80 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

modified as necessary to conform to

recommendations contained in the

approved Report of the Nomenclature

Committee.

Dated: December 16, 1994.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 94–32271 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

19 CFR Parts 353, 355, and 356

[Docket No. 941264–4364]

RIN: 0625–AA45

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Article 1904 of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking and request for public

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(‘‘the Department’’) intends to initiate a

rulemaking proceeding to conform the

Department’s existing antidumping

duty, countervailing duty, and NAFTA

Article 1904 regulations to the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act, which

implemented the results of the Uruguay

Round multilateral trade negotiations.

In addition to conforming changes, the

Department will be considering other

changes to the procedural and

substantive provisions of the

antidumping and countervailing duty

regulations. The overall objectives of

this rulemaking proceeding will be to:

(1) translate the principles of the

implementing legislation into specific

and predictable rules, thereby

facilitating the administration of these

laws and providing greater

predictability for private parties affected

by these laws; (2) simplify and

streamline the Department’s

administration of antidumping and

countervailing duty proceedings; (3)

codify existing administrative practice,

to the extent such codification is

appropriate and is consistent with the

first and second objectives; and (4)

resolve any inconsistencies in the

Department’s administrative practice.

DATES: The Department will consider

written comments if received not later

than February 3, 1995. The Department

will also consider written responses to

written comments if received not later

than February 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Address written comments

to Susan G. Esserman, Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

Central Records Unit, Room B–099, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania

Avenue and 14th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230. Comments

should be addressed: Attention:

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking/Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. Each person

submitting a comment should include

his or her name and address, and give

reasons for any recommendation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William D. Hunter, (202) 482–4412, or

David Mason Jr., (202) 482–4969.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 7, 1994, President

Clinton signed the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, Pub.L. 103–465 (‘‘the

URAA’’), into law. The URAA

implements the results of the Uruguay

Round multilateral trade negotiations.

Among the agreements negotiated as

part of the Uruguay Round are the

Agreement on Implementation of Article

VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade 1994 (‘‘the Antidumping

Agreement’’) and the Agreement on

Subsidies and Countervailing Measures

(‘‘the Subsidies Agreement’’). The

URAA, among other things, conforms

the U.S. antidumping and

countervailing duty laws to the

requirements of the Antidumping

Agreement and the Subsidies

Agreement.

The Department is initiating a

rulemaking proceeding to conform the

Department’s existing regulations on

antidumping duties, countervailing

duties, and Article 1904 of the North

American Free Trade Agreement to the

provisions of the URAA. Although the

Department expects that in many

instances amendments to existing

regulations will be of a conforming

nature only, in the Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

H.R. 5110 (H.R. Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1,

103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994)), the

Administration committed the

Department to flesh out through

regulation certain provisions of the bill.

In addition to regulations

implementing the URAA, the

Department intends to use this

opportunity to proceed further with

certain rulemaking proceedings on

which work was suspended pending the

completion of the Uruguay Round.

These proceedings are listed below. In

the Semiannual Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations, published on April

25, 1994 (59 FR 20136), the Department

indicated that these rulemaking

proceedings had been withdrawn, but

that it intended to address the subject

matter covered by these rulemaking

proceedings as part of a new,

consolidated rulemaking proceeding

which, among other things, would

conform the antidumping and

countervailing duty regulations to

anticipated legislation implementing the

Uruguay Round. The withdrawn

rulemaking proceedings were:

• Antidumping Duties [RIN: 0625–

AA29]: On February 1, 1989 (54 FR

5092), the Department published an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking concerning regulations that

would have codified existing

administrative practice with respect to

the identification and measurement of

dumping.

• Countervailing Duties [RIN: 0625–

AA31]: On May 31, 1989 (54 FR 23366),

the Department published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking that would have

codified existing administrative practice

with respect to the identification and

measurement of subsidies.

• Antidumping and Countervailing

Duties; Significant Ministerial Errors

[RIN: 0625–AA35]: On January 10, 1992

(57 FR 1131), the Department published

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking setting

forth the circumstances in which the

Department would correct significant

ministerial errors made in preliminary

antidumping and countervailing duty

determinations.

• Antidumping Duties; Methodologies

for Assessment Instructions [RIN: 0625–

AA36]: On December 5, 1991 (56 FR

6396), the Department published an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking regarding regulations which

would have changed and/or codified

existing administrative practice to

simplify and streamline the collection of

estimated antidumping duties and the

assessment of antidumping duties.

• Antidumping Duties; Calculation of

Weighted Average Dumping Margin

[RIN: 0625–AA39]: The Department had

considered initiating a rulemaking

proceeding which would have

addressed a problem in the

Department’s calculation of weightedaverage dumping margins caused by the

Department’s treatment of adjustments

for indirect taxes. See 59 FR 20156–57.

• Antidumping Duties; Period of

Investigation [RIN: 0625–AA41]: The

Department had considered initiating a

rulemaking proceeding to amend the

Department’s antidumping regulations

with respect to the period covered by an

antidumping investigation. See 59 FR

20157.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 81

• Procedures for Imposing Sanctions

for Providing False Certifications in an

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty

Proceedings [RIN: 0625–AA42]: The

Department had considered initiating a

rulemaking proceeding that would have

established standards for finding

certifications to be false, the sanctions

that could be imposed, and the

procedures for imposing sanctions. See

59 FR 20157–58.

As part of its consolidated rulemaking

proceeding, the Department intends to

review the subject matter of the

withdrawn rulemaking proceedings in

light of the URAA and other

developments in the antidumping and

countervailing duty laws. One of the

purposes of this review will be to

determine whether the problems

identified in the above rulemaking

proceedings remain, and, if so, whether

they should be addressed by

regulations.

The overall objectives of this

consolidated rulemaking proceeding

will be to: (1) translate the principles of

the URAA into specific and predictable

rules, thereby facilitating the

administration of these laws and

providing greater predictability for

private parties affected by these laws;

(2) simplify and streamline, to the

extent permitted by law, the

Department’s administration of

antidumping and countervailing duty

proceedings; (3) codify existing

administrative practice, to the extent

such codification is appropriate and is

consistent with the first and second

objectives; and (4) resolve any

inconsistencies in the Department’s

administrative practice.

Timetable

The Department intends to issue a

comprehensive set of proposed

regulations by June 30, 1995. These

comprehensive regulations will address

the objectives described above, and an

opportunity for public comment will be

provided. The Department intends to

issue a comprehensive set of final

regulations by January 1, 1996. These

final regulations will replace the

interim-final regulations described in

the following paragraph.

The URAA became effective January

1, 1995, and applies to investigations

initiated as a result of petitions filed on

or after that date, and administrative

reviews requested on or after that date.

To facilitate the administration of the

new law, the Department intends to

issue interim-final regulations that will

amend the existing regulations where

they are clearly at odds with the URAA,

and where regulations are essential to

administration of the new law. These

interim-final regulations will be

effective upon publication and will

govern the Department’s handling of

antidumping and countervailing duty

proceedings pending the promulgation

of final rules described above. The

interim-final regulations will make

plain that where the URAA, as

amplified by the Statement of

Administrative Action, is in conflict

with the existing regulations, the new

statute will prevail.

Request for Comments

The conclusion of the Uruguay Round

and the enactment of implementing

legislation offer an appropriate time for

the Department and the public to

reexamine the Department’s existing

antidumping and countervailing duty

regulations. The objectives described

above encompass all aspects of the

Department’s administration of the

antidumping and countervailing duty

laws.

However, it should be emphasized

that the Department has not reached any

conclusions concerning any of these

subjects. Instead, before issuing

proposed regulations, the Department

wishes to receive public comments on

all aspects of the Department’s

administration of the antidumping and

countervailing duty laws. The

Department believes that such public

comment will improve its

understanding of the issues and

problems that need to be addressed.

