64808 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices

preliminary results, the Department

intends to notify the GOS that the

provisional export charge rate on all

exports to the United States with

Outward Declarations filed on or after

the date of publication of the final

results of this administrative review

shall be 0.23 percent of the f.o.b. value

of the merchandise.

The agreement can remain in force

only as long as shipments from the

signatories account for at least 85

percent of imports of the subject

refrigeration compressors into the

United States. Our information indicates

that the two signatory companies

accounted for 100 percent of imports

into the United States from Singapore of

this merchandise during the review

period.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. Case

briefs and/or written comments from

interested parties may be submitted no

later than 30 days after the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs and

rebuttals to written comments, limited

to issues raised in the case briefs and

comments, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication of

this notice. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. The Department will publish

the final results of this administrative

review including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments or at a hearing.

These requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review. This

administrative review and this notice

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

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

CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32212 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–489–502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes and Welded Carbon Steel

Line Pipe From Turkey; Preliminary

Results and Partial Recission of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting administrative reviews of

the countervailing duty orders on

certain welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes and welded carbon steel line pipe

from Turkey. For information on the net

subsidy for each reviewed company for

each class or kind of merchandise, as

well as for all non-reviewed companies,

see the Preliminary Results of Reviews

section of this notice. If the final results

remain the same as these preliminary

results of administrative reviews, we

will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

assess countervailing duties as detailed

in the Preliminary Results of Reviews

section of this notice. Interested parties

are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. (See Public

Comment section of this notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Moore or Cheri Caddy, Office

of Countervailing Duty/Antidumping

Enforcement VI, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–3692 or (202) 482–2849.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 7, 1986, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register (51 FR 7984) the

countervailing duty orders on certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

(welded pipe and tube) and certain

welded carbon steel line pipe (line pipe)

from Turkey. On March 7, 1997, the

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review’’ (62 FR 10521) of these

countervailing duty orders. We received

timely requests for reviews from

Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari A.S.

(BBBF) and Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve

Dagitim A.S. (Dagitim) (Borusan Group).

We also received a timely request from

Wheatland Tube Company and

Maverick Tube Corporation (petitioners)

to conduct reviews of Erciyas Boru

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

Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S. (Yucel

Boru), Bant Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.

(Bant Boru), Erkboru Profil San ve Tic

A.S. (Erkboru), Borusan Group, and

Mannesmann—Sumerbank Boru

Endustrisi T.A.S. (Mannesmann). We

initiated the reviews covering the period

January 1, 1996 through December 31,

1996 on April 24, 1997 (62 FR 19988).

In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a),

the review on welded pipe and tube

covers Erbosan, Yucel Boru, Bant Boru,

Erkboru, and the Borusan Group. The

review on line pipe covers

Mannesmann, Yucel Boru, Bant Boru,

and Erkboru. These reviews also cover

21 programs.

Erbosan, Yucel Boru, Bant Boru and

Erkboru reported that they did not

export welded pipe and tube or line

pipe to the United States during the

period of review (POR). Information

obtained from the U.S. Customs Service

(Customs) confirmed the companies’

statements. Therefore, we are rescinding

the reviews with respect to Erbosan,

Yucel Boru, Bant Boru and Erkboru. The

companies subject to these reviews are

the Borusan Group for welded pipe and

tube and Mannesmann for line pipe.

Although the Borusan Group produces

both welded pipe and tube and line

pipe, they only exported welded pipe

and tube to the United States during the

POR.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’) effective

January 1, 1995 (the Act). The

Department is conducting these

administrative reviews in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Reviews

Imports covered by these reviews are

shipments from Turkey of two classes or

kinds of merchandise: (1) 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; and (2) certain welded carbon

steel line pipe with an outside diameter

of 0.375 inch or more, but not over 16
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices 64809

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) as 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.

