43984 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices

Vegetation removal would occur on

approximately 24 to 32 feet of the ROW;

the road surface proper would be

approximately 14 feet wide. Because

road grade and terrain would vary, the

amount of the 66-foot ROW affected and

the exact amount utilized per mile is

unknown. Plum Creek would construct

and maintain the roads according to

Forest Service road construction

standards and guidelines.

The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie LRMP (as

amended) provides guidance for access

across National Forest System lands

through its goals, objectives, standards,

guidelines, and management direction.

An environmental document will be

produced which will display

alternatives considered, including no

action and the proposed action, and an

estimation of the effects of the

alternatives. The EIS will analyze the

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects

of the alternatives. Past, present, and

projected activities on both private and

National Forest System lands will be

considered. The EIS will disclose the

effects of site-specific mitigation.

Comments from the public will be

used to:

• Identify potential issues.

• Identify major issues to be analyzed

in depth.

• Eliminate minor issues or those that

have been covered by a previous

environmental analysis, such as the Mt.

Baker-Snoqualmie LRMP.

• Identify alternatives to the proposed

action.

• Identify potential environmental

effects of the proposed action and

alternatives.

• Determine potential cooperating

agencies and task assignments.

Issues identified as the result of

internal scoping include:

• How will wildlife and wildlife

habitat be affected by the project;

• Will unique plant communities be

affected;

• Will fish habitat be affected

downstream, especially in Sawmill

Creek which has a distinct population of

trout as well as coho and steelhead that

are being planted by the State and the

Muckleshoot Tribe;

• Will water quality be affected by

sedimentation from mass wasting and

surface erosion;

• Will large woody material be

affected;

• Will water temperature be affected;

• The conversion of areas without

roads to roaded areas; and

• Will cultural properties or heritage

sites be impacted.

An initial scoping letter was mailed

on August 8, 1997. One public scoping

meeting will be held on September 9,

1997, at the North Bend Ranger District

from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The

responses and information provided

during scoping will be compiled and

will be incorporated into the analysis.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed

in December 1997. The comment period

on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the

date the Environmental Protection

Agency publishes the notice of

availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes that it is

important to give reviewers notice at

this early stage of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of the draft EIS must structure

their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is

meaningful and alerts an agency to the

reviewer’s position and contentions.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.

NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also,

environmental objections that could be

raised at the draft EIS stage but that are

not raised until after completion of the

final EIS may be waived or dismissed by

the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803

F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir, 1986) and

Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490

F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).

Because of these court rulings, it is very

important that those interested in this

proposed action participate by the close

of the 45-day comment period so that

substantive comments and objections

are made available to the Forest Service

at a time when it can meaningfully

consider them and respond to them in

the final EIS. To assist the Forest

Service in identifying and considering

issues and concerns on the proposed

action, comments on the draft EIS

should be as specific as possible. It is

also helpful if comments refer to

specific pages or chapters of the draft

EIS. Comments may also address the

adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits

of the alternatives formulated and

discussed in the EIS. (Reviewers may

wish to refer to the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations for

implementing the procedural provisions

of the National Environmental Policy

Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing

these points.)

The final EIS is scheduled to be

completed in June 1998. In the final EIS,

the Forest Service is required to respond

to comments and responses received

during the comment period that pertain

to the environmental consequences

discussed in the draft EIS and

applicable laws, regulations, and

policies considered in making the

decision regarding this proposal. The

lead agency is the Forest Service.

Dennis E. Bschor, Supervisor of the Mt.

Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, is

the responsible official. As the

responsible official, he will document

the decision and the reasons for the

decision in the Record of Decision. That

decision will be subject to Forest

Service appeal regulations (CFR Part

215).

Dated: August 7, 1997.

Terry L. Degrow,

Acting Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 97–21786 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–489–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes and Welded Carbon Steel

Line Pipe From Turkey; Final Results

of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

countervailing duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: On April 8, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative reviews of the

countervailing duty orders on certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes and

welded carbon steel line pipe from

Turkey for the period January 1, 1995

through December 31, 1995. The

Department has now completed these

administrative reviews in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended. For information on

the net subsidy for each reviewed

company, and for all non-reviewed

companies, please see the Final Results

of Reviews section of this notice. We

will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess countervailing duties as detailed

in the Final Results of Reviews section

of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Moore or Kelly Parkhill,

Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–3692 or (202) 482–2786.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices 43985

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

review on pipe and tube covers Erciyas

Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan),

a pipe and tube producer and exporter,

who specifically requested the review.

The review on line pipe covers

Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru

Endustrisi T.A.S. (Mannesmann), a line

pipe producer and exporter, who

specifically requested the review. These

reviews also cover 28 programs.

Since the publication of the

preliminary results on April 8, 1997 (62

FR 16782), the following events have

occurred. We invited interested parties

to comment on the preliminary results.

On May 8, 1997, a case brief was

submitted by the Government of Turkey

(GRT), Mannesmann, which exported

line pipe, and Erbosan, which exported

pipe and tube to the United States

during the review period (respondents).

On May 15, 1997, rebuttal briefs were

submitted by Mannesmann and by

Wheatland Tube Company (petitioner).

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) effective

January 1, 1995 (the Act). Citations to

the Department’s regulations are in

reference to those regulations codified at

19 CFR part 355, as they existed on

April 1, 1996. The Department is

conducting these administrative reviews

in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act.

Scope of the Reviews

Imports covered by these reviews are

shipments from Turkey of two classes or

kinds of merchandise. The first class or

kind is certain welded carbon steel pipe

and tube, having an outside diameter of

0.375 inch or more, but not over 16

inches, of any wall thickness. These

products, commonly referred to in the

industry as standard pipe and tube or

structural tubing, are produced to

various American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) specifications,

most notably A–53, A–120, A–135, A–

500, or A–501. The second class or kind

is certain welded carbon steel line pipe

with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch

or more, but not over 16 inches, and

with a wall thickness of not less than

.065 inch. These products are produced

to various American Petroleum Institute

(API) specifications for line pipe, most

notably API–L or API–LX. These

products are classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) item numbers

7306.30.10 and 7306.30.50. The HTSUS

item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Verification

We verified information provided by

the GRT, Erbosan and Mannesmann, as

provided in section 782(i) of the Act.

We followed standard verification

procedures, including meeting with

government and company officials, and

examining relevant accounting and

other original source documents. Our

verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification

reports, which are on file in the Central

Records Unit (Room B–099 of the Main

Commerce Building).

Analysis of Programs

Based upon the responses to our

questionnaire, the results of verification,

and written comments from the

interested parties we determine the

following:

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Program Previously Determined To

Confer Subsidies

Pre-Shipment Export Credit

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred a

countervailable subsidy on the subject

merchandise. Our review of the record

and our analysis of the comments

submitted by the interested parties,

summarized below, has not led us to

change our findings from the

preliminary results. Accordingly, the

net subsidies for this program remain

unchanged from the preliminary results

and are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter of pipe

and tube

Assessment

rate

Erbosan ..................................... 1.77%

Manufacturer/exporter of line

pipe

Assessment

rate

Mannesmann ............................ 0.73%

B. New Programs Determined to Confer

Subsidies

1. Investment Allowance

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred a

countervailable subsidy on the subject

merchandise. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to change our findings from the

preliminary results. Accordingly, the

net subsidies for this program remain

unchanged from the preliminary results

and are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter of pipe

and tube

Assessment

rate

Erbosan ..................................... 0.02%

2. Freight Program

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred a

countervailable subsidy on the subject

merchandise. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to change our findings from the

preliminary results. Accordingly, the

net subsidies for this program remain

unchanged from the preliminary results

and are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter of pipe

and tube

Assessment

rate

Erbosan ..................................... 1.02%

3. Resource Utilization Support

Premium

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred a

countervailable subsidy on the subject

merchandise. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to change our findings from the

preliminary results. Accordingly, the

net subsidies for this program remain

unchanged from the preliminary results

and are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter of pipe

and tube

Assessment

rate

Erbosan ..................................... 0.05%

4. Export Incentive Certificate Customs

Duty and Other Tax Exemptions

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred a

countervailable subsidy on the subject

merchandise. We did not receive any

comments on this program from the

interested parties. Accordingly, the net

subsidies for this program remain

unchanged from the preliminary results

and are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter of pipe

and tube

Assessment

rate

Erbosan ..................................... 0.06%

Manufacturer/exporter of line

pipe

Assessment

rate

Mannesmann ............................ 0.02%
43986 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices

5. Foreign Exchange Loan Assistance

In the preliminary results, we found

that this program conferred a

countervailable subsidy on the subject

merchandise. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has led us

to modify our findings from the

preliminary results for this program.

Accordingly, the net subsidies for this

program have changed and are as

follows:

Manufacturer/exporter of pipe

and tube

Assessment

rate

Erbosan ..................................... 1.10%

II. Programs Found To Be Not Used

In the preliminary results, we found

that the producers and/or exporters of

the subject merchandise did not apply

for or receive benefits under the

following programs:

A. Resource Utilization Support Fund

B. State Aid for Exports

C. Advance Refunds of Tax Savings

D. Export Credit Through the Foreign

Trade Corporate Companies

Rediscount Credit Facility (Eximbank)

E. Past Performance Related Foreign

Currency Export Loans (Eximbank)

F. Export Credit Insurance (Eximbank)

G. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit

Facilities

H. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of

Fixed Expenditures

I. Fund Based Credit

J. Regional Subsidies

1. Additional Refunds of VAT (VAT

+10%)

2. Postponement of VAT on Imported

Goods

3. Incentive Premium on domestically

Obtained Goods (Rebate of VAT on

Domestically-Sourced Machinery

and Equipment)

4. Land Allocation (GIP)

5. Taxes, Fees (Duties), Charge

Exemption (GIP)

Our analysis of the comments

submitted by the interested parties,

summarized below, has not led us to

change our findings from the

preliminary results for the programs

noted above.

III. Programs Found To Be Terminated

In the preliminary results, we found

that the following programs either never

existed or were terminated and that no

residual benefits were being provided:

A. Export Performance Credits

B. Deduction from Taxable Income for

Export Revenues

C. Preferential Export Financing Under

Decree 84/8861

D. Interest Spread Return Program (GIP)

E. Export Credits Under Communique

No. 1

F. Corporate Tax Deferral

G. Payment of Certain Obligations of

Firms Undertaking Large Investments

H. Subsidized Credit in Foreign

Currency

We did not receive any comments on

these programs from the interested

parties. Accordingly, the final results

remain unchanged from the preliminary

results.

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1: Erbosan argues that the

Department incorrectly found that the

pre-shipment loan program is an untied

export loan program. In Erbosan’s view,

the Department’s decision was based on

a finding that the loans are not

specifically tied to a particular

destination at the time the loans are

approved. However, Erbosan maintains

that the loans can be tied to particular

destinations because proof of export

must be provided in order to close out

the loan. Once an export is used to close

a loan it cannot be used to satisfy any

other loan commitments.

According to Erbosan, it is the

Department’s long-standing policy to

countervail pre-shipment loans obtained

in connection with shipments to the

United States if the loan can be tied to

specific shipments. For example, in

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Pasta from

Turkey, 61 FR 30366 (June 14, 1996)

(Turkish Pasta), the Department found

that these same pre-shipment loans

could be linked to particular

destinations. Erbosan also alleges that

the Department took the same course

regarding BANCOMEXT loans in

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Review: Certain Textile Mill Products

from Mexico, 60 FR 5166 (January 26,

1995) and Final Results of

Administrative Review: Certain Textile

Mill Products from Mexico, 60 FR 20965

(April 28, 1995) (Textile Mill Products

from Mexico). In this case, however,

Erbosan argues that the Department

departed from past practice and

modified its test in this review by

looking to see whether the destination is

known at the time the loan is approved.

Erbosan asserts that it makes no sense

to link the benefit to the approval date

since the benefit does not accrue from

this program until the merchandise is

shipped and the loan, with interest, is

repaid. Erbosan continues that parties

must be able to rely on the Department’s

past practice for purposes of being able

to plan for the future. The Department’s

departure in this case, therefore, is not

only unjustified, it is unreasonable.

Mannesmann does not agree with

Erbosan’s position and supports the

Department’s determination that the

loans under the pre-shipment program

are ‘‘untied.’’ Mannesmann points out

that Erbosan does not take issue with

the factual basis of the Department’s

determination. Namely, that the export

destinations actually used to close the

loans may be different than the export

destinations listed on the loan

application. Accordingly, Mannesmann

maintains that the destinations listed on

the loan application are nothing more

than ‘‘place-holders’’ since the actual

destinations used to fulfill the export

requirement may differ. For this reason,

the Department appropriately found the

pre-shipment loans ‘‘untied.’’

Mannesmann states that Erbosan is

correct to say that, when loans are tied

to specific destinations, the Department

countervails only loans that are tied to

U.S. shipments. However, in this case,

the Department specifically found that

the loans were not tied to specific

destinations because they were not tied

at the time of application. Although the

Department found these loans tied in

Turkish Pasta, Mannesmann asserts that

nowhere in that case does the

Department discuss the fact that loans

were not tied to destinations at the time

of application, presumably because the

Department was unaware of that fact.

Mannesmann also argues that the

Department has not departed from past

practice; the Department’s practice was

and is to tie U.S. loans to U.S.

shipments where possible. In this case,

the Department found that it was not

possible to make that link because the

destination that would ultimately be

used to fulfill the export requirement

was not known at the time of the loan

application. According to Mannesmann,

the Department has ‘‘modified its test’’

only to the extent that it addressed a fact

pattern that it had not encountered

before (or not been aware of before).

Finally, Mannesmann states that

Erbosan is incorrect to assert that the

benefits of pre-shipment export loans do

not accrue until the merchandise is

shipped and the loan repaid. These

loans are designed to assist companies

during the manufacturing stage, prior to

shipment—hence the name, ‘‘preshipment’’ loans. Mannesmann asserts

that during the period that the

manufacturer benefits from the loans,

the manufacturer does not need to

specify the export destination and, thus,

the Department’s determination that

these loans are untied is logical and

reasonable and should be sustained in

the final results.

The petitioner argues that the

Department should reaffirm its position
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices 43987

that pre-shipment export loans are

untied. According to the petitioner, the

pre-shipment loans purportedly

received in connection with exports to

the U.S. cannot validly be segregated by

export destination. The petitioner

claims that Erbosan’s own records

demonstrate that pre-shipment export

loans are granted to cover exports to all

countries, and numerous exports to

different destinations may be required

to equal the export loan commitment.

Thus, by Erbosan’s own admission, the

loans were not received in connection

with exports to the United States as

opposed to other export destinations.

Since Erbosan can use any exports it

chooses to close out a pre-shipment

export loan, any identification of loans

by Erbosan as specifically tied to U.S.

sales would be an artificial construct

subject to manipulation.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with Erbosan, and continue to believe

that the pre-shipment loan program is

an untied export loan program

countervailable under section

771(5)(E)(ii). Erbosan asserts that the

Department has unfairly modified its

‘‘test’’ for tying benefits to particular

shipments by looking to see whether the

destination is known at the time the

loan is approved, but as Mannesmann

correctly points out, the Department’s

practice is to attribute benefits to

specific merchandise or particular

destinations when the benefit is tied at

the point of bestowal to that

merchandise or destination. See, e.g.,

Notice of Final Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Review: Roses and

Other Cut Flowers from Colombia, 52 FR

48847, 48848 (December 28, 1987)

(Roses). In this case, we examined the

export destinations listed on the

application in order to determine

whether the loans were tied to

particular shipments from their

inception through their closure. In this

case, we examined the export

destinations listed on the application in

order to determine whether the loans

were tied to particular shipments from

their inception through their closure.

Based on the facts present in this case,

we found pre-shipment export loans to

be untied because the actual export

destinations used to close out the loans

were not always the same as the export

destinations listed on the loan

applications and exports to two or more

different destinations were also used to

close out a single loan. A loan cannot

be said to be tied to a particular

shipment when the recipient can pick

and choose which export destinations to

use to close out each loan.

While Erbosan is correct to note that

the Department has found loans tied to

specific shipments in Textile Mill

Products from Mexico, and that we

found pre-shipment export loans to be

tied to particular shipments in Turkish

Pasta, in those determinations, the

Department did not make a finding that

the loans were not tied to destinations

at the time of application. Therefore, it

is incorrect to point to these cases as

evidence for the proposition that

benefits need not be tied at the time of

approval of the pre-shipment loans and,

thus, that the Department is departing

from its past practice in Turkish Pasta

and Textile Mill Products from Mexico.

Rather, we are consistent with our past

practice of tying benefits to particular

shipments by ascertaining whether the

export destination was specified at the

time that the pre-shipment loan was

approved. Roses at 48848. We are not

linking per se, as Erbosan alleges, the

benefits from these loans to the

application date. On the contrary, we

are merely utilizing the more extensive

information regarding this program in

the instant review. We have determined

that pre-shipment export loans could

not be tied to particular shipments, but

were available for exports in general.

Comment 2: The respondents argue

that the Department improperly

deducted an amount referred to as the

‘‘exchange difference’’ from the verified

sales values used as the denominator to

calculate the benefit rates. According to

the respondents, the amount improperly

deducted represents a portion of the

proceeds recorded in a Turkish

company’s books from a sale that is

invoiced in a foreign currency. Because

of hyperinflation in Turkey, the

respondents can calculate the precise

Turkish Lira (TL) value of foreign

currency sales only after payment is

received and when the foreign currency

is converted to TL. The respondents first

record in their books an estimated TL

value for the sale using the exchange

rate in effect on the invoice date. When

the companies receive final payment,

the foreign currency value when

converted to TL is higher than the

amount that was recorded in the books

at the time of invoicing. This difference

is recorded in a separate exchange rate

difference account—the kur farki

account. According to the respondents,

consistent with Turkish GAAP, these

two accounts are added together to

equal the total sales value reflected on

the companies’ audited financial

statements.

The respondents continue that the

value in the kur farki account reflects

actual revenue earned from export sales.

The values are not a result of an

exchange rate scheme or a hedging

mechanism to generate exchange rate

gains. The respondents point out that

the questionnaire specifically asked for

the ‘‘total value’’ of total sales, and

defined the term ‘‘value’’ as the ‘‘actual

value booked and recorded in your

accounting records.’’ Accordingly, the

respondents reported the total sales

value as recorded in their accounting

records, i.e., the sum of the values in the

sales revenue accounts plus the sum of

the values in the kur farki account.

The petitioner argues that the

Department correctly excluded the

portion of the respondents’ sales values

that resulted from changes in the U.S.

dollar/Turkish lira exchange rates. The

petitioner states that the sales price is

recorded using the exchange rate on the

date of invoice and that subsequent

changes in the exchange rate are not

related to the sales price. If the sales

price were dependent on the date of

payment by the U.S. customer, the price

would vary based on when payment

was actually received. It is true that the

effect of Turkey’s hyperinflation is to

create exchange rate gains on all sales

where payment occurs after the invoice

date. However, according to the

petitioner, the gains are tied completely

to the rate of change in the exchange

rate and, as such, the gains are part of

non-operating expenses and income,

and are not properly recognized as sales

revenue. As a result, the petitioner

states that it is appropriate for the

Department to correct the respondents’

sales information for inappropriate

changes in the sales value that were

based on exchange rate gains.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the respondents. Despite Turkey’s

hyperinflation, Turkish companies do

not index any of the figures, other than

fixed assets, in their financial

statements to account for inflation. (See

Mannesmann verification report at page

2). See also Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determinations:

Certain Steel Products from Brazil, 58

FR 37295, 37298 (July 9, 1993).

Accordingly, we did not index any of

the program benefits received nor the

company-specific denominators (sales)

in our calculations of the subsidy

benefits for Mannesmann and Erbosan

in the Preliminary Results. However, if

we accepted the respondents’ position

and included exchange differences in

their sales figures, it would be

tantamount to indexing only half of the

equation—the denominator for export

subsidy programs. For example, a

domestic sale will generate the same

amount of TL between the date of sale

and the date of payment. On the other

hand, an export sale will generate more

TL on the date of payment due to the

effects of hyperinflation on the
43988 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices

exchange rate between that date and the

date of sale. The result of including kur

farki in the sales figures would be

equivalent to indexing export sales for

inflation and, thus, would inflate the

denominator while the program benefits

(the numerator) would remain

unindexed. Such a result would unfairly

distort the Department’s calculation. We

also disagree with the respondents’

argument that, alternatively, the

Department should adjust the

calculations to determine the subsidy

benefit to reflect the exchange rate in

effect on the date of export and not the

date of payment to ensure that the

benefit is not overstated, as it is

similarly designed to take advantage of

the impact of hyperinflation on the TL/

U.S. dollar exchange rate. Because, as

described, both of the methods

articulated by the respondents would

inaccurately decrease the subsidy rate

for export programs, we are maintaining

our position in the Preliminary Results

of not including exchange rate

differences in the respondents’ sales

figures.

Comment 3: The respondents argue

for the first time in their case brief that

the Investment Allowance program

should be deemed non-countervailable

under section 771(5B)(C) of the Act,

because the benefits are permissible

‘‘green light’’ subsidies provided only to

companies located in disadvantaged

regions. According to the respondents,

the Investment Allowance program, to

the extent that it provided greater

benefits to disadvantaged regions than

to developed regions, was specifically

designed to promote development in

disadvantaged regions. As a result, the

Department should consider it a

permissible ‘‘green light’’ benefit and

find it not countervailable in the final

results of this review.

Department’s Position: A green light

claim submitted for the first time in a

case brief cannot be considered by the

Department at this late stage in the

proceeding. See 19 CFR 355.31. The

respondents had ample opportunity to

submit a green light claim and to

provide supporting documentation

regarding the Investment Allowance

program within the time requirements

of 19 CFR 355.31 for submitting factual

information. This would have provided

the Department with time to request and

verify data, and provide the petitioner

with an adequate opportunity to

comment on the green light claim.

Indeed, the GRT claimed green light

status for the Resource Utilization

Support Premium program (RUSP) in its

November 25, 1996, supplemental

questionnaire response. Subsequently,

the Department issued three additional

supplemental questionnaires regarding

this green light claim in order to collect

the information necessary for our

analysis. We then examined this

information with respect to RUSP

during our verification in February

1997. However, the Department does

not have the necessary information

regarding the Investment Allowance

program, such as a breakdown of

Investment Allowance benefits by

industry and region, to conduct an

analysis of the green light claim for this

program. As a result, we have not

considered the claim of green light

status for the Investment Allowance

program in this proceeding.

Comment 4: The respondents disagree

with the Department’s decision in the

Preliminary Results that the Resource

Utilization Support Premium program

(RUSP) does not meet the green light

criteria set forth in Section 771(5B)(C) of

the Act. They claim that the RUSP was

specifically designed to promote the

development of disadvantaged regions.

Section 771(5B)(C) of the Act provides

that, if certain conditions are met, the

Department shall treat a subsidy to

disadvantaged regions as noncountervailable if the subsidy is

provided ‘‘pursuant to a general

framework of regional development, to

a person located in a disadvantaged

region and if it is not specific within

eligible regions * * * ’’ In addition, the

statute enumerates four conditions for

making such a determination: (1) The

disadvantaged region must be a clearly

designated contiguous geographical area

with a defined economic and

administrative identity; (2) the

designation of the region must be based

on neutral and objective criteria

indicating that the region is

disadvantaged because of more than

temporary circumstances; (3) the criteria

must include a measure of economic

development; and (4) the subsidy

program to disadvantaged regions must

include ceilings on the amount of

benefits provided.

The respondents argue that the GRT’s

regional development plan met the first,

third and fourth criteria, and that the

Department wrongly rejected the GRT’s

‘‘green light’’ claim based on the third

criterion. Regarding the second

criterion, the respondents argue that the

GRT’s regional development program

was based on neutral and objective

criteria as defined by the statute.

Turkey’s regional designations were

based on various neutral and objective

economic data that was analyzed using

a statistical model of development

known as Principal Component

Analysis (PCA). The respondents claim

that the Department seems to have

accepted that the designations based on

the PCA are neutral and objective, but

that the few changes made by the

Council of Ministers tainted the GRT’s

overall regional development plan. The

respondents argue that the Council uses

its judgment to modify a regional

designation made by the PCA only in

those cases that are necessary to

eliminate certain regional disparities.

The respondents conclude that the fact

that the Council of Ministers may have

some input into the regional designation

process does not negate the neutral and

objective criteria that are used to

establish regional designations, but,

according to the respondents, only

reinforces their conclusion that the

designations modified by the Council of

Ministers are still based on neutral and

objective criteria.

The petitioner replies that the

Department correctly found that the

respondents did not establish that the

regional designations made by the GRT

were based on neutral and objective

criteria. The petitioner points out that

the supporting documentation for the

PCA during the period reviewed for

green light status, 1989–1991, was no

longer available. Thus, the validity of

the green light claim was not subject to

verification. Also, the petitioner states

that the designation of provinces into

development regions did not track

closely the PCA rankings. Rather, the

changes in rankings resulted from

decisions made by the Council, which

were based on factors not enumerated in

the PCA. As a result, because the neutral

and objective criterion has not been met,

a green light finding is not appropriate.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the respondents. The statute

requires the Department to make a

finding that all four specifically

enumerated conditions of section

771(5B)(C)(i) have been met before a

green light finding is made. Moreover,

the SAA states that the green light

provision governing assistance for

disadvantaged regions must be strictly

construed, and that the Department

must determine that all of these

statutory criteria have been satisfied.

(See Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the URAA, reprinted in

H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess.

934 (1994)) (SAA). In the Preliminary

Results, the Department did not state or

imply that the GRT’s regional

development plan met all green light

criteria except for the criterion requiring

regions to be designated based on

‘‘neutral and objective’’ criteria. Rather,

the Department indicated that because

regions were not designated based

solely on neutral and objective criteria,

the Department did not need to reach
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices 43989

the three other listed criteria to

determine whether GRT’s regional

development plan was a green light

subsidy. The Department stated that

‘‘[s]ince the SAA states that all of the

green light criteria must be met, we do

not intend to analyze the GRT’s

compliance with the remaining criteria

[beyond that concerning ‘‘neutral and

objective’’].’’ See Preliminary Results at

16787.

In any case, we cannot conclude that

the GRT’s regional development plan,

‘‘strictly construed,’’ is based on neutral

and objective criteria. First, the

supporting documentation for the PCA

covering the 1989–1991 period, the

relevant period of our inquiry, was not

available for verification. Second, as we

stated in the Preliminary Results, the

information on the record indicates that

the designations of disadvantaged

regions do not correspond to the

purportedly neutral and objective

criteria of the PCA. The provinces were

rank ordered from first, most developed,

to 67th, least developed. The record

clearly shows that the designation of

provinces into development regions did

not track closely to the PCA rankings.

For example, some provinces which

received PCA rankings of 52 and 58 (out

of a possible 67) were listed as normal

development regions, while other

provinces with higher PCA rankings

were designated priority development

regions. The GRT accounted for these

discrepancies by explaining that the

PCA is not the only basis for

determining a province’s regional

designation. The PCA is only one step

(albeit a primary one) toward

determining the regional designations.

The final determination is made by the

Council of Ministers, taking into

account factors that cannot be

accounted for by the PCA, including the

promotion of other development

policies and goals, the impacts upon,

and relationships with, other regional

and non-regional development policies

and programs, and the Ministers

experience in development issues and

programs. (For a further discussion, see

the Preliminary Results at page 16787

and the GRT verification report at page

11).

The statute requires the neutral and

objective criteria to be clearly stated in

a relevant statute, regulation, or other

official document so as to be capable of

verification. As we learned at

verification, the final regional

development plan designations

purportedly arrived at using the

econometric model of the PCA, were

subject to change by the Council of

Ministers. However, the GRT provided

no evidence regarding (1) the specific

criteria used by the Ministers; (2)

whether the criteria are neutral and

objective; and (3) whether these criteria

were clearly stated in the statute,

regulation, or another official document.

In addition, the documentation

regarding additional factors that the

Council considered when making these

decisions was not available for

verification (GRT verification report at

page 12). Therefore, we determine that

the RUSP assistance is not entitled to

green light treatment.

Comment 5: The respondents argue

that because the vast majority of

provincial designations were not

changed from the designations

suggested by the PCA, the Department

must find that RUSP subsidies are noncountervailable. Erbosan is located in

the Kayseri province which, the

respondents argue, clearly falls within

the ‘‘normal’’ region grouping in the

PCA. The respondents also argue that

the Council of Ministers played no role

in Kayseri’s designation, and that

Kayseri meets all the tests established in

the statute for classification as

‘‘disadvantaged,’’ including the

economic tests of per capita income and

unemployment outlined in Section

771(5B)(C)(ii) of the Act.

According to the respondents,

because Kayseri’s regional designation

was based on the ‘‘objective and

neutral’’ criteria of the PCA, any

designations made to provinces outside

of the region in question is irrelevant to

the Department’s inquiry. The

Department must therefore look only at

the region where the recipient of the

benefit is located. The respondents state

that if the Department continues to

follow its practice of analyzing every

single regional designation made under

a country’s regional development plan,

the Department would never find that

the statutory requirements are met.

The petitioner replies that the statute

does not contemplate looking beyond an

entire designation process in order to

make an independent determination of

whether an individual region could

have been properly designated.

According to the petitioner, the

disqualification of the overall

designation process for green light

purposes renders every individual

provincial designation unqualified for

green light treatment. As a result, the

Department should maintain its position

of denying green light treatment to the

RUSP program.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the respondents. In order to

conclude that a subsidy to a

disadvantaged region is entitled to green

light status and thus not

countervailable, the subsidy must be

provided pursuant to a general

framework of regional development.

Section 771(5B)(C)(iii) defines the term

‘‘general framework of regional

development’’ to mean that regional

subsidy programs are part of an

internally consistent and generally

applicable regional development policy,

and that regional development subsidies

are not granted in isolated geographical

points having no, or virtually no,

influence on the development of a

region. Moreover, the statute directs the

Department to apply the four main

criteria, listed in Comment 4 above, to

‘‘each region’’ in the country when

conducting a green light examination.

See section 771(5B)(C)(i). Additionally,

the SAA states that ‘‘to be noncountervailable, the government

assistance must be directed both by law

and in practice toward the development

of the region as a whole.’’ SAA at 934.

Accordingly, the Department evaluated

the GRT’s green light claim for the

RUSP program in light of the statute, as

is appropriate when making a

determination on the countervailability

of a nationally available subsidy

program. As a result, as fully explained

in the Preliminary Results, our green

light analysis was conducted in

compliance with the statute, which

precludes us conducting a separate

green light analysis solely with respect

to the Kayseri province.

Comment 6: The respondents argue

that the Department failed to request the

f.o.b. sales information, except for the

sales to the United States, and, in order

to compensate for this shortcoming, the

Department incorrectly increased the

subsidy for each program by

multiplying the benefit by the ratio of

the company’s U.S. c&f and U.S. f.o.b.

sales of the subject merchandise. The

respondents argue that this

methodology is inaccurate for two

reasons: (1) The freight component of a

particular sale will vary, sometimes

significantly, depending on the

destination, and (2) it overstates the

benefit when the denominator is total

sales, because domestic sales are made

on an f.o.b. basis. Thus, they argue that

using the ratio of U.S. c&f and U.S. f.o.b.

sales to determine the f.o.b. value for

total export sales inaccurately overstates

the actual benefit.

The respondents also argue that they

should not be penalized for the

Department’s failure to request

information. They argue that, because

they complied with the Department’s

requests for information, the

Department should not use adverse

information. The Department may use

adverse information only when there

has been noncompliance with a request
43990 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices

for information. According to the

respondents, the Court of International

Trade has stated that when the

Department neglects to request

information that it later finds necessary

to its determination, the appropriate

remedy is to request supplemental

information from the parties. However,

the respondents argue that because of

time constraints, the Department should

simply use the total sales and total

export sales provided in the

questionnaire responses that were

verified by the Department, without

making any adjustments to compensate

for freight.

The petitioner counters that the

Department should not change its

methodology for approximating f.o.b.

sales values. The petitioner contends

that since the respondents state that

they were able to provide the f.o.b.

values they should have proffered them

earlier. The petitioner also counters that

because the respondents did not provide

the f.o.b. values, which surely their

experienced trade counsel knew were

necessary to the Department

calculations, the Department should not

reward the respondents for withholding

information by changing its calculation

methodology.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with the respondents. It has been the

Department’s practice to request

companies to provide sales information

as actually recorded in their accounting

records along with an explanation as to

whether the sales were recorded on

c.i.f., f.o.b. or some other basis. See

Questionnaire dated April 15, 1996. In

cases where the company’s sales are not

recorded on an f.o.b. basis, the

Department adjusts the sales value to

conform with the Department’s

longstanding practice to calculate an

f.o.b.-based ad valorem subsidy rate,

which is consistent with the assessment

of the countervailing duties. (The

Department instructs the Customs

Service to collect cash deposits and

assess countervailing duties on an f.o.b.

invoice price basis.) See, Denominator

Section of the General Issues Appendix

in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Steel Products

from Austria, 58 FR 37217, 37236 (July

9, 1993) (General Issues Appendix).

We also disagree with the respondents

that the Department is making an

adverse inference by adjusting the c&f

values to compensate for freight.

Erbosan’s questionnaire response states

that export invoices are recorded on

actual invoice value converted to TL

whether it is an f.o.b. or c&f sale, and

that domestic sales are recorded on

gross value. (See questionnaire response

dated June 13, 1996 at page 4).

Mannesmann’s questionnaire response

did not state the basis for the sales

information, except for the export sales

of the subject merchandise to the United

States, which were provided on a c&f

and f.o.b. basis. (See questionnaire

response dated June 13, 1996 at

appendix 10). Because one respondent

recorded and reported its sales on a

combined f.o.b. and c&f basis and the

other respondent recorded on a c&f

basis, it is necessary to adjust the

calculated subsidy rate, according to the

methodology outlined in the General

Issues Appendix, to ensure that the

Customs Service collects the correct

amount of subsidy based on the f.o.b.

invoice price of the imported

merchandise. The adjustment made by

the Department is not adverse. It merely

converts the respondents’ information to

a basis that allows the Department to

correctly calculate an f.o.b. based ad

valorem subsidy rate. Therefore, based

on the information in the record, the

Department has calculated a reasonable

estimate of the f.o.b. value.

Comment 7: The respondents argue

that the Department erroneously

determined that exporters did not know

the amount of benefits under the Freight

Program on the date of export, and

therefore incorrectly countervailed the

benefits on the date the cash was

received or, in the case of bonds, on the

date of maturity. The respondents state

that it is the Department’s long-standing

practice to measure countervailable

benefits on the date of export in those

cases in which the export benefit is

earned on a shipment-by-shipment

basis, and the exporter knows the

amount of the benefit at the time of

export. Therefore, they argue that

because Turkish companies knew at the

time of export that they were entitled to

receive a rebate in the amount of $50

per ton for merchandise exported on

Turkish vessels, and $30 per ton for

merchandise exported on non-Turkish

vessels on a shipment-by-shipment

basis upon exportation, they knew the

benefit at the time of export, and such

benefits should be measured on an

‘‘earned’’ basis.

The respondents further argue that,

because the shipments are invoiced in

U.S. dollars and the benefit is expressed

in U.S. dollars on the date of shipment,

it is irrelevant that companies did not

know the precise amount of TL that they

would eventually receive. If the benefit

had been denominated in TL, the value

of the ultimate benefit received, as

measured in constant TL, would not

have been known at the time of export

due to the high inflation in Turkey at

the time. However, by contrast, U.S.

dollars hold their value over time

because the rates of TL inflation and TL

devaluation against the dollar are about

the same. Therefore, they argue that the

long-term value of a benefit

denominated in dollars was certain at

the time of export.

The respondents also argue that

policy considerations dictate that the

benefits under the Freight Program

should be countervailable on the date

the benefit was earned. They state that

the countervailing duty law is intended

to offset export subsidies, and that the

benefit should be countervailed when

they will have the greatest effect on a

country’s exports to the United States,

which they claim is why the

Department established its ‘‘earned

versus receipt’’ test. Therefore, the

respondents argue that since the Freight

Program terminated at the end of 1994,

and there is no longer any incentive to

motivate companies to export under this

program, as a matter of policy, the

Department should countervail benefits

received during the period that the

subsidies were actually used to

encourage shipments to the United

States.

The petitioner counters that, even if

the respondents’ argument that U.S.

dollars hold their value better than TL

given the hyperinflation in Turkey is

valid, it does not lead to the conclusion

that ‘‘the long-term value of a benefit

denominated in dollars was certain at

the time of export.’’ Further, although

the value may be ‘‘far more certain’’

when denominated in dollars, it is not

true that the respondents knew the

precise value of the benefit at the time

of export.

The petitioner also counters that

while the freight payments may be

denominated in dollars, the benefit was

paid in TL, and given the high inflation

rate in Turkey there was no way for the

exporter to predict at the time of export

what the TL payment amount would be.

Finally, the petitioner counters that the

respondents argument that the benefit

conferred should not be countervailed

because the program has been

terminated would inappropriately

permit countervailable benefits to be

ignored and should be rejected.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the respondents that it has been the

Department’s practice to countervail an

export subsidy on the date of export on

an ‘‘earned basis’’ rather than the date

it is received where it is provided as a

percentage of the value of the exported

merchandise on a shipment-byshipment basis, and the exact amount of

the countervailable export subsidy is

known at the time of export. See e.g.,

Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices 43991

Administrative Review, 60 FR 44843

(August 29, 1995). For example, in these

Final Results, we have found the

benefits under the Export Performance

Credits Program were bestowed on the

date of export because the exporters

received the TL equivalent of a fixed

percentage of the value of their U.S.

dollar exports. Although at the time of

receipt, the exporters received more TL

than at the time of export, the value of

the TL amount remained the same in

U.S. dollar terms.

In the Preliminary Results, we stated

that although the benefit under the

Freight Program is calculated based on

tonnage and not on the percentage of

exports, we noted that a benefit

determined by the amount of the

tonnage may also be known and

therefore ‘‘earned’’ at the time of export.

However, even though the benefit was

based on tonnage per shipment, it does

not automatically follow that

respondents knew the amount of the

export subsidy at the time of shipment.

In this case the facts indicate that

respondents could not have known at

the time of shipment the actual amount

of TL that they would ultimately receive

because the GRT arbitrarily chose an

exchange rate based on a later date in

time. Here, when the respondents

ultimately received payment under this

program, whether or not they would

receive the U.S. dollar equivalent of TL

was dependent upon the exchange rate

chosen by the GRT, and was not

determined by the amount of tonnage

per shipment. (See GRT’s verification

report at page 17). Therefore, we cannot

conclude that countervailable benefits

bestowed on respondents under the

Freight Program were ‘‘earned’’ on the

date of export.

We also disagree with respondents’

argument that the long-term value of a

benefit denominated in dollars was

certain at the time of export because the

U.S. dollar holds its value over time

since the rate of TL inflation and the TL

devaluation against the dollar are about

the same. Again, because the GRT

arbitrarily chose the exchange rate to

convert the benefit to TL, there was no

way of knowing at the time of export,

whether, at the time respondents

received the TL equivalent, it would

equal $50/$30 per ton. Therefore, as

stated in the Preliminary Results, we

have determined that the benefits under

the Freight Program are bestowed when

the cash is received, with respect to the

cash payments, and not at the time of

export. With regard to the portion of the

rebate provided in bonds, we have

determined that the benefits from the

bonds are bestowed on the date of

maturity. This is due to the fact that,

even though there were no restrictions

on the sale or transfer of the bonds,

because of the rate of inflation, there

was no secondary market to allow

exporters to convert their bonds to cash

prior to maturity. See, e.g., Turkish

Pasta at 30368.

Finally, we disagree with the

respondents’ argument that the

Department should countervail the

benefit from this program on an earned

basis because it makes no sense for the

Department to countervail a benefit

once a program has been terminated and

therefore are no more subsidies to

provide an incentive for companies to

export. It is the Department’s longstanding practice to countervail residual

benefits from a terminated program. See,

e.g., Live Swine from Canada; Notice of

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Reviews; Initiation

and Preliminary Results of Changed

Circumstances Review and Intent to

Revoke Order in Part, 61 FR 26879,

26889 (May 29, 1996) and Live Swine

from Canada; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews, 61 FR 52408 (October 7, 1996).

(Live Swine from Canada).

Comment 8: Erbosan argues that the

Department’s use of the average

monthly exchange rates published by

the Central Bank, rather than the actual

exchange rates recorded in Erbosan’s

documentation of foreign exchange

loans to calculate the benefit distorts the

subsidy because the TL was devaluing

rapidly against the U.S. dollar. Erbosan

argues that the Department should use

the actual daily exchange rate recorded

in its loan documents reviewed by the

Department at verification because these

rates were used to convert the TL

amount into U.S. dollars on the date the

interest was repaid on the company’s

foreign currency loans and more

accurately reflects the effect of

hyperinflation on TL.

The petitioner counters that the loan

fees were established when the loan was

granted and not when the interest on the

loan was paid. Therefore, the benefit

from the exemption of the fees should

be calculated from the date the fees

would have otherwise applied, i.e., the

date the loan was granted. The

petitioner further counters that the

Department’s use of the monthly

exchange rates understates rather than

overstates the benefit provided.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the respondents that the actual

exchange rates on the foreign exchange

loan documentation are the appropriate

rates to use in converting the benefit to

U.S. dollars. The actual exchange rates

represent the conversion rates that

would have been applicable to the

exempt fees had they been paid.

Therefore, for these final results we

have recalculated the benefit from the

exemption of the foreign currency loan

fees using the actual exchange rates on

Erbosan’s loan documentation in exhibit

E–13. On this basis, we determine the

countervailable subsidy to be 1.10

percent ad valorem for Erbosan for pipe

and tube.

Comment 9: The respondents argue

that in order for the Department and the

GRT to avoid spending valuable

resources reviewing terminated or nonexistent programs in future

countervailing duty investigations or

reviews, the Department should

announce in its final results that the

following programs have either been

terminated or do not exist: (1) State Aid

for Exports, (2) Resource Utilization

Support Fund (RUSF), (3) Advance

Refunds of Tax Savings, (4) Support and

Price Stability Fund, and (5) Land

Allocation (General Incentives

Program).

The respondents state that the State

Aid for Exports program, which was

established in 1995 to provide certain

benefits to producers of certain

agriculture products, was terminated on

December 31, 1995, as noted in the

Department’s verification report.

Therefore, they argue that since this

program was limited to the agriculture

sector, and no other sector could receive

any residual benefits from this

terminated program, the Department

should find that this program has been

terminated for companies not in the

agricultural sector.

The respondents also state that the

RUSF is a fund that was established by

the GRT to pay for certain governmentsponsored programs and not a program

in itself. However, they argue that

because of problems arising from

translation of Turkish to English there

has been a great deal of confusion in

this and previous reviews concerning

the RUSF. The respondents further state

that, as noted in the government’s

verification report at page 20, the RUSF

program found countervailable in

Turkish Pasta at 30369 was the same as

the Incentive Premium on Domestically

Obtained Goods Program. They argue

that because the GRT has demonstrated

that the RUSF program terminated

effective January 1, 1987, the

Department should list the ‘‘RUSF

program’’ as terminated.

The respondents further argue that the

Department should state in the final

results that the Advance Refund of Tax

Savings program does not exist because

there has never been such a program.

They state that the reference to a

program known as the Advance Refund
43992 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices

of Tax Savings in Turkish Pasta is

apparently a misinterpretation or

mistranslation of certain provisions

contained in Turkey’s budget laws.

They also state that Article 44 of the

1987 Budget Law is the legal authority

that permits the GRT to obtain

reimbursement from individuals or

companies that have received an

overpayment of public funds, for

example, tax refunds.

The respondents argue that because

the Support and Price Stability Fund is

a government fund used to finance

programs such as freight rebate and

export credit programs that may provide

benefits to companies and is not a

separate program in and of itself, the

Department should announce in the

final results that the program does not

exist. They argue that such a statement

will clarify this issue and eliminate any

confusion on this subject in future

investigations or reviews involving

Turkish cases.

Finally, the respondents argue that

the Land Allocation program was never

implemented, therefore, as they

informed Department verifiers, no

company in Turkey has been or could

ever be eligible to receive any benefits

under this program. Therefore, they

argue that the Department should find

this program to be terminated in its final

results.

The petitioner counters that any

findings that a program has been

terminated or does not exist is limited

to the review at hand, because in future

reviews the Department should

investigate whether a terminated

program has been reinstated or a

program found not to exist has been

created. Further, the petitioner counters

that merely because a finding is made in

this review does not exempt the

programs involved from inquiry in the

future.

Department’s Position: The

Department’s practice is to continue to

countervail programs previously found

countervailable, and to examine

programs for which we have not made

a final determination regarding whether

the program is non-countervailable or

whether terminated programs have

residual benefits. See e.g., Live Swine

from Canada at 52420 citing to

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 28841

(June 6, 1996).

Regarding the State Aid for Exports

program, at verification we examined a

Communique that listed eligible

products, and we did not find any steel

products listed. Therefore, none of the

steel companies under review could

have received any benefits from this

program. However, it is uncertain

whether the eligible products are subject

to change. Therefore, we are unable to

conclude that steel products will never

be covered under this program.

In Turkish Pasta at 30369, the

Department found a countervailable

benefit for RUSF and for the Incentive

Premium on Domestically Obtained

Goods programs. Therefore, although at

the verification of these reviews, the

government official said that based on

the description of the RUSF program in

Turkish Pasta, the so-called ‘‘RUSF

program’’ is really a misnomer for the

Incentive Premium on Domestically

Obtained Goods, we were unable to

substantiate that claim. However, in the

instant proceeding, we found that none

of the companies subject to review

received benefits under either RUSF or

Incentive Premium on Domestically

Obtained Goods programs during the

period.