Therefore, interested persons are invited

to address any issue of law, policy, or

procedure, and to suggest appropriate

amendments to the antidumping duty,

countervailing duty, and NAFTA

regulations for consideration by the

Department.

Format and Number of Copies

Parties should submit comments in

the following format: (1) number each

comment in accordance with the

number designated for that issue as

indicated in the list of issues set forth

below; (2) begin each comment on a

separate page; (3) concisely state the

issue identified and discussed in the

comment; and (4) provide a brief

summary of the comment (a maximum

of 3 sentences) and label this section

‘‘summary of the comment.’’

To simplify the processing and

distribution of these comments, parties

are encouraged to submit documents in

electronic form accompanied by an

original and one paper copy. All

documents filed in electronic form must

be on DOS formatted 3.5′′ diskettes, and

must be prepared in either WordPerfect

format or a format that the WordPerfect

program can convert and import into

WordPerfect. Each comment submitted

should be on a separate file on the

diskette and labeled by the number

designated for that issue based upon the

list of issues outlined below.

Comments received on diskette by the

due date will be made available to the

public on Internet. In addition, the

Department will make comments

available to the public on 3.5′′ diskettes

at cost, and paper copies available for

reading and photocopying in Room B–

099 of the Central Records Unit.

Questions concerning file formatting,

document conversion, Internet address,

or other filing requirements should be

addressed to Andrew Lee Beller,

Director of Central Records, (202) 482–

1248.

Classification of Issues for Comment

Countervailing Duty Issues

1. Grants, loans, equity, loan

guarantees, and debt forgiveness

(including benchmarks and discount

rates);

2. Tax programs (not including

rebates of indirect taxes on export,

which is included in category number

five below);

3. Government provision/

procurement (including adequate

remuneration);

4. Indirect subsidies, privatization,

and upstream subsidies;

5. Export subsidies (e.g., subsidies

included in the Illustrative List);

6. Import substitution subsidies,

worker benefits, and subsidies on

agricultural products;

7. Specificity and infrastructure;

8. Green light subsidies and subsidies

enforcement;

9. Allocation;

10. CVD methodology issues other

than those outlined above.

Antidumping Issues

11. Comparison Methodology:

a. Viablility, third-country sales,

intermediate country sales, and tolling;

b. Constructed export price

deductions and value-added

deductions;

c. Normal value adjustments;

d. Level of trade matching, level of

trade adjustments, and constructed

export price offset;

12. Start-up;

13. Profit and selling, general and

administrative expenses in constructed

value;

14. Sales below cost of production

and constructed value generally;

15. Currency conversion;

16. Price averaging;

17. Anticircumvention;

18. Affiliated parties (address

separately for AD and CVD);
82 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

19. AD methodology issues other than

those outlined above;

Procedural Issues

20. Initiation of petitions;

21. Evidence;

22. Facts available;

23. De Minimis (address separately for

AD and CVD);

24. Reviews, other than five-year

reviews (if specific to AD or CVD, please

specify);

25. Five-year reviews and revocation;

26. Repeal of Section 303;

27. Regional industries;

28. Critical circumstances;

29. Simplification;

30. Business proprietary information

and administrative protective orders;

31. Ministerial errors;

32. Procedural issues other than those

outlined above;

33. Other issues.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Parts 353,

355, and 356

Business and industry, Foreign trade,

Imports, Trade practices.

Dated: December 27, 1994.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 94–32332 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 53

[EE–56–94]

RIN 1545–AT03

Excise Tax On Self-Dealing By Private

Foundations.

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document contains

proposed amendments to the

regulations that define self-dealing by

private foundations. The proposed

amendments modify the application of

the self-dealing rules to the provision by

a private foundation of director’s and

officer’s liability insurance to

disqualified persons. These

amendments provide that

indemnification by a private foundation

or provision of insurance for purposes

of covering the liabilities of the person

in their capacity as a manager of the

private foundation is not self-dealing.

