Vol. 136, No. 43 — October 26, 2002

COMMISSIONS

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

DETERMINATION

Industrial Equipment

Notice is hereby given that, after completing its inquiry, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) made a determination (File No. PR-2002-015) on October 15, 2002, with respect to a complaint filed by ZENON Environmental Inc. (the complainant), of Oakville, Ontario, under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47, as amended by the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, S.C. 1993, c. 44, concerning a procurement (Solicitation No. W8482-01TF04/A) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) on behalf of the Department of National Defence. The solicitation was for the repair and overhaul of shipboard reverse osmosis desalinators.

The complainant alleged that PWGSC awarded a contract to a bidder whose proposal did not meet all the mandatory requirements of the solicitation document.

Having examined the evidence presented by the parties and considered the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade, the Tribunal determined that the complaint was valid.

Further information may be obtained from: The Secretary, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Standard Life Centre, 15th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue W, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G7, (613) 993-3595 (Telephone), (613) 990-2439 (Facsimile).

Ottawa, October 15, 2002

SUSANNE GRIMES
Acting Secretary

[43-1-o]

CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL

INQUIRY

Textiles and Apparel

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) has received a complaint (File No. PR-2002-029) from Papp Plastics & Distributing Limited, of Windsor, Ontario, concerning a procurement (Solicitation No. W8486-03JXAB/A) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) on behalf of the Department of National Defence. The solicitation is for the repair of trunk lockers. Pursuant to subsection 30.13(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act and subsection 7(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Tribunal has decided to conduct an inquiry into the complaint.

It is alleged that PWGSC's evaluation process was unfair, that PWGSC's tender specifications were biased and that PWGSC improperly evaluated other bidders as being compliant.

Further information may be obtained from: The Secretary, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Standard Life Centre, 15th Floor, 333 Laurier Avenue W, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G7, (613) 993-3595 (Telephone), (613) 990-2439 (Facsimile).

Ottawa, October 15, 2002

SUSANNE GRIMES
Acting Secretary

[43-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES

The following notices are abridged versions of the Commission's original notices bearing the same number. The original notices contain a more detailed outline of the applications, including additional locations and addresses where the complete files may be examined. The relevant material, including the notices and applications, is available for viewing during normal business hours at the following offices of the Commission:

— Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, Room G-5, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec K1A 0N2, (819) 997-2429 (Telephone), 994-0423 (TDD), (819) 994-0218 (Facsimile);

— Bank of Commerce Building, Suite 1007, 1809 Barrington Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K8, (902) 426-7997 (Telephone), 426-6997 (TDD), (902) 426-2721 (Facsimile);

— Kensington Building, Suite 1810, 275 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2B3, (204) 983-6306 (Telephone), 983-8274 (TDD), (204) 983-6317 (Facsimile);

— 530-580 Hornby Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 3B6, (604) 666-2111 (Telephone), 666-0778 (TDD), (604) 666-8322 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, 405 De Maisonneuve Boulevard E, 2nd Floor, Suite B2300, Montréal, Quebec H2L 4J5, (514) 283-6607 (Telephone), 283-8316 (TDD), (514) 283-3689 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, 55 St. Clair Avenue E, Suite 624, Toronto, Ontario M4T 1M2, (416) 952-9096 (Telephone), (416) 954-6343 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, Cornwall Professional Building, Room 103, 2125 11th Avenue, Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3X3, (306) 780-3422 (Telephone), (306) 780-3319 (Facsimile);

— C.R.T.C. Documentation Centre, 10405 Jasper Avenue, Suite 520, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3N4, (780) 495-3224 (Telephone), (780) 495-3214 (Facsimile).

Interventions must be filed with the Secretary General, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, together with proof that a true copy of the intervention has been served upon the applicant, on or before the deadline given in the notice.

Secretary General

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

DECISIONS

The complete text of the decisions summarized below is available from the offices of the CRTC.

2002-301 October 10, 2002

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Regina, Warmley, Wynyard and Yorkton, Saskatchewan

Approved — Addition of transmitters in Warmley, Wynyard and Yorkton.

