Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6171

23See id.

24See footnote 1, supra.

25See footnote 4, supra.

grants are not contingent upon exports,

these programs seem to fall outside the

definition of export subsidies under

Article 3(a) of the Subsidies Agreement.

However, the Department does not have

enough information to calculate or

determine whether the total ad valorem

subsidization of the subject

merchandise from the CAP/governmentdirected grants exceeds five-percent or

whether the CAP/government-directed

grants were meant to cover operating

losses or to be used as direct forgiveness

of debt. Nor does the Department

believe such calculation or

determination would be appropriate in

the course of a sunset review. Instead,

we are providing the Commission with

the following program descriptions.

The CA

Under the Concerted Action Program

established by Royal Decree 669/74, the

Spanish government directs banks to

make long-term loans to steel companies

at below market rates. Because loans

under the CAP are provided to a specific

industry at rates and terms inconsistