Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24833

from FMV with respect to Nihon was

affirmed because, consistent with 19

C.F.R. 353.56, these expenses were

demonstrated to be direct expenses.

Similarly, the Department’s remand

determination not to deduct the

expenses from FMV associated with

Onoda purchase price transactions was

affirmed because these expenses were

indirect expenses. With respect to

Onoda’s exporter’s sales price

comparisons, the court affirmed the

Department’s decision not to deduct

these from FMV, but to include them in

the pool of home market indirect

expenses to offset indirect expenses in

the U.S. market.

By order dated May 18, 1994, the CIT

vacated and dismissed the May 25,

1993, remand with regard to the

following issues: (1) The recalculation

of United States Price for Onoda’s sales

through Lone Star Northwest’s Oregon

division; (2) the articulation of the

Department’s underlying reasoning

regarding every element of 19 U.S.C.

1677(16)(B) (1988) in its product

comparison analysis; and (3) the

conducting of a substantive

investigation of the service stations used

by Onoda in its home market

distribution system.

On July 5, 1994, the Department

submitted its Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant To Court

Remand for Nihon. On September 8,

1994, the Department submitted its

Final Results of Redetermination

Pursuant to Court Remand with regard

to Onoda and the ‘‘All Others’’ rate. The

parties subsequently filed comments

upon the results of the Department’s

remand determinations. The

Department responded to the parties’

comments on January 6, 1995,

requesting that the CIT again remand

this action in order to provide the

Department an opportunity to

reexamine the calculation of Nihon’s

margin by taking into account the

October 3, 1990, Supplemental

Response submitted by Nihon during

the original investigation. By order

dated January 19, 1995, the CIT

sustained the Department’s remand

determination with respect to the

calculation of Onoda’s margin, and

ordered this action remanded to the

Department for reconsideration of its

calculation of Nihon’s margin. The

Department submitted its Final Results

of Redetermination Pursuant To Court

Remand on February 16, 1995, that

determined a recalculated weightedaverage antidumping duty rate of 69.89

percent for Nihon, and 70.23 percent for

‘‘All Others.’’ Pursuant to the September

8, 1994, Final Results of

Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand, the revised weighted-average

antidumping rate for Onoda is 70.52

percent. The CIT, in Nihon, affirmed all

redeterminations and dismissed this

action on March 28, 1995.

Suspension of Liquidation

In its decision in Timken Co. v.

United States, Court No. 89–1489

(January 4, 1990) (Timken), the Federal

Circuit held that the Department must

publish a notice of a decision of the CIT

or the Federal Circuit which is not ‘‘in

harmony’’ with the Department’s

determination. Publication of this notice

fulfills this obligation. The Federal

Circuit also held that in such a case, the

Department must suspend liquidation

until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in

the action. The option of appealing this

decision is being weighed, and a

‘‘conclusive’’ decision can not be

reached until the opportunity to appeal

expires, or any appeal is decided by the

Federal Circuit. Therefore, the

Department will continue to suspend

liquidation pending the expiration of

the period to appeal or pending a final

decision of the Federal Circuit if Nihon

is appealed.

Date: May 4, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11529 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–412–811]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Preliminary Results

of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom. We

have preliminarily determined the net

subsidy to be 20.33 percent ad valorem

for Allied Steel and Wire Limited (ASW

Limited) and 7.03 percent ad valorem

for all other companies for the period

September 17, 1992 through December

31, 1992. We have preliminarily

determined the net subsidy to be 20.33

percent ad valorem for ASW Limited,

2.68 percent ad valorem for United

Engineering Steels (UES), and 9.76

percent ad valorem for all other

companies for the periods January 1,

1993 through January 14, 1993, and

March 22, 1993 through December 31,

1993. If the final results remain the

same as these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess countervailing

duties as indicated above.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Mermelstein, Melanie Brown or

Christopher Cassel, Office of

Countervailing Compliance, 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

On March 22, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register (58

FR 15327) the countervailing duty order

on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth

carbon steel products from the United

Kingdom. On March 4, 1994, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 10368)

of this countervailing duty order. We

received a timely request for review

from UES, a respondent company.

We initiated the review, covering the

period September 17, 1992 through

December 31, 1993, on April 15, 1994

(59 FR 18099). The review covers two

manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise and fifteen programs.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994. However, references to the

Department’s Countervailing Duties;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Request for Public Comments, (54 FR

23366; May 31, 1989) (Proposed

Regulations), are provided solely for

further explanation of the Department’s

countervailing duty practice. Although

the Department has withdrawn the

particular rulemaking proceeding

pursuant to which the Proposed

Regulations were issued, the subject

matter of these regulations is being

considered in connection with an

ongoing rulemaking proceeding which,
24834 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

among other things, is intended to

conform the Department’s regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

See 60 FR 80; Jan. 3, 1995.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

hot-rolled bars and rods of non-alloy or

other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

or more of bismuth, in coils or cut

lengths, and in numerous shapes and

sizes. Excluded from the scope of this

review are other alloy steels (as defined

by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1 (f)), except steels classified as

other alloy steels by reason of

containing by weight 0.4 percent or

more of lead or 0.1 percent or more of

bismuth, tellurium, or selenium. Also

excluded are semi-finished steels and

flat-rolled products. Most of the

products covered in this review are

provided for under subheadings

7213.20.00.00 and 7214.30.00.00 of the

HTSUS. Small quantities of these

products may also enter the United

States under the following HTSUS

subheadings: 7213.31.30.00, 60.00;

7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90;

7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and

7228.30.80. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and for Customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of

this proceeding is dispositive.

Best Information Available for ASW

Limited

During the investigation, ASW

Limited, an exporter of the subject

merchandise, withdrew from

participation, and consequently

received a rate based entirely on best

information available (BIA). Section

776(c) of the Act requires the

Department to use BIA ‘‘whenever a

party or any other person refuses or is

unable to produce information

requested in a timely manner and in the

form required, or otherwise significantly

impedes an investigation * * *’’.

In this review, ASW Limited did not

respond to the Department’s two

requests for information; therefore, we

are assigning ASW Limited a rate based

on BIA. The rate we are applying is

20.33 percent ad valorem. This rate

reflects the rate ASW received in the

investigation (see Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination:

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products from the United

Kingdom (58 FR 6237, 6243; January 27,

1993)) (Lead Bar). To this rate we added

the rate calculated for UES in this

review for the Inner Urban Areas Act

program, since this program was not

examined by the Department during the

investigation.

Calculation Methodology for

Assessment and Cash Deposit Purposes

For each year, 1992 and 1993, we

calculated the net subsidy on a countrywide basis by first calculating the

subsidy rate for each company subject to

the administrative review. We then

weight-averaged the rate received by

each company using as the weight the

company’s share of total UK exports to

the United States of subject

merchandise. To determine the value of

ASW’s exports based on BIA (see Best

Information Available for ASW Limited,

above), we subtracted the value of UES’

exports of subject merchandise to the

United States from the total value of

U.S. imports of subject merchandise as

reported in the U.S. IM–146 import

statistics.

We then summed the individual

companies’ weight-averaged rates to

determine the subsidy from all programs

benefitting UK exports of subject

merchandise to the United States. Since

the country-wide rate calculated using

this methodology was above de

minimis, as defined by 19 CFR 355.7, for

both 1992 and 1993, we proceeded to

the next step and examined the net

subsidy rate calculated for each

company to determine whether

individual company rates differed

significantly from the weighted-average

country-wide rate, pursuant to 19 CFR

355.22(d)(3).

For 1992, we found that ASW Limited

had a significantly different net subsidy

rate; therefore, this company is treated

separately for assessment and cash

deposit purposes for the 1992 period.

All other companies are assigned the

country-wide rate for this period. For

1993, we found that both ASW Limited

and UES had significantly different net

subsidy rates; therefore these companies

are treated separately for assessment

and cash deposit purposes for the 1993

period. All other companies are

assigned the country-wide rate for this

period.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined

to Confer Subsidies

A. Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to

UES

UES is a joint venture company

formed in 1986 by British Steel

Corporation (BSC) and Guest, Keen &

Nettlefolds (GKN). In return for shares

in UES, BSC contributed a major portion

of its Special Steels Business and GKN

contributed its Brymbo Steel Works and

its forging business. BSC was wholly

owned by the Government of the United

Kingdom at the time the joint venture

was formed; BSC was privatized in 1988

and now bears the name British Steel

plc (BS plc).

In Lead Bar, the Department found

that BSC had received a number of

subsidies prior to the 1986 sale of its

Special Steels Business to UES. Further,

the Department determined that the sale

did not alter the effect of these

previously bestowed subsidies, and thus

the portion of BSC’s pre-1986 subsidies

which was attributable to the Special

Steels Business productive unit

transferred to UES (see Lead Bar at

6240). However, the Department

modified this allocation methodology in

the subsequent Remand Determination

for Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and

Bismuth Carbon Steel Products from the

United Kingdom which was based on

the privatization methodology set out in

the General Issues Appendix appended

to the Final Countervailing Duty

Determination; Certain Steel Products

from Austria (58 FR 37217, 37225; July

9, 1993) (Certain Steel). In Certain Steel,

the Department stated that it can no

longer be assumed that the entire

amount of subsidies allocated to a

certain productive unit follows it when

it is sold; rather, a portion of the sales

price of the productive unit represents

the repayment of prior subsidies.

To calculate a rate for the subsidies

that were allocated from BSC to UES,

we first determined the subsidies

attributable to BSC’s Special Steels

Business (each of these subsidies to BSC

is described in detail in Sections A(1)

through A(4) below). To calculate the

subsidies attributable to BSC’s Special

Steels Business, we divided the asset

value of BSC’s Special Steels Business

by the value of BSC’s total assets. We

then applied this ratio to the net present

value, in the year of the spin-off, of the

future benefit streams from all of BSC’s

prior subsidies. The future benefit

streams at the time of UES’ creation

reflect the Department’s allocation over

time of prior subsidies to BSC in

accordance with the declining balance

methodology (see section 355.49 of the

Department’s Proposed Regulations), as

well as the effect of prior spin-offs of

BSC productive units.

We next estimated the portion of the

purchase price which represents

repayment of prior subsidies by

determining the portion of BSC’s net

worth that was accounted for by

subsidies. To do that, we divided the

face value of the allocable subsidies

received by BSC in each year from fiscal
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24835

year 1977/78 through fiscal year 1984/

85 (the year prior to the creation of UES)

by BSC’s net worth in the same year. We

calculated a simple average of these

ratios, which was then multiplied by the

purchase price of the productive unit.

Thus, we determined the amount of the

purchase price which represents

repayment of prior subsidies. This

amount was subtracted from the

subsidies attributed to BSC’s Special

Steels Business at the time of sale to

arrive at the amount of subsidies

allocated to UES in 1986.

Having determined the amount of

BSC’s previously bestowed subsidies

allocable to UES with the Special Steels

Business in 1986, we then determined

the benefit provided to UES by these

subsidies in 1992 and in 1993. To do

this, we divided the subsidies allocated

to UES by the net present value (in the

year of the spin-off) of the future benefit

streams from subsidies received by BSC

prior to the spin-off. The resulting

percentage for each year, which

represents the portion of BSC’s future

benefit streams to be apportioned to

UES, was then multiplied by the total

benefit amount from BSC’s previously

bestowed subsidies that would have

been allocated to BSC in 1992 and 1993

absent any spin-offs or privatization.

This provides the benefits to UES in

1992 and 1993, respectively. We

divided these benefit amounts by the

company’s total sales in 1992 and 1993,

respectively, and preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be 3.76

percent ad valorem for 1992 and 2.68

percent ad valorem for 1993.

In determining the subsidies

previously bestowed to BSC that were

allocated to UES, we examined the

following programs: equity infusions,

Regional Development Grants, a

National Loan Fund loan cancellation,

and loans and interest rebates under

ECSC Article 54.

(1) Equity Infusions

In every year from 1978/79 through

1985/86, BSC received equity capital

from the Secretary of State for Trade and

Industry pursuant to section 18(1) of the

Iron and Steel Acts 1975, 1981, and

1982. According to section 18(1), the

Secretary of State for the Department of

Trade and Industry may ‘‘pay to the

Corporation (BSC) such funds as he sees

fit.’’ The Government of the United

Kingdom’s equity investments in BSC

were made pursuant to an agreed

external financing limit which was

based upon medium-term financial

projections. BSC’s performance was

monitored by the Government of the

United Kingdom on an ongoing basis

and requests for capital were examined

on a case-by-case basis. The UK

government did not receive any

additional ownership, such as stock or

additional rights, in return for the

capital provided to BSC under section

18(1) since it already owned 100 percent

of the company.

In Lead Bar (58 FR at 6241), the

Department found BSC to be

unequityworthy from 1978/79 through

1985/86, and thus determined that the

Government of the United Kingdom’s

equity infusions were inconsistent with

commercial considerations. Although,

prior to the formation of UES, BSC’s

section 18(1) equity capital was written

off in two stages (£3,000 million in 1981

and £1,000 million in 1982) as part of

a capital reconstruction of BSC, the

Department determined that BSC

benefitted from these equity infusions,

notwithstanding the subsequent writeoff of equity capital. Therefore, the

Department countervailed the equity

investments as grants given in the years

the equity capital was received. No new

information or evidence of changed

circumstances was presented in this

review to warrant a reconsideration of

that finding.

Because the Department determined

in Lead Bar that the infusions are nonrecurring benefits, we have allocated the

benefits over the average useful life of

renewable physical assets in the steel

industry (15 years) in accordance with

our non-recurring grant methodology

(see section 355.49 of the Proposed

Regulations; see also Certain Steel at

37230).

While uncreditworthiness was not

specifically alleged or investigated

during the investigation on lead bar, in

the Final Countervailing Duty

Determination; Certain Steel Products

from the United Kingdom (58 FR 37393;

July 9, 1993) (UK Certain Steel), the

Department found that BSC was

uncreditworthy from 1977/78 through

1985/86. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances was

presented in this review to warrant a

reconsideration of that finding.

Therefore, to calculate the benefit from

these grants, we have used a discount

rate which includes a risk premium (see

section 355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed

Regulations).

After calculating the 1992 and 1993

allocation of subsidies from BSC to UES,

as described above (Allocation of

Subsidies From BSC to UES), we

divided the subsidies allocated to UES

for each year by the company’s total

sales of all products domesticallyproduced during the respective year. On

this basis, we preliminarily determine

the net subsidy for this program to be

3.35 percent ad valorem in 1992 and

2.38 percent ad valorem in 1993.

(2) Regional Development Grant

Program

Regional development grants were

paid to BSC under the Industry Act of

1972 and the Industrial Development

Act of 1982. In order to qualify for

assistance under these two Acts, an

applicant had to be engaged in

manufacturing and located in an

assisted area. Assisted areas are older,

industrial regions identified as having

deep-seated, long-term problems such as

high levels of unemployment,

migration, slow economic growth,

derelict land, and obsolete factory

buildings.

Regional development grants were

given for the purchase of specific assets.

According to the Government of the

United Kingdom, the program involved

one-time grants, disbursed sometimes

over several years.

BSC received regional development

grants during the period between fiscal

years 1978/79 and 1985/86. The

Department found this program

countervailable in Lead Bar (58 FR

6242), because it is limited to specific

regions. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances was

presented in this review to warrant a

reconsideration of that finding.

In Lead Bar, we also determined that

since each grant requires a separate

application, these grants are nonrecurring. Accordingly, we have

calculated the benefits from this

program by allocating the benefits over

the average useful life of renewable

physical assets in the steel industry (15

years) in accordance with our nonrecurring grant methodology (see

Certain Steel at 37227; see also section

355.49 of the Proposed Regulations).

Since BSC was uncreditworthy from

1978/79 through 1985/86 (as discussed

under Equity Infusions), we have used

a discount rate which includes a risk

premium (see section 355.44(b)(6)(iv) of

the Proposed Regulations) to calculate

the benefits from these grants. After

calculating the 1992 and 1993 allocation

of subsidies from BSC to UES, described

above (Allocation of Subsidies From

BSC to UES), we divided the subsidies

allocated to UES for each year by the

company’s total sales in the respective

year and calculated the ad valorem

benefit for each year. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net

subsidies for this program to be 0.12

percent ad valorem for 1992 and 0.08

percent ad valorem for 1993.
24836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

(3) National Loan Funds Loan

Cancellation

In conjunction with the 1981/1982

capital reconstruction of BSC, section

3(1) of the Iron and Steel Act of 1981

extinguished certain National Loans

Fund (NLF) loans, as well as the

accrued interest thereon, at the end of

BSC’s 1980/81 fiscal year. Because this

loan cancellation was provided

specifically to BSC, the Department

determined in Lead Bar (58 FR 6242)

that it provided a countervailable

benefit. No new information or evidence

of changed circumstances was presented

in this review to warrant a

reconsideration of that finding.

We calculated the benefit for this

review using our standard methodology

for non-recurring grants. We allocated

the benefits from this loan cancellation

over the average useful life of renewable

physical assets in the steel industry (15

years) (see section 355.49 of the

Proposed Regulations; see also Certain

Steel at 37230); because BSC was found

to be uncreditworthy in 1981/82 (as

discussed under Equity Infusions), we

have used a discount rate which

includes a risk premium (see section

355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed

Regulations). After calculating the 1992

and 1993 allocation of subsidies from

BSC to UES, described above

(Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to

UES), we divided the subsidies

allocated to UES for each year by the

company’s total sales in the respective

year and calculated the ad valorem

benefit for each year. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net

subsidies for this program to be 0.29

percent ad valorem for 1992 and 0.22

percent ad valorem for 1993.

(4) European Coal and Steel Community

(ECSC) Article 54 Loans/Interest Rebates

The European Coal and Steel

Community’s (ECSC) Article 54

Industrial Investment loans are direct,

long-term loans from the Commission of

the European Communities to be used

by the iron and steel industry for

purchasing new equipment or financing

modernization. The purpose of the

program is to facilitate the borrowing

process for companies in the ECSC,

some of which may not otherwise be

able to obtain loans. In UK Certain Steel,

the Department determined that this

program is limited to the iron and steel

industry, and thus is countervailable to

the extent that it provides loans on

terms inconsistent with commercial

considerations. No new information or

evidence of changed circumstances was

presented in this review to warrant a

reconsideration of that finding.

In addition, interest rebates on Article

54 loans were granted to steel

companies during the restructuring and

modernization of the industry in the

early 1980s. To qualify for the rebates,

companies had to meet certain criteria,

such as being in the process of reducing

their steel production capacity or of

implementing improvements in

processing that would yield energy

savings and improved efficiency.

The interest rebates, which were

limited to a maximum of 3 percent of

the total investment over a period of five

years, were funded from the ECSC

operational budget. While levies

imposed on ECSC steel companies have

provided the revenues for the

operational budget since 1985,

contributions by Member States

supplemented the budget before that

time. For this reason, the Department

determined in UK Certain Steel that a

portion of those interest rebates was

countervailable. Following the same

methodology in this review to

determine the countervailable portion,

we calculated the ratio of the

contributions by Member States to the

ECSC’s total available funds for each

year in which the rebates were given,

and then multiplied this ratio by the

rebate amount.

BSC received one Article 54 loan in

fiscal year 76/77 and two Article 54

loans in fiscal year 77/78, all of which

were provided in U.S. dollars and are

still outstanding. BSC also received

interest rebates during the first five

years of the 76/77 loan. Because BSC

qualified for the interest rebate at the

time the loan was granted, we

considered the rebate to constitute a

reduction in the interest rate charged

rather than a grant.

We considered the loan made to BSC

during its creditworthy period (i.e., in

BSC’s 76/77 fiscal year) separately from

the two loans made during its

uncreditworthy period (i.e., in BSC’s 77/

78 fiscal year). For the Article 54 loan

provided when BSC was creditworthy,

we used as our benchmark the average

U.S. long-term commercial rate for 1977.

We used this rate because we did not

have information on U.S. dollar loans

borrowed in the UK in 1977. To

calculate the benefit from this loan we

employed our long-term loan

methodology (see section 355.49(c)(1) of

the Proposed Regulations). We then

compared the amount of interest that

would have been paid on the

benchmark loan to the interest paid by

BSC (factoring in the interest rebate as

discussed above) and found that BSC’s

interest payments were higher than

those it would have made on the

benchmark loan. Therefore, we find that

this particular loan was provided on

terms consistent with commercial

considerations.

For the loans provided when BSC was

uncreditworthy, we used as our

benchmark the highest U.S. lending rate

available for long-term fixed rate loans

at the time the loan was granted, plus

a risk premium equal to 12 percent of

the U.S. prime rate for 1977. See, Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: New Steel Rail, Except

Light Rail, from Canada (54 FR 31991;

August 3, 1989); see also, section

355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed

Regulations. Again, we used a U.S.

interest rate because we did not have

information on U.S. dollar loans

borrowed in the UK in 1977. We then

compared the cost of the benchmark

financing to the cost of the financing

that BSC received under this program

and found that the two Article 54 loans

to BSC during its uncreditworthy period

were provided on terms inconsistent

with commercial considerations.

To calculate the benefit from these

loans we used our long-term loan

methodology (see section 355.49(c)(1) of

the Proposed Regulations). Using this

methodology and a benchmark discount

rate which includes a risk premium (see

section 355.44(b)(6)(iv) of the Proposed

Regulations), we calculated the grant

equivalent and allocated it over the life

of the loans. Then we calculated the

1992 and 1993 allocation of subsidies

from BSC to UES, as described above

(Allocation of Subsidies From BSC to

UES). We then divided the subsidies

allocated to UES for each year by the

company’s total sales in the respective

year to calculate the ad valorem benefit

for each year. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

for this program to be 0.0005 percent ad

valorem for 1992 and 0.0004 percent ad

valorem for 1993.

B. Subsidies Provided to UES

Assistance Under the Inner Urban Areas

Act 1978

UES received two grants under the

Inner Urban Areas Act, one in 1988 and

one in 1992. Under this program, the

Secretary of State for the Environment

provides grants to 57 local authorities in

the United Kingdom for the

improvement of downtrodden urban

areas. The Department of the

Environment (DOE) selects these areas

based upon census data. The local

authorities submit program plans to the

DOE for evaluation. Assistance is

awarded on a discretionary basis

depending on the quality of the

proposed scheme and the benefit to the

community, by either creating jobs or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24837

improving the environment. Under

Section 5 of the Act, a private company

can apply for a grant to be used for

environmental improvement (i.e.,

beautification of industrial areas).

Approximately 10 percent of the money

is given to private companies.

Because assistance under the Inner

Urban Areas Act is awarded only to

local authorities and companies located

in selected regions of the United

Kingdom, we conclude that payments

under this program are countervailable

(see the Memorandum for Paul L. Joffe

from Joseph A. Spetrini, dated May 3,

1995, Administrative Review of the

Countervailing Duty Order on Certain

Hot-rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon

Steel Products which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the Department of Commerce)

(Memorandum). Further, because

receipt of these grants is based on

separate applications which have to

meet the required criteria, and

consistent with our determinations in

Certain Steel (see 58 FR at 37726–7), we

determine these grants to be nonrecurring. Therefore, we have calculated

the benefit for the POR using our

standard methodology for non-recurring

grants. Both of the grants received by

UES under this program were less than

0.5 percent of UES Ltd.’s total sales, and

thus were allocated to the year of

receipt. On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidies for this

program to be 0.0012 percent ad

valorem for 1992 and zero for 1993.

II. Program Preliminarily Determined

Not to Confer Subsidies

Article 55 Assistance

UES received Article 55 assistance

between 1989 and 1992 for a project

involving multi-oxygen lances. Under

Article 55 of the ECSC Treaty, assistance

is made available to ‘‘promote technical

and economic research relating to the

production and increased use of coal

and steel and to occupational safety in

the coal and steel industries.’’ Since the

end of 1986, this program has been

funded solely through levies on steel

producing companies.

Because the results of the research

conducted under Article 55 are made

publicly available, we find this program

to be not countervailable (see

Memorandum). Moreover, we note that

to the extent that Article 55 assistance

is funded solely by levies on steel

companies, we would find no benefit.

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined

Not To Be Used

We also examined the following

programs and preliminarily determine

that exporters of certain hot-rolled lead

and bismuth carbon steel products from

the United Kingdom did not use them

during the review period (see

Memorandum; see also Memorandum

For the File, ECSC Article 56(2)(b) from

the Team, dated March 3, 1995, which

is on file in the Central Records Unit,

Room B–099 of the Department of

Commerce):

(A) New Community Instrument Loans

(B) ECSC Article 54 Loan Guarantees

(C) NLF Loans

(D) ECSC Conversion Loans

(E) European Regional Development

Fund Aid

(F) Article 56 Rebates

(G) Regional Selective Assistance

(H) ECSC Article 56(b)(2) Redeployment

Aid

(I) BRITE/EuRAM II

Preliminary Results of Review

In accordance with 19 CFR

355.22(b)(1), an administrative review

‘‘normally will cover entries or exports

of merchandise during the most recently

completed reporting year of the

government of the affected country.’’

However, because this is the first

administrative review of this

countervailing duty order, in

accordance with 19 CFR § 355.22(b)(2),

it covers the period, and the

corresponding entries, ‘‘from the date of

suspension of liquidation * * * to the

end of the most recently completed

reporting year of the government of the

affected country.’’ This period is

September 17, 1992 through December

31, 1993. Because the reporting year of

the Government of the United Kingdom

is the calendar year, we calculated a

separate net subsidy for each year, 1992

and 1993.

Furthermore, during the 1993

calendar year, certain entries were not

subject to suspension of liquidation.

The Department issued its preliminary

affirmative countervailing duty

determination in the investigation on

September 17, 1992 (57 FR 42974). On

October 16, 1992, in accordance with

section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), we aligned

the final determination with the final

determination in the companion

antidumping duty investigation of the

same merchandise (57 FR 48020;

October 21, 1992). On November 6,

1992, at the request of respondents, we

postponed both final determinations

until January 11, 1993 (57 FR 53691;

November 12, 1992), and on January 11,

1993, we postponed for a second time

both determinations until January 19,

1993 (58 FR 4981; January 19, 1993).

Pursuant to section 705 of the Act and

Article 5.3 of the GATT Subsidies Code,

we cannot require suspension of

liquidation for more than 120 days

without the issuance of a countervailing

duty order. Therefore, the Department

instructed Customs to terminate the

suspension of liquidation of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after January 15, 1993. The Department

reinstated suspension of liquidation and

required cash deposits of estimated

countervailing duties of entries made on

or after March 22, 1993, the date of the

publication of the countervailing duty

order. Merchandise entered on or after

January 15, 1993 and before March 22,

1993 is to be liquidated without regard

to countervailing duties.

For the period September 17, 1992

through December 31, 1992, we

preliminarily determine the net subsidy

to be 20.33 percent ad valorem for ASW

Limited and 7.03 percent ad valorem for

all other companies. For the periods

January 1, 1993 through January 14,

1993, and March 22, 1993 through

December 31, 1993, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be 20.33

percent ad valorem for ASW Limited,

2.68 percent ad valorem for United

Engineering Steels (UES), and 9.76

percent ad valorem for all other

companies.

If the final results of this review

remain the same as these preliminary

results, the Department intends to

instruct the Customs Service to assess

the following countervailing duties:
24838 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

Period Company Rate

(percent)

September 17, 1992–December 31, 1992 ............................................................................................. ASW Limited ....................... 20.33

All other companies ............ 7.03

January 1, 1993–January 14, 1993 ....................................................................................................... ASW Limited ....................... 20.33

UES .................................... 2.68

All other companies ............ 9.76

March 22, 1993–December 31, 1993 .................................................................................................... ASW Limited ....................... 20.33

UES .................................... 2.68

All other companies ............ 9.76

The Department also intends to

instruct the Customs Service to collect

a cash deposit of estimated

countervailing duties of 20.33 percent of

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

of the subject merchandise from ASW

Limited, 2.68 percent of the f.o.b.

invoice price on all shipments of the

subject merchandise from UES, and 9.76

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

shipments of the subject merchandise

from all other companies, except

Glynwed (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 this

review.

Interested parties may request

disclosure of the calculation

methodology and may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Case briefs or other written

comments from interested parties may

be submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments,

limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed not later than 37

days after the date of publication. 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 section 355.38(e) of the

Commerce regulations.

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

section 355.38(c), 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. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 355.22.

Dated: May 3, 1995.

Paul L. Joffe,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11530 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

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), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instruments

shown below are intended to be used,

are being manufactured in the United

States.

Comments must comply with 15 CFR

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and

be filed within 20 days with the

Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. Applications may be

examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00

P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

Docket Number: 95–028. Applicant:

University of Rhode Island, Graduate

School of Oceanography, Narragansett,

RI 02882. Instrument: Chlorophyll

Fluorescence Measuring System, Model

PAM 101. Manufacturer: Heinz Walz

GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used to perform

fluorescence measurements on natural

and experimental phytoplankton to

ascertain characteristics of productivity.

Application Accepted by Commissioner

of Customs: April 6, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–029. Applicant:

University of Minnesota, Department of

Civil Engineering, 500 Pillsbury Drive

SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

Instrument: Gyratory Compactor.

Manufacturer: Invelop Oy, Finland.

Intended Use: The instrument will be

used for studies of typical asphalts with

polymer modified binders and portions

of mineral aggregates with such

materials as recycled tire rubber, glass,

and roofing shingles. Experiments will

be conducted to determine changes in

angle and speed of gyration, axial

confinement, and sample size required

to most closely approximate field

compaction conditions, shear resistance

and in-place volumetrics. This

instrument will also be used for

teaching purposes in the Civil

Engineering Department courses on

Bituminous Mixtures (CE 5701) and

Special Topics in Research (CE 8089).

Application Accepted by Commissioner

of Customs: April 7, 1995.

Docket Number: 95–031. Applicant:

University of Maryland, Linguistics

Department, 1401 Marie Mount Hall,

College Park, MD 20742-7515.

Instrument: Monocular Oculometer for

the Human Eye. Manufacturer: Dr.

Bouis, Germany. Intended Use: The

instrument will be used to record eye

movements during continuous reading

of individual sentences and text in

experiments involving individual

subjects tested on linguistic materials.

Application Accepted by Commissioner

of Customs: April 10, 1995.

Frank W. Creel,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.

[FR Doc. 95–11528 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–F

Minority Business Development

Agency

Solicitation of Business Development

Center Applications for Charleston, SC

and Brooklyn, NY

AGENCY: Minority Business

Development Agency, Commerce.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive

Order 11625 and 15 U.S.C. 1512, the

Minority Business Development Agency

(MBDA) is soliciting competitive

applications from organizations to

operate the Minority Business

Development Center (MBDC) listed in

this document.

The purpose of the MBDC Program is

to provide business development

services to the minority business

community to help establish and

maintain viable minority businesses. To