2002-302 October 10, 2002

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Saskatoon, Big River, Greenwater Lake, North Battleford, Prince Albert, Spiritwood and Tisdale, Saskatchewan

Approved — Addition of transmitters in Big River, Greenwater Lake, North Battleford, Prince Albert, Spiritwood and Tisdale.

2002-303 October 10, 2002

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Toronto, Kapuskasing, Kearns, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and Timmins, Ontario

Approved — Addition of transmitters in Kapuskasing, Kearns, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and Timmins.

2002-304 October 11, 2002

Craig Broadcast Systems Inc.
Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Foxwarren, Melita and McCreary, Manitoba Craig Broadcast Alberta Inc. Calgary, Lethbridge, Edmonton and Red Deer, Alberta

Approved — Renewal of the broadcasting licences for television stations and transmitters in Manitoba and Alberta, of which Craig Broadcast Systems Inc. and Craig Broadcast Alberta Inc., respectively, are the licensees, expiring August 31, 2009.

2002-305 October 11, 2002

Craig Broadcast Alberta Inc.
Edmonton and Red Deer, Alberta

Approved — Renewal of the broadcasting licence for CKEM-TV and its transmitter CKEM-TV-1 expiring August 31, 2009.

2002-306 October 11, 2002

Craig Broadcast Alberta Inc.
Calgary and Lethbridge, Alberta

Approved — Renewal of the broadcasting licence for the television programming undertaking CKAL-TV Calgary and its transmitter CKAL-TV-1 Lethbridge expiring August 31, 2009.

2002-307 October 11, 2002

Craig Broadcast Systems Inc.
Brandon, Foxwarren, Melita and McCreary, Manitoba

Approved — Renewal of the broadcasting licence for the television programming undertaking CKX-TV Brandon and its transmitters CKX-TV-1 Foxwarren, CKX-TV-2 Melita and CKX-TV-3 McCreary expiring August 31, 2009.

2002-308 October 11, 2002

Craig Broadcast Systems Inc.
Portage La Prairie/Winnipeg, Manitoba

Approved — Renewal of the licence for the television programming undertaking CHMI-TV Portage La Prairie/Winnipeg. The licence will expire August 31, 2009.

2002-309 October 11, 2002

Quinte Cablevision Limited
Picton, Ontario

Approved — Transfer of control of the Class 2 cable distribution undertaking serving Picton.

2002-310 October 11, 2002

Westman Media Cooperative Ltd.
Brandon and Dauphin, Manitoba

Approved — Distribution of additional signals on a discretionary digital basis on Class 1 and Class 2 cable distribution undertakings serving Brandon and Dauphin.

2002-311 October 16, 2002

Cameron Bell Consultancy Ltd.
Squamish, British Columbia

Approved — Extension of the time limit to commence the operation of the new low-power tourist information service in Squamish to February 5, 2003.

2002-312 October 16, 2002

Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario and Gatineau, Quebec

Approved — Extension of the time limit to commence the operation of the new radio programming undertaking in Ottawa/ Gatineau (formerly, Hull) to July 4, 2003.

2002-313 October 16, 2002

Radio 1540 Limited
Ottawa, Ontario and Gatineau, Quebec

Approved — Extension of the time limit to commence the operation of the new radio programming undertaking in Ottawa/ Gatineau (formerly, Hull) to April 4, 2003.

2002-314 October 16, 2002

Radio du Golfe inc.
Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and La Martre, Quebec

Approved — Extension of the time limit to commence the operation of the new transmitter of CJMC-FM Sainte-Anne-des-Monts at La Martre to January 25, 2003.

2002-315 October 16, 2002

Shaw Cablesystems Company
Courtenay, Comox, Powell River, British Columbia

Approved — Extension of the time limit to serve the municipality of Black Creek to July 26, 2003.

2002-316 October 16, 2002

WETV Canada Corporation
Across Canada

Approved — Amendment of the condition of licence of the Category 2 national specialty television service The Green Channel, relating to the definition of the term "broadcast day" as noted in the Decision.

2002-317 October 16, 2002

Yorkton Broadcasting Company Limited and Walsh Investments Inc., partners in a general partnership known as GX Radio Partnership
Yorkton and Swan River, Manitoba

Approved — New transmitter in Swan River.