Regarding the Advance Refunds of

Tax Savings, as noted in the GRT’s

verification report at page 20, the

government official said that Article 44

of the 1987 Budget Law pertains to

general reimbursement to the GRT of

public money. However, the

Department’s interpreter examined

Article 44, and said that the Article did

not appear to have any connection to tax

savings, but was somewhat vague. (See

GRT verification report at page 20). In

addition, the GRT officials were unable

to fully explain why they thought the

Department was incorrect in finding this

to be a program in Turkish Pasta.

Further, we verified that none of the

companies under review applied for, or

used the Advance Refunds of Tax

Savings during the period of review.

The Department did not include the

Support and Price Stability Fund as a

program in the Preliminary Results. We

verified that this is a fund that is used

to finance programs, and not a program

in itself (GRT verification report at page

19). Because we have not included it in

these final results, there is no need to

list it as a terminated or non-existent

program.

We agree with the respondents that, at

verification, the officials said that the

Land Allocation program was never

implemented. However, we listed this

program as not used because it was not

terminated, and it is uncertain whether

the program might be implemented and

used in the future.

Final Results of Review

In accordance with 19 C.F.R.

§ 355.22(c)(4)(ii), we calculated an

individual subsidy rate for each

producer/exporter subject to these

administrative reviews. For the period

January 1, 1995 through December 31,

1995, we determine the net subsidy to

be as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter of pipe

and tube

Net

subsidy

rate

Erbosan ..................................... 4.02%

Manufacturer/exporter of line

pipe and tube

Net

subsidy

rate

Mannesmann ............................ 0.75%

We will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service (‘‘Customs’’) to assess

countervailing duties as indicated

above. The Department will also

instruct Customs to collect cash

deposits of estimated countervailing

duties in the percentages detailed below

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

shipments of each class or kind of

merchandise from reviewed companies,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of the final results of these

reviews.

Manufacturer/exporter of pipe

and tube

Cash

deposit

rate

Erbosan ..................................... 3.97%

Manufacturer/exporter of line

pipe

Cash

deposit

rate

Mannesmann ............................ 0.75%

Because the URAA replaced the

general rule in favor of a country-wide

rate with a general rule in favor of

individual rates for investigated and

reviewed companies, the procedures for

establishing countervailing duty rates,

including those for non-reviewed

companies, are now essentially the same

as those in antidumping cases, except as

provided for in § 777A(e)(2)(B) of the

Act. The requested review will normally

cover only those companies specifically

named. See 19 CFR § 355.22(a).

Pursuant to 19 CFR § 355.22(g), for all

companies for which a review was not

requested, duties must be assessed at

the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits

must continue to be collected at the rate

previously ordered. As such, the

countervailing duty cash deposit rate

applicable to a company can no longer

change, except pursuant to a request for

a review of that company. See FederalMogul Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp.

782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council

v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Notices 43993

1993) (interpreting 19 CFR § 353.22(e),

the antidumping regulation on

automatic assessment, which is

identical to 19 CFR § 355.22(g)).

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all

companies except those covered by this

review will be unchanged by the results

of this review.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies at the most recent

company-specific or country-wide rate

applicable to the company. Accordingly,

the cash deposit rates that will be

applied to non-reviewed companies

covered by this order are those

established in the most recently

completed administrative proceeding,

conducted pursuant to the statutory

provisions that were in effect prior to

the URAA amendments. See, Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube

Products from Turkey; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 53 FR 9791. These rates shall

apply to all non-reviewed companies

until a review of a company assigned

these rates is requested. In addition, for

the period January 1, 1995 through

December 31, 1995, the assessment rates

applicable to all non-reviewed

companies covered by this order are the

cash deposit rates in effect at the time

of entry.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR § 355.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).

Dated: August 6, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–21828 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Consolidation and Amendment of

Export Visa Requirements to Include

the Electronic Visa Information System

for Certain Cotton, Wool, Man-Made

Fiber, Silk Blend and Other Vegetable

Fiber Textiles and Textile Products

Produced or Manufactured in the

Philippines

August 12, 1997.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs consolidating

and amending visa requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori

Mennitt, International Trade Specialist,

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

3400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March

3, 1972, as amended; section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854).

In exchange of notes dated December

18, 1996, July 9, 1997, and July 23,

1997, the Governments of the United

States and the Philippines agreed to

amend the existing visa arrangement for

cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend

and other vegetable fiber textiles and

textile products, produced or

manufactured in the Philippines and

exported on and after September 1,

1997. The amended arrangement

consolidates existing provisions and

new provisions for the Electronic Visa

Information System (ELVIS). In addition

to the ELVIS requirements, shipments

will continue to be accompanied by an

original visa stamped on the front of the

original commercial invoice issued by

the Government of the Philippines.

In the letter published below, the

Chairman of CITA directs the

Commissioner of Customs to amend the

existing visa requirements for textile

products, produced or manufactured in

the Philippines and exported on and

after September 1, 1997.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 62 FR 66263,

published on December 17, 1996). Also

see 52 FR 11308, published on April 8,

1987.

Interested persons are advised to take

all necessary steps to ensure that textile

products entered into the United States

for consumption, or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption, will meet

the visa requirements set forth in the

letter published below to the

Commissioner of Customs.

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

August 12, 1997.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on April 3, 1987, as amended,

by the Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements, that

directed you to prohibit entry of certain

cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and

other vegetable fiber textiles and textile

products, produced or manufactured in the

Philippines for which the Government of the

Philippines has not issued an appropriate

export visa or exempt certificate.

Under the terms of section 204 of the

Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1854); pursuant to a the Export Visa

Arrangement, effected by exchange of notes

dated December 18, 1996, July 9, 1997, and

July 23, 1997, between the Governments of

the United States and the Philippines; and in

accordance with the provisions of Executive

Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended,

you are directed to prohibit, effective on

September 1, 1997, entry into the Customs

territory of the United States (i.e., the 50

states, the District of Columbia and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) for

consumption and withdrawal from

warehouse for consumption of cotton, wool,

man-made fiber, silk blend and other

vegetable fiber textiles and textile products in

Categories 300–369, 400–469, 600–670 and

831–859, including part categories and

merged categories (but not Categories 355,

356, 655, 656, 455, 371 and 671), and which

are not eligible for exemptions noted in the

Exempt Certification Requirements below

(also provided for in Annex A attached),

produced or manufactured in the Philippines

and exported on and after September 1, 1997

for which the Government of the Philippines

has not issued an appropriate export visa and

Electronic Visa Information System (ELVIS)

transmission fully described below.

Shipments covering merchandise in

Categories 800–810 and 863–899 do not

require a visa. However, should additional

categories, merged categories or part

categories be added to or changed in the

Bilateral Agreement or become subject to

import quotas, the entire category or

categories shall be automatically included in

the coverage of the Visa Arrangement.

Merchandise exported on or after the date the

category is added to or changed in the

Agreement, or becomes subject to import

quotas, shall require a visa and ELVIS

transmission.