Additionally, the amounts expended by

the private foundation are not included

in the compensation of the disqualified

person for purposes of determining

reasonable compensation of the

disqualified person.

DATES: Written comments and requests

for a public hearing must be received by

April 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:

CC:DOM:CORP:T:R (EE–56–94), room

5228, Internal Revenue Service, POB

7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington,

DC 20044. In the alternative,

submissions may be hand delivered

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

to: CC:DOM:CORP:T:R (EE–56–94),

Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terri Harris or Paul Accettura at 202–

622–6070 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4941(a) imposes a tax on each

act of self-dealing between a

disqualified person and a private

foundation. Section 4941(d)(1)(E)

defines self-dealing as any direct or

indirect transfer to, or use by or for the

benefit of, a disqualified person of the

income or assets of a private foundation.

Section 53.4941(d)–2(f)(1) currently

provides that provision of insurance for

the payment of chapter 42 taxes by a

private foundation for a foundation

manager is self-dealing unless the

premium amounts are included in the

compensation of the foundation

manager. Direct indemnification for the

payment of chapter 42 taxes to the

foundation manager from the private

foundation is self-dealing whether or

not the amounts are included in the

manager’s compensation.

Section 53.4941(d)–2(f)(3) currently

provides that the indemnification of

certain expenses by a private foundation

for a foundation manager’s defense in a

judicial or administrative proceeding

involving chapter 42 taxes is not selfdealing. Such expenses must have been

reasonably incurred by the manager in

connection with such proceeding. Also,

the manager must be successful in such

defense, or such proceeding must be

terminated by settlement, and the

manager must not have acted willfully

and without reasonable cause with

respect to the act or failure to act which

led to the liability for tax under chapter

42.

Revenue Ruling 82–223, 1982–2 C.B.

301, discussed the application of the

self-dealing rules to the provision of

insurance by a private foundation for

the indemnification of a foundation

manager’s defense in actions involving

state laws relating to the

mismanagement of funds of charitable

organizations. Rev. Rul. 82–223 implied

that the private foundation’s provision

of insurance is includible in the

foundation manager’s taxable income.

This position created a situation in

which private foundation managers who

were ‘‘employees’’ of the private

foundation could exclude the insurance

premiums from their income under the

section 132(d) fringe benefit exclusion;

however, this raised the possibility that

unpaid ‘‘volunteer’’ managers would

have to include the premiums in their

income and, since they had no profit

motive with which to support a working

condition fringe benefit exclusion,

could not exclude the income.

This situation has recently been

corrected by the publication of

amendments to regulations under

section 132. Section 1.132–5(r) currently

provides that bona fide volunteers for

exempt organizations are deemed to

have a profit motive for purposes of

excluding a working condition fringe

benefit.

Although these benefits are excluded

from compensation under section

132(d), the problem of including the

income excluded under section 132 in

the compensation paid to the

foundation manager still remains for

purposes of determining whether a

foundation managers’s compensation is

reasonable. These amendments to

§ 53.4941(d)–2(f) are intended to clarify

the IRS’s position that, generally, the

payment of indemnification and

insurance by a private foundation for a

foundation manager in situations arising

from the performance of services on

behalf of the private foundation are not

self-dealing and are not considered

when determining reasonable

compensation of the foundation

manager.

Explanation of Provisions

The proposed regulations provide that

it generally will not be self-dealing, or

treated as the payment of compensation,

if a private foundation indemnifies or

provides insurance to a foundation

manager in any civil judicial or civil

administrative proceeding arising out of

the manager’s performance of services

on behalf of the foundation.

An indemnification or purchase of

insurance would be an act of selfdealing if the expenses relating to such

defense are not reasonably incurred by

the manager in connection with such

proceeding. Additionally, the manager

must not have acted willfully and

without reasonable cause with respect

to the act or failure to act which led to

such proceeding or to such liability.