2002-318 October 16, 2002

Native Communication Inc.
Thompson and Hollow Water Indian Reserve, Manitoba

Approved — New transmitter in Hollow Water Indian Reserve.

2002-319 October 18, 2002

Complaint by the Black Market Coalition alleging that CTY Telecom is operating an unlicensed broadcasting distribution undertaking.

2002-320 October 18, 2002

TQS inc.
Montréal, Quebec

Approved — Authority to effect the transfer of 4,000,000 common shares in 3947424 Canada Inc., the parent of TQS, from Bell Globemedia Inc. to CTV Television Inc.

2002-321 October 18, 2002

Suite Systems Inc.
Calgary, Edmonton, etc., Alberta; Regina and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Winnipeg, Manitoba

The Commission revokes the regional licence for the broadcasting distribution undertaking to serve Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, Airdrie and Banff, Alberta; Regina and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; and Winnipeg, Manitoba.

2002-322 October 18, 2002

Telile:Isle Madame Community Television Association/ Association Télévision Communautaire de l'Île Madame
Isle Madame, Nova Scotia

Approved — Broadcasting licence to operate an English and French-language remote community-based television programming undertaking at Isle Madame. The licence will expire August 31, 2009.

[43-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC HEARING 2002-12

The Commission will hold a public hearing commencing on December 2, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., at the Conference Centre, Portage IV, 140 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau, Quebec, to consider the following:

Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-255

Netstar Communications Inc. (Netstar) and its affiliate Le Réseau des sports RDS Inc. (RDS) filed a complaint with the Commission on April 22, 2002, alleging that Vidéotron ltée and its affiliated broadcasting distribution undertakings (Vidéotron) are in violation of section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Regulations).

Section 9 of the Regulations states that no licensee shall give an undue preference to any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue disadvantage.

On August 29, 2002, the Commission decided in Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-255, complaint by Netstar Communications Inc. and its subsidiary Le Réseau des Sports (RDS) inc. alleging that Vidéotron ltée contravened section 9 of the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, that:

1. Vidéotron, by unilaterally reducing the royalties payable to Netstar/RDS gave itself an undue preference and subjected RDS to an undue disadvantage.

2. Vidéotron gave an undue preference to LCN and to itself by unilaterally reducing payments made to RDS, and by not concurrently reducing those payable to LCN.

3. Vidéotron had to make all payments owed to Netstar/RDS that have accumulated from the date that the first unilateral reductions were imposed. Also, within ten days of this decision, Vidéotron had to provide the Commission with a written explanation of how it intended to comply with this decision.

On September 6, 2002, the Commission received a letter from Vidéotron stating that "under the current circumstances, it does not believe the payment of all sums due to Netstar/RDS to be appropriate" (translation). Vidéotron also added that "considering the way the CRTC has carried out its inquiry and wrote its decision, Vidéotron is of the view that this is not a case justifying the Commission's call to a public hearing" (translation).

On September 10, 2002, RDS requested that the Commission convene a public hearing at the earliest available date for the purpose of issuing a mandatory order pursuant to section 12 of the Broadcasting Act compelling Vidéotron to comply with the Regulations and the Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-255.

Further information concerning the exchange of correspondence may be found in the public record of this proceeding. Interested parties should note that additional documents will be added to the public file.

Mandatory order

Pursuant to section 12 of the Broadcasting Act, the Commission calls Vidéotron ltée to the public hearing to inquire into, hear and determine whether a mandatory order should be issued.

The Commission expects representatives from Vidéotron ltée, its holding companies and any of its affiliated distribution undertakings, to attend the hearing.

Vidéotron is expected to show cause at this hearing why a mandatory order requiring it to comply with section 9 of the Regulations, as well as Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-255, should not be issued.

Call for comments — Three-phase process

In order to gather additional information with respect to this application and to co-ordinate the Commission's efforts more efficiently, the Commission establishes the following public process:

Phase 1

The Commission requires that no later than October 24, 2002, Vidéotron file any documentation and arguments it believes pertinent and justifies why a mandatory order requiring it to comply with section 9 of the Regulations, as well as Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2002-255, should not be issued.

The above information will be placed on the public file upon receipt to permit all parties to comment.

Phase 2

The Commission invites interested parties to provide written comments concerning the documentation and arguments filed by Vidéotron. Interested parties have until November 4, 2002, to file their comments and send a copy of their submission to Vidéotron at the address below. The complete process for filing comments is outlined at the end of this notice.

Phase 3

The Commission will give Vidéotron until November 12, 2002, to reply to the comments filed in Phase 2 of this proceeding.

Procedure for filing comments

Licensee's address: Vidéotron ltée, 300 Viger Avenue E, Montréal (Quebec) H2X 3W4, (514) 380-4664 (Facsimile).

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS

November 4, 2002

The comments must be received by the CRTC and by Vidéotron on or before the above-mentioned date. The Commission cannot be held responsible for postal delays.

Comments will be considered by the Commission, and will form part of the public record of the proceeding without further notification to the sender, provided the procedure set out below has been followed. Only those whose comments raise procedural questions will be contacted.

Written comments must be sent to the Secretary General of the Commission in only one of the following formats: by electronic mail to procedure@crtc.gc.ca, by mail at Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, or by facsimile to the Secretary General at (819) 994-0218.

A true copy must be sent to Vidéotron and proof that this has been done must accompany the comments sent to the Commission.

Where the comments are filed by electronic means, the line ^***End of document^*** should be entered following the last paragraph of the document, as an indication that the document has not been damaged during electronic transmission.

Please note that only the documents electronically filed will be available on the Commission's Web site. Access to these documents will be available by indicating the notice of public hearing number.

Each paragraph of the document should be numbered.

In exceptional circumstances, the Commission may allow an intervenor to present its comments by teleconference. At the time of filing its comments, the intervenor must clearly indicate why the Commission should grant such a request.

Persons requiring communications support such as assistive listening devices and sign language interpretation are requested to inform the Commission at least 20 days before the commencement of the public hearing so that the necessary arrangements can be made.

October 10, 2002

[43-1-o]

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC NOTICE 2002-62

Proposal by the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) to Exempt Small Cable Undertakings — Call for Comment

The Commission calls for comment on a proposal by the Canadian Cable Television Association, first, to amend the Exemption Order for Small Cable Undertakings by making provision within it for the exemption of persons operating former Part III cable systems, and second, to issue a new Order exempting from regulation the operators of all Class 2 cable licensees.

Background

1. Section 9(4) of the Broadcasting Act(see footnote 1)  (the Act), directs that the Commission shall exempt from licensing requirements the operators of those classes of broadcasting undertakings, the licensing of which, in the Commission's view, will not contribute in a material manner to the objectives of the Act.

2. In the Proposed Exemption Order for Small Cable Systems, Public Notice CRTC 2000-162, December 7, 2000, the Commission noted that smaller cable broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) generally have fewer employees and more limited resources than larger BDUs, and are therefore more greatly affected by the administrative burden of dealing with the Commission. It therefore invited comment on a proposed exemption order that would exempt from licensing requirements small cable undertakings of a class defined, in part, as those that serve "small and rural communities with a population of less than 10 000 and are operated by persons that, in total, serve less than 2 000 subscribers."

3. Subsequently, in Changes to the Commission's Approach to Cable Undertakings, Public Notice CRTC 2001-59, May 29, 2001 (Public Notice 2001-59), the Commission amended its proposed definition of small cable undertaking to include those where, "in total, the number of subscribers served by the individual undertaking is less than 2 000, the undertaking has its own head end, and does not serve all or part of the same licensed area as a cable undertaking that is a Class 1 or Class 2 licensee, as defined in the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations." The Commission also announced its determination that the licensing of such small cable undertakings was no longer necessary to meet the objectives of the Act.

4. Consistent with the determination reached in Public Notice 2001-59, the Commission issued the Exemption Order Respecting Cable Systems Having Fewer Than 2 000 Subscribers, Public Notice CRTC 2001-121, December 7, 2001. The Commission appended to this notice its Exemption Order for Small Cable Undertakings (the Small Cable Exemption Order). By this Order, and subject to certain conditions of exemption, the Commission exempted small cable undertakings from licensing requirements made under the Act. These conditions of exemption eliminate the administrative burden of licensing, while ensuring that these undertakings continue to fulfil the same obligations to which they had been subject as Class 3 undertakings under the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations (the Regulations). The Commission's overall purpose was to allow these small cable undertakings serving rural areas to focus their energies on responding to increasing competition from both direct-to-home (DTH) and multipoint distribution system (MDS) undertakings, and on providing their customers with better and more diverse communications services.

The CCTA's application

5. On July 5, 2002, the Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) submitted a proposal that the Commission amend the Small Cable Exemption Order to include Class 3 cable undertakings that had been licensed as Part III licensees under the former Regulations, namely the Cable Television Regulations, 1986. Unlike other Class 3 systems, the former Part III licensees operate systems having more than 2 000 subscribers, although many of these systems are located in remote or isolated regions. Such an amendment would affect 45 Class 3 cable systems serving a total of 171 734 subscribers.

6. The CCTA's proposal included a proposition that the Small Cable Exemption Order be further amended to include those Class 2 cable undertakings that are not affiliated with the four largest cable multi-system operators (MSOs), namely Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Vidéotron ltée and Cogeco Cable Inc.

7. In response to the Commission's questions with respect to the current obligations of Class 2 cable systems, the CCTA modified its proposal. Specifically, instead of an amendment that would have included just the non-affiliated Class 2 licensees in the Small Cable Exemption Order, the CCTA proposed that a new exemption order be issued to exempt all Class 2 licensees. The amended proposal for an order that would embrace all Class 2 licensees, as well as all former Part III licensees, would result in the exemption of an additional 96 cable systems serving a total of 376 784 subscribers.

8. The CCTA indicated that, if the Commission were to exempt all Class 2 licensees, it would accept, as the conditions of such exemption, the inclusion of the following obligations that currently apply to Class 2 licensees:

— requirements for the distribution of French-language services contained in sections 16(1) and 18 of the Regulations;

— requirements for the distribution of priority services, as determined by section 17(1) of the Regulations;

— obligations concerning contributions to Canadian programming pursuant to section 29(1) of the Regulations;

— requirements for the carriage of the TVA and APTN programming services, pursuant, respectively, to Decision CRTC 98-488, October 29, 1998, and to Decision CRTC 99-42, February 22, 1999; and

— requirements for the carriage of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees pursuant to Call for comments — Proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations; Distribution of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its various committees, Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2002-34, July 5, 2002.

9. The CCTA proposed that the following existing obligations of Class 2 cable systems not be included as conditions of exemption:

— the distribution and linkage requirements of section 20 of the Regulations;

— the simultaneous substitution requirements of section 30 of the Regulations; and

— the obligations respecting the installation and provision of basic service contained in section 48 of the Regulations.

10. The CCTA included with its request, its proposed text for an amended Small Cable Exemption Order and for a new exemption order for Class 2 cable licensees. These texts appear in Appendices E and F, respectively, of the CCTA's letter dated August 16, 2002. This letter has been placed on the public file.

Call for comments

11. The Commission seeks comments on the CCTA's proposal, and on the following questions:

(a) Does licensing of the former Part III licensees continue to contribute materially to the objectives of the Act?

(b) Does licensing of Class 2 licensees that are affiliated with the four largest Canadian MSOs continue to contribute materially to the objectives of the Act?

(c) Does licensing of Class 2 licensees that are not affiliated with the four largest MSOs continue to contribute materially to the objectives of the Act?

(d) What impact, if any, would there be on subscribers of Class 2 or Class 3 systems that are exempted from regulation?

(e) If Class 2 or the remaining Class 3 licensees are exempted from regulation, what impact, if any, would there be on competition, first, between cable systems, and second, between cable systems, DTH undertakings and MDS undertakings?