Analysis of Programs

I. Programs Conferring Subsidies

A. Programs Previously Determined to

Confer Subsidies

1. Pre-Shipment Export Credit: The

Export Credit Bank of Turkey (Turk

Eximbank) provides short-term preshipment export loans to exporters

through intermediary commercial

banks. The program is designed to

support export-related industries from

the initial stage of production. Loans are

made to exporters who commit to export

within a specified period of time.

Generally, loans are extended for 120

days for industrial goods and cover 50

to 75 percent of the FOB export value.

During the POR, both companies under

review were eligible for pre-shipment

export loans amounting to 50 percent of

the FOB value of exports, for a

maximum of 120 days. These loans are

denominated in Turkish Lira (TL) and

repaid in TL. The interest rate charged

on these pre-shipment loans is

established by Turk Eximbank and is

tied to the Central Bank’s rediscount

rate.

In the Final Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination:

Certain Pasta from Turkey 61 FR 30366

(June 14, 1996) (Pasta), and in Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

and Welded Carbon Steel Line Pipe

from Turkey; Preliminary Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews (62 FR 16782; April 8, 1997)

and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes and Welded Carbon Steel

Line Pipe from Turkey; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews (62 FR 43984; August 18, 1997)

(Pipe and Tube), the Department found

this program countervailable because

receipt of the loans is contingent upon

export performance and the interest rate

paid on these loans is less than the

amount the recipient would pay on a

comparable commercial loan. In Pasta,

we found that these loans were tied to

specific destinations; however, in the

Pipe and Tube reviews, we found these

loans to be untied. In Pipe and Tube, we

verified that although an exporter files

a loan application in which the export

destination is listed, the actual

destination of the shipments may be

different from the one(s) stated in the

loan application. The exporter has to

show only that an export has taken

place, and provide the foreign currency

exchange receipts from the commercial

bank to close out the loan with Turk

Eximbank. Because the loans are not

specifically tied to a particular

destination at the time of approval, we

determined that the pre-shipment loan

program is an untied export loan

program. Pipe and Tube at 43986. No

information has been submitted to the

record of this review to warrant

reconsideration of that finding.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine

in these reviews that the pre-shipment

loan program is an untied export loan

program.

Pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the

Act, a benefit shall be treated as

conferred ‘‘in the case of a loan, if there

is a difference between the amount the

recipient of the loan pays on the loan

and the amount the recipient would pay

on a comparable commercial loan that

the recipient could actually obtain on

the market.’’ In this case, as the

benchmark interest rate, i.e., the rate the

recipient would pay on a comparable

commercial loan that could actually be

obtained by it, we are using companyspecific interest rates on comparable

commercial loans to calculate the

benefit for any pre-shipment loans that

were taken out by the Borusan Group or

Mannesmann in 1995 and repaid in

1996, and for any pre-shipment loans

that were taken out in 1996 and repaid

in 1996. Because the rates on

commercial loans provided by the

Borusan Group and Mannesmann

include the customary Bank and

Insurance and Services Tax (BIST) of 5

percent of the interest rate and the

Resource Utilization Support Fund

(RUSF) fee of 6 percent of the interest

rate, we have not added these customary

bank fees to the benchmark interest

rates.

In addition, because Turkey continues

to experience persistently high levels of

inflation, based on a Consumer Price

Index rate of approximately 80 percent

during the POR, we also preliminarily

determine that it is appropriate to use

monthly average short-term interest

rates for our benchmark where such

rates are available (see Pasta at page

30367; Pipe and Tube at 43987). In the

previous review, when monthly

company-specific interest rates were not

available, we used monthly average

interest rates charged by a commercial

bank in Turkey on domestic loans

during the POR (see e.g., Pipe and Tube

at 16783 and 43984). However, these

commercial bank rates are unavailable

for this POR.

Accordingly, for Mannesmann, in

those months where monthly companyspecific interest rates were not available,

we used, as the benchmark interest rate,

the weighted average interest rate for the

closest month preceding and closest

month following the month in which

the company took out a pre-shipment

loan. Using these benchmarks, we

continue to find pre-shipment export

loans to Mannesmann countervailable

because the interest rate charged is less

than the rate for comparable commercial

loans that the company could actually

obtain in the market.

With respect to the Borusan Group,

the company did not have monthly

company-specific interest rates.

However, it did obtain short-term

commercial loans on which interest was

paid quarterly. As such, we

preliminarily determine that it is

appropriate to use company-specific

quarterly average short-term interest

rates as the benchmark interest rates for

this company, because, like the monthly

rates, these rates incorporate the impact

of high inflation. For one month in the

POR, where quarterly commercial

interest rates were not available, we

used the rate from the following quarter

as our benchmark. Using these

benchmarks, we continue to find preshipment export loans to the Borusan

Group countervailable because the

interest rate charged is less than the rate

for comparable commercial loans that

the company could actually obtain in

the market.

To determine the benefit, we

calculated the countervailable subsidy

as the difference between actual interest

paid on pre-shipment loans during the

POR and the interest that would have

been paid using the benchmark interest

rates. This difference was divided by the

company’s total export sales during the

POR. We adjusted the sales figure to

account for foreign exchange differences

(‘‘kur farki’’), which resulted from the

changes in the U.S. dollar/Turkish lira

exchange rates. We made the

adjustments because despite Turkey’s

high rate of inflation, Turkish

companies do not index any of the

figures, other than fixed assets, in their

financial statements to account for

inflation. Therefore, if we did not make

these adjustments, the result 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.

Pipe and Tube at 43988. On this basis,
64810 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices

we preliminarily determine the

countervailable subsidy to be 0.19

percent ad valorem for the Borusan

Group for welded pipe and tube, and

0.29 percent ad valorem for

Mannesmann for line pipe.

2. Investment Allowances: The

General Incentives Program (GIP) is

designed to increase investment in

Turkey and to expand the Turkish

economy. Under the GIP, companies

may apply to the Undersecretariat of

Treasury (UT) for investment incentive

certificates. The investment incentive

certificates entitle the holders to a

number of specified benefits, such as

investment allowances, related to an

investment project. The investment

allowance provides companies with a

corporate tax exemption of between 30

percent and 100 percent of their total

fixed investment depending upon the

geographic location, sector and the

value of the investment. During the

POR, for purposes of GIP, Turkey was

divided into three types of geographic

regions: (1) Developed; (2) normal; and

(3) priority. Companies located in any of

the lesser-developed priority regions are

entitled to higher rates of deduction

than companies located in the

developed or normal regions.

Mannesmann and the Borusan Group

claimed an investment allowance on

their corporate income tax returns filed

during the POR. The Borusan Group is

located in a region eligible for an

investment allowance of 40 percent,

while Mannesmann, because it is

located in a developed region, is only

eligible for the minimum investment

allowance of 30 percent, the minimum

investment allowance provided to all

companies under GIP regardless of

location or type of industry. See e.g.,

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and

Tube Products from Turkey; Preliminary

Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review, 52 FR 47621,

47622 (December 15, 1987), Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube

Products from Turkey; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 53 FR 9791 (March 25, 1988),

and Pipe and Tube at 16784; 43984.

Pursuant to section 771(5A)(D), the

Department previously determined that

the minimum 30 percent investment

allowance provided to all sectors and

geographic regions within Turkey is not

countervailable because the 30 percent

investment allowance is not limited to

a specific enterprise or industry or

group thereof, nor limited to companies

located in specific regions. However,

because the Borusan Group received a

40 percent investment allowance, which

is 10 percent higher than the minimum

30 percent allowance provided to all

sectors and geographic regions within

Turkey, the difference results in a

higher tax savings to the company due

to its geographic location. Therefore, we

preliminarily determine that the 10

percent difference results in a

countervailable subsidy. See also

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing

Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR

8255, 8257 (March 4, 1996) and

Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel;

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 28841

(June 6, 1996). We also previously

determined that the benefits under this

program are ‘‘recurring’’ because once a

company has a fixed asset investment

project approved, it becomes eligible to

deduct an investment allowance from

its corporate income tax returns;

therefore, the receipt of the benefit is

automatic and continues year to year.

Pipe and Tube at 16784 and 43984.

To calculate the benefit for the

Borusan Group, we first multiplied its

total fixed investment by 10 percent,

which is the amount the Borusan Group

receives above the 30 percent allowance

provided to all industries throughout

Turkey. We then computed the

company’s tax rate. The company paid

four separate corporate taxes. These

included a 25 percent corporate tax, an

interim tax in the amount of 10 percent

of the corporate tax, a ‘‘stopaj’’ tax equal

to 10 percent of 75 percent of its net

taxable income, and a fund tax equal to

10 percent of the ‘‘stopaj’’ tax. The sum

of these taxes equals a total corporate

tax rate of 35.75 percent. We then

multiplied the countervailable portion

of the investment allowance deduction

by the tax rate of 35.75 percent, and

obtained the tax savings for the

company. Next, we divided the tax

savings by the company’s total sales,

adjusted for foreign exchange

differences, as described above. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine the

countervailable subsidy to be 0.02

percent ad valorem for the Borusan

Group for welded pipe and tube, and

zero for Mannesmann for line pipe.

3. Foreign Exchange Loan Assistance:

The Government of the Republic of

Turkey (GRT) Resolution Number: 94/

5782, Article 4, effective June 13, 1994

concerning the encouragement of

exportation, allows commercial banks to

exempt certain fees provided that the

loans are used in the financing of

exportation and other foreign exchange

earning activities. We previously

determined that this program is specific

and, therefore, countervailable within

the meaning of section 771(5A)(B),

because the exemption of the fees is

contingent upon export performance.

Pipe and Tube at 43991.

During the POR, in connection with

merchandise exported to the United

States, the Borusan Group received and

paid interest on a foreign currency loan

from a commercial bank and was

exempted from paying the BIST fee of

5 percent of the interest rate and the

RUSF fee of 6 percent of the principal.

Unlike pre-shipment loans that are

denominated in TL where the RUSF fee

is 6 percent of the interest rate, the

RUSF fee for foreign currency loans is

calculated as 6 percent of the principal.

Mannesmann did not use the foreign

exchange loan assistance in connection

with merchandise exported to the

United States during the POR.

We have previously determined that

the BIST and RUSF fee exemptions are

a direct transfer of funds from the GRT

providing a benefit in the amount of the

exemption. Pipe and Tube at 43991. We

have also determined in Pipe and Tube

at 16784 and 43984, that the benefits are

recurring because once the company

obtains a foreign currency loan, it is

automatically exempted from paying the

fees.

To calculate the benefit for this

program, we computed the exempted

fees on the interest or principal, where

appropriate, of the Borusan Group

foreign currency loan. The loan is dollar

denominated. Therefore, we converted

these exempted fee amounts to TL using

the exchange rate in effect during the

month in which the loan was received,

and divided the result by the company’s

total exports of the subject merchandise

to the United States, adjusted for foreign

exchange differences, as described

above. In Pipe and Tube at 43991, we

used the actual interest exchange rate on

the foreign exchange loan

documentation examined at verification

and that was part of the record in that

proceeding. However, in this

proceeding, no information was

available on the record regarding the

actual interest exchange rate on the

foreign exchange loan. Therefore, we

preliminarily determine that the fees

were established when the loan was

granted, and calculated the benefit using

the exchange rate in effect on that date.

On this basis, we preliminarily

determine the net subsidy to be 0.43

percent ad valorem for the Borusan

Group for welded pipe and tube, and

zero for Mannesmann for line pipe.

4. Freight Program: The GRT Decree

number 93/43, effective October 13,

1993, provided freight rebate payments

to exporters in the amount of $50 per

ton for merchandise exported on

Turkish vessels, and $30 per ton for

merchandise exported on non-Turkish
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices 64811

vessels. In February 1994, pursuant to

GRT Decree 94/4, the rebate was capped

at 15 percent of the FOB value of the

goods (an increase over the original 10

percent cap). Benefits under this

program were provided in the form of

30 percent cash and 70 percent treasury

bonds with one-and two-year maturity

dates. (In the prior review, the examined

companies only received two year

bonds). Companies were eligible to

receive interest on bonds on the oneyear anniversary date of the issuance of

the bonds and on the date of the

maturity of the bonds. The program was

terminated on December 31, 1994, and

there will be no payments on shipments

made after January 1, 1995.

In Pipe and Tube, we determined that

these cash grants and bonds are

countervailable export subsidies within

the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the

Act. The cash grants and bonds are a

direct transfer of funds from the GRT

providing a benefit in the amount of the

cash grants and bonds. We also

determined that the benefits under the

Freight Program are ‘‘recurring,’’

because once a company has exported

and submitted documentation to the

Central Bank it becomes eligible for the

cash grants or bonds. The receipt of

benefits is automatic and continued

throughout the life of the program. (Pipe

and Tube at 43990.) See also Allocation

Section of the General Issues Appendix

in Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Steel Products

from Austria (58 FR 37217, 37268–69,

July 9, 1993) (‘‘General Issues

Appendix’’).

During the POR, Mannesmann

received cash under the freight rebate

program based on exports made

between October 1993 and December

1994. Mannesmann also received oneand two-year bonds during the POR

with respective maturity dates of 1997

and 1998. The Borusan Group also

received cash during the POR based on

exports made between October 1993 and

December 1994. In addition, the

Borusan Group received interest

payments during the POR on bonds

with maturity dates after the POR.

The Department’s practice has been to

deem the benefit to be received at the

time of export, if the benefit is

calculated as a percentage of the FOB

value and the amount of the benefit is

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

Castings at 44843. Although the benefit

under the Freight Program is calculated

based on tonnage and not as a

percentage of export value, we note that

a benefit determined by the amount of

the tonnage may also be known at the

time of export.

However, as previously determined in

Pipe and Tube, the facts in this case

establish that the exporter did not know

the amount of benefit at the time of

export. Although the freight payments

were stated in U.S. dollars per ton, the

benefit was not tied to the U.S. dollar.

Therefore, the TL amount ultimately

received by the exporter was not

necessarily equivalent to U.S. $50 or

U.S. $30 per ton. In this regard, the

freight program at issue differs from the

Export Performance Credit program,

where the benefits received in TL were

tied to the U.S. dollar. Under that

program, we found that the exporter

knew at the time of export the benefit

to be received, because the exporter

received the TL equivalent of the U.S.

dollar amount, which was based upon a

percentage of the FOB value at the time

of export. Therefore, although the

exporter ultimately received more TL

than if the benefit had been paid at the

time of export, due to Turkey’s high

level of inflation, the exporter still

received the equivalent in TL of the U.S.

dollar amount which was based upon

the percent of FOB value and was

known at the time of the export. Pipe

and Tube at 16787 and 43984. In fact,

in February 1995, two months after the

termination of the Freight Program, the

GRT announced that the benefit from

this program would be based on the

exchange rate that was in effect on

December 31, 1994, regardless of when

the shipments occurred. Moreover,

given the high inflation rate in Turkey

at the time of the shipments (based on

a CPI rate of approximately 65 percent

in 1993, and 114 percent in 1994), and

the GRT’s decision on the exchange rate,

there was no way for the exporter to

predict at the time of export what the

benefit would be. This position is

consistent with the Department’s

analysis of a similar program in Pasta

where we determined that the benefit

should be treated as having been

bestowed when the cash was received

rather than earned. (See discussion of

Payments for Exports on Turkish Ships

program in Pasta at 30369). As such, we

previously determined that the benefits

under this program are bestowed when

the cash is received with respect to the

cash payments, and not when the

benefit is earned.

With regard to the bonds portion of

the rebate, we previously determined

that the benefits from the bonds are

bestowed on the date of maturity. See

Pipe and Tube at 43991. 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.

Therefore, the exporters have no choice

but to hold the bonds until maturity.

See also Pasta at page 30368.

The benefits under the freight

program are made on a shipment-byshipment basis. Therefore, where a

benefit is tied or can be tied to exports

to the United States, we calculate the ad

valorem subsidy rate by dividing the

benefit by the firm’s total exports to the

United States, adjusted for foreign

exchange differences. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review: Roses and Other

Cut Flowers from Columbia, 52 FR

48847, 48848 (December 28, 1987). We

have calculated the benefit for the

Borusan Group and the benefit for

Mannesmann from this program by

dividing the total amount of freight

rebates received during the POR by each

respondent for exports to the United

States by their total exports to the

United States during the POR. On this

basis, we preliminarily determine the

net subsidy to be 2.61 percent ad

valorem for the Borusan Group for

welded pipe and tube, and 3.36 percent

ad valorem for Mannesmann for line

pipe.

5. Incentive Premium on Domestically

Obtained Goods: Companies holding

investment incentive certificates under

the GIP are eligible for a rebate of the

15 percent VAT paid on locally-sourced

machinery and equipment. Imported

machinery and equipment are subject to

the VAT and are not eligible for the

rebate. (Pasta at 30369). The Department

determined in Pasta that these VAT

rebates are countervailable subsidies

within the meaning of section

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act because the

rebates constitute revenue foregone by

the GRT, and they provide a benefit in

the amount of the VAT savings to the

company. Also, they are specific under

section 771(5A)(C) because their receipt

is contingent upon the use of domestic

goods rather than imported goods.

Further, the Department determined

that the benefits under the Incentive

Premium program are ‘‘recurring,’’

because once a company has received

an investment incentive certificate it

becomes eligible for the Incentive

Premium benefits. The receipt of

benefits is automatic and continues

from year to year.

Mannesmann did not use this

program during the POR. For the rebates

received by the Borusan Group during

the POR, we divided the amount

received by the company’s total sales

during the POR, adjusted for foreign

exchange differences. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine that the net

countervailable subsidy to be 0.01 per
64812 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices

cent ad valorem for the Borusan Group

for welded pipe and tube, and zero for

Mannesmann for line pipe.

B. Other Program Preliminarily

Determined to Confer Subsidies

Deduction from Taxable Income for

Export Revenues: In 1995, the Ministry

of Finance amended Article 19 of the

Income Tax Law by issuing Section 1 of

Article 40, to allow companies that

export goods or services to deduct 0.5

percent of their hard currency income

derived from these export activities

from their corporate income taxes.

We preliminary determine that this

tax exemption is a countervailable

subsidy within the meaning of section

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. The exemption

represents revenue forgone by the GRT

and provides a benefit in the amount of

the tax savings to the company. Also,

the subsidy is specific under section

771(5A)(B) because its receipt is

contingent upon export performance.

The Borusan Group and Mannesmann

claimed this deduction on their tax

returns filed during the POR.

To calculate the countervailable

subsidy, we divided the tax savings

realized during the POR by the

company’s total export sales during the

POR, adjusted for foreign exchange

differences. On this basis, we

preliminarily determine the

countervailable subsidy from this

program to be less than 0.005 percent ad

valorem for the Borusan Group for

welded pipe and tube, and 0.16 percent

ad valorem for Mannesmann for line

pipe.

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined to

be Not Used

We examined the following programs

and preliminarily determine that the

producers and/or exporters of the

subject merchandise did not apply for or

receive benefits under these programs

during the period of review:

1. Resource Utilization Support Fund

2. State Aid for Exports Program

3. Advance Refunds of Tax Savings

4. Export Credit Through the Foreign

Trade Corporate Companies

Rediscount Credit Facility

(Eximbank)

5. Past Performance Related Foreign

Currency Export Loans (Eximbank)

6. Export Credit Insurance (Eximbank)

7. Subsidized Turkish Lira Credit

Facilities

8. Subsidized Credit for Proportion of

Fixed Expenditures

9. Fund Based Credit

10. Export Incentive Certificate Customs

Duty & Other Tax Exemptions

11. Resource Utilization Support

Premium (RUSP)

12. Regional Subsidies

a. Additional Refunds of VAT (VAT +

10%)

b. Postponement of VAT on Imported

Goods

c. Land Allocation (GIP)

d. Taxes, Fees (Duties), Charge

Exemption (GIP)

Preliminary Results of Review

In accordance with 19 C.F.R. section

355.22(c)(4)(ii), we calculated an

individual subsidy rate for each

producer/exporter subject to each

administrative review. For the period

January 1, 1996 through December 31,

1996, we preliminarily determine the

net subsidy to be as follows:

Assessment

Rate

(percent)

Manufacturer/Exporter of

Line Pipe

Mannesmann ............................ 3.81

Manufacturer/Exporter of

Pipe and Tube

Borusan Group ......................... 3.26

If the final results of these reviews

remain the same as these preliminary

results, the Department intends to

instruct Customs to assess

countervailing duties as indicated

above. The Department also intends to

instruct Customs to collect a cash

deposit of 3.26 percent of the f.o.b.

invoice price on all shipments of pipe

and tube from the Borusan Group, and

3.81 percent of the f.o.b. invoice price

on all shipments of line pipe from

Mannesmann, entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication of the final

results of these reviews.

Because the URAA replaced the

general rule in favor of a country-wide

rate with a general rule in favor of

individual rates for investigated and

reviewed companies, the procedures for

establishing countervailing duty rates,

including those for non-reviewed

companies, are now essentially the same

as those in antidumping cases, except as

provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of

the Act. The requested review will

normally cover only those companies

specifically named. See 19 CFR section

355.22(a). Pursuant to 19 CFR section

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 Federal-Mogul

Corporation and The Torrington

Company v. United States, 822 F.Supp.

782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council

v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT

1993) (interpreting 19 CFR section

353.22(e), the antidumping regulation

on automatic assessment, which is

identical to 19 CFR section 355.22(g)).

Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all

companies except those covered by

these reviews will be unchanged by the

results of these reviews.

We will instruct Customs to continue

to collect cash deposits for nonreviewed companies under each order at

the most recent company-specific or

country-wide rate applicable to the

company under that order. Accordingly,

the cash deposit rates that will be

applied to non-reviewed companies

covered by these orders are those

established in the most recently

completed administrative proceeding,

conducted pursuant to the statutory

provisions that were in effect prior to

the URAA amendments. See 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,

including those companies for which

the reviews are being rescinded, until a

review of a company assigned these

rates is requested. In addition, for the

period January 1, 1996 through

December 31, 1996, the assessment rates

applicable to all non-reviewed

companies covered by these orders are

the cash deposit rates in effect at the

time of entry.

Public Comments

Parties to these proceedings may

request disclosure of the calculation

methodology and interested parties may

request a hearing not later than 10 days

after the date of publication of this

notice. Interested parties may submit

written arguments in case briefs on

these preliminary results within 30 days

of the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs, limited to arguments raised in

case briefs, may be submitted seven

days after the time limit for filing the

case brief. Parties who submit argument

in these proceedings are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. Any hearing,

if requested, will be held seven days

after the scheduled date for submission

of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case briefs

and rebuttal briefs must be served on

interested parties in accordance with 19

CFR section 355.38.

Representatives of parties to these

proceedings may request disclosure of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Notices 64813

proprietary information under

administrative protective order no later

than 10 days after the representative’s

client or employer becomes a party to

the proceeding, but in no event later

than the date the case briefs, under 19

CFR section 355.38, are due. The

Department will publish the final

results of these administrative reviews,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)).

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32214 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

List of Institutions of Higher Education

Ineligible for Federal Funds

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document is published

to identify institutions of higher

education that are ineligible for

contracts and grants by reason of a

determination by the Secretary of

Defense that the institution prevents

military recruiter access to the campus

or students or maintains a policy against

ROTC. It also implements the

requirements set forth in the Omnibus

Consolidated Appropriations Act of

1997 and 32 CFR Part 216. Currently, a

single institution is ineligible for

contracts of grants, the Washington

College of Law of American University,

Washington, DC.

Recently, William Mitchell College of

Law reported modifications to school

policies sufficient to merit removal from

the list of ineligible schools.

ADDRESSES: Director for Accession

Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Force Management

Policy, 4000 Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20301–4000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. Carr, (703) 697–8444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 6, 1997 (62 FR 52091), the

Department of Defense published 32

CFR part 216 as an interim rule. This

rule requires that the Department of

Defense semi-annually publish a list of

the institutions of higher education

ineligible for Federal funds due to a

policy or practice that either prohibits,

or in effect prevents, the Secretary of

Defense from obtaining, for military

recruiting purposes, entry to campuses,

access to students on campuses, access

to directory information on students or

that has an anti-ROTC policy. On

November 18, 1997 (62 FR 61495), the

Department of Defense published a list

of the institutions of higher education

ineligible for Federal Funding; this

listing updates and supersedes that

listing.

Dated: December 3, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–32084 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Executive Committee Meeting of the

Defense Advisory Committee on

Women in the Services (DACOWITS)

AGENCY: Department of Defense,

Advisory Committee on Women in the

Services.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section10(a),

Public Law 92–463, as amended, notice

is hereby given of a forthcoming

Quarterly Executive Committee Meeting

of the Defense Advisory Committee on

Women in the Services (DACOWITS).

The purpose of the Executive

Committee Meeting is to provide

transitional training to the incoming

1998 Executive Committee members

and an awards ceremony for the 1997

Executive Committee members. The

Meeting will be open to the public,

unless otherwise noted below.

DATES: December 8, 1997, 9:15 a.m.–

11:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: SECDEF Conference Room

3E869, The Pentagon, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Colonel Kay Troutt, USAF,

or CDR Deborah R. Goodwin, USN,

DACOWITS and Military Women

Matters, OASD (Force Management

Policy), 4000 Defense Pentagon, Room

3D749, Washington, DC 20301–4000;

telephone (703) 697–2122.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting

agenda:

Monday December, 1997

Time Event

7:10–9:00 a.m ...... DACOWITS member’s

arrive/Breakfast

(closed to public).

9:15–9:30 a.m ...... Introductions (3E869—

SecDef Conf Rm,

open to public).

9:30–10:00 a.m .... Executive Committee

Transition (open to

public).

10:00–11:00 a.m .. Subcommittee Reviews

(open to public).

11:00–11:30 a.m .. Executive Committee

Presentations (open to

public).

11:30–1:00 p.m .... Lunch (closed to public).

1:30–4:00 p.m ...... Transition training for

members (closed to

public).

Late submission due to scheduling

conflict.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison,

Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–32083 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board

Meeting

The Spring General Board Meeting in

support of the HQ USAF Scientific

Advisory Board will meet in Colorado

Springs, CO, on April 22–24, 1998 from

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to

gather information and receive briefings

for 1998 Summer Study.

The meeting will be closed to the

public in accordance with Section 552b

of Title 5, United States Code,

specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4)

thereof.

For further information, contact the HQ

USAF Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat

at (703) 697–8404.

Barbara A. Carmichael,

Alternate Air Force Federal Register Liaison

Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–32225 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3910–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for the

Realignment of the Naval Sea Systems

Command

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.