire de

Be ́cancour (Industrial Park), NHCI is

exempt from payment of its water bills.

Except for the taxes associated with its

bills, NHCI does not pay the invoiced

amounts of its water bills.

In the Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determinations:

Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium

from Canada (Magnesium from Canada)

57 FR 30946, 30948 (July 13, 1992), the

Department determined that the

exemption received by NHCI was

limited to a specific enterprise or

industry, or group of enterprises or

industries because no other company

receives such an exemption. In these

reviews, neither the GOQ nor NHCI

provided new information which would

warrant reconsideration of this

determination.

We preliminarily determine the

countervailable benefit to be the amount

NHCI would have paid absent the

exemption. To calculate the benefit

under this program, we divided the

amount NHCI would have paid for

water during the POR by NHCI’s total

POR sales of Canadian-manufactured

products. We preliminarily determine

that the net subsidy provided by this

program is 0.46 percent ad valorem.

B. Article 7 Grants From the Que ́bec

Industrial Development Corporation

The Socie ́te ́ de De ́veloppement

Industriel du Que ́bec (SDI) administers

development programs on behalf of the

GOQ. SDI provides assistance under

Article 7 of the SDI Act in the form of

loans, loan guarantees, grants,

assumptions of costs associated with

loans, and equity investments. This

assistance involves projects capable of

having a major impact upon the

economy of Que ́bec. Article 7 assistance

greater than 2.5 million dollars must be

approved by the Council of Ministers,

and assistance over 5 million dollars

becomes a separate budget item under

Article 7. Assistance provided in such

amounts must be of ‘‘special economic

importance and value to the province.’’

(See Magnesium from Canada, 57 FR

30946, 30949 (July 13, 1992).) In 1988,

NHCI was awarded a grant under Article

7 to cover a large percentage of the cost

of certain environmental protection

equipment. In Magnesium from Canada,

we determined that NHCI received a

disproportionately large share of

assistance under Article 7. On this basis,

we determined that the Article 7 grant

was limited to a specific enterprise or

industry, or group of enterprises or

industries. In these reviews, we are not

considering information submitted by

the GOQ on February 2, 1998, regarding

Article 7 assistance provided to other

companies subsequent to the assistance

granted to NHCI in 1988; information

with respect to the distribution of

benefits after the provision of the

subsidy in question is irrelevent. (See

Final Results of the Fourth

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews: Pure Magnesium and Alloy

Magnesium from Canada, (Magnesium

from Canada Fourth Review) 62 FR

48812 (September 17, 1997).) For the

reasons set forth in the Magnesium from

Canada Fourth Review, we

preliminarily determine in these

reviews that the Article 7 assistance

received by NHCI was a non-recurring

grant.

We calculated the benefit from the

non-recurring grant received by NHCI

using the company’s cost of long-term,

fixed-rate debt as the discount rate and
23730 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

our declining balance methodology. We

divided that portion of the benefit

allocated to the POR by NHCI’s total

sales of Canadian-manufactured

products. We preliminarily determine

the net subsidy provided by this

program to be 2.32 percent ad valorem.

II. Programs Preliminarily Found Not

To be Used

We preliminarily find that NHCI did

not apply for or receive benefits under

the following programs during the POR:

St. Lawrence River Environment

Technology Development Program

Program for Export Market Development

The Export Development Corporation

Canada-Que ́bec Subsidiary Agreement

on the Economic Development of the

Regions of Que ́bec

Opportunities to Stimulate Technology

Programs

Development Assistance Program

Industrial Feasibility Study Assistance

Program

Export Promotion Assistance Program

Creation of Scientific Jobs in Industries

Business Investment Assistance

Program

Business Financing Program

Research and Innovation Activities

Program

Export Assistance Program

Energy Technologies Development

Program

Transportation Research and

Development Assistance Program

Preliminary Results of Reviews

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.221(b)(4)(i) we calculated a subsidy

rate for NHCI, the sole producer/

exporter subject to these administrative

reviews. For the period January 1, 1996,

through December 31, 1996, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

to be 2.78 percent ad valorem. If the

final results of these reviews remain the

same as these preliminary results, the

Department intends to instruct Customs

to assess countervailing duties as

indicated above. The Department also

intends to instruct Customs to collect

cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties as indicated above

of the F.O.B. invoice price on all

shipments of the subject merchandise

from NHCI entered or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of the final

results of these administrative reviews.

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 reviews will

normally cover only those companies

specifically named. See 19 CFR

351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.212(c), 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

these reviews will be unchanged by the

results of these reviews.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies, except Timminco

Limited (which was excluded from the

orders during the investigation), at the

most recent company-specific or

country-wide rate applicable to the

company. Accordingly, the cash deposit

rates that will be applied to nonreviewed companies covered by these

orders 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 the

Final Results of the Second

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews: Pure Magnesium and Alloy

Magnesium from Canada, 62 FR 48607

(September 16, 1997). These rates shall

apply to all non-reviewed 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 these orders are

the cash deposit rates in effect at the

time of entry, except for Timminco

Limited (which was excluded from the

orders during the original investigation).

Public Comment

Parties to these proceedings may

request disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 30 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 five days

after the time limit for filing the case

brief. Parties who submit an 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 two 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 351.303(f).

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 § 351.309(c)(ii), 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 review results

are published in accordance with

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

1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 351.213.

Dated: April 23, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–11527 Filed 4–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–357–404]

Certain Textile Mill Products From

Argentina; Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Countervailing Duty

Review and Revocation of Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

changed circumstances countervailing

duty review and revocation of order.

SUMMARY: On April 2, 1996, the

Department of Commerce initiated

changed circumstances reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on Leather

from Argentina (55 FR 40212), Wool

from Argentina (48 FR 14423), Oil

Country Tubular Goods from Argentina

(49 FR 46564), and Carbon Steel ColdRolled Flat Products from Argentina (49

FR 18006). The Department of

Commerce initiated these reviews in