(f) Taking into consideration that the Small Cable Exemption Order is for systems with fewer than 2 000 subscribers, and that certain Part III systems have more than 2 000 subscribers, if the Commission were to amend this exemption order to include the former Part III licensees, how might these systems be defined as a class of undertaking so as to satisfy the requirements of section 9(4) of the Act?

(g) If the Commission were to exempt only those Class 2 licensees that are not affiliated with the four largest MSOs, how might this group be defined as a class of undertaking so as to satisfy the requirements of section 9(4) of the Act?

(h) The conditions of exemption contained in the current Small Cable Exemption Order generally match the obligations of Class 3 licensees as set out in the Regulations, and are generally similar to those under which the remaining Class 3 licensees operate. Class 2 licensees, however, are subject to additional obligations pursuant to the Regulations, as well as to various Commission decisions and orders. If the Commission were to decide to exempt any group of Class 2 licensees from regulation, what conditions should it apply?

12. The Commission will hold a two-stage written comment process for this proceeding. In the first stage, the Commission will accept comments that it receives on or before December 2, 2002. The Commission invites interested parties to file replies to any of the comments submitted during the first stage by January 2, 2003.

13. The Commission will not formally acknowledge comments. It will, however, fully consider all comments, and they will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided that the procedures for filing set out in the notice have been followed.

October 18, 2002

[43-1-o]

NAFTA SECRETARIAT

DECISION

Pure Magnesium from Canada

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to rule 70 of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, that the panel established to review the Final Results of the Full Sunset Review of the antidumping duty order made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting pure magnesium from Canada issued its decision on the determination on remand on October 15, 2002 (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-20001904-06).

In the October 15, 2002 decision, the binational panel remanded the agency's determination on remand respecting pure magnesium from Canada.

The binational panel instructed the investigating authority to provide its re-determination on remand by December 16, 2002.

Copies of the complete decision may be obtained from Canadian Government Publishing, Communication Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9, (819) 956-4802 (Telephone), (819) 994-1498 (Facsimile).

Explanatory Note

Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement establishes a procedure for replacing domestic judicial review of determinations in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by binational panels.

These panels are established, when a Request for Panel Review is received by the NAFTA Secretariat, to act in place of national courts to expeditiously review final determinations to determine whether they are in accordance with the anti-dumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico established the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews. These Rules were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on January 1, 1994.

Requests for information concerning the present notice, or concerning the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, should be addressed to the Canadian Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section, 90 Sparks Street, Suite 705, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B4, (613) 992-9388.

FRANÇOY RAYNAULD
Canadian Secretary

[43-1-o]

NAFTA SECRETARIAT

DECISION

Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from Canada

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to rule 70 of the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, that the panel established to review the final results of the Full Sunset Reviews of the Countervailing Duty Orders made by the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, respecting pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada issued its decision on the determination on remand on October 15, 2002 (Secretariat File No. USA-CDA-2000-1904-07).

In the October 15, 2002 decision, the binational panel affirmed in part and remanded in part the agency's determination on remand respecting pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from Canada.

The binational panel instructed the investigating authority to provide its re-determination on remand by November 29, 2002.

Copies of the complete decision may be obtained from Canadian Government Publishing, Communication Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9, (819) 956-4802 (Telephone), (819) 994-1498 (Facsimile).

Explanatory Note

Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement establishes a procedure for replacing domestic judicial review of determinations in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by binational panels.

These panels are established, when a Request for Panel Review is received by the NAFTA Secretariat, to act in place of national courts to expeditiously review final determinations to determine whether they are in accordance with the anti-dumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.

Under Article 1904 of the North American Free Trade Agreement which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico established the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews. These Rules were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on January 1, 1994.

Requests for information concerning the present notice, or concerning the NAFTA Article 1904 Panel Rules, should be addressed to the Canadian Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Canadian Section, 90 Sparks Street, Suite 705, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5B4, (613) 992-9388.

FRANÇOY RAYNAULD
Canadian Secretary

[43-1-o]

Footnote 1 

The section states: Exemptions — The Commission shall, by order, on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, exempt persons who carry on broadcasting undertakings of any class specified in the order from any or all of the requirements of this Part or of a regulation made under this Part where the Commission is satisfied that compliance with those requirements will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1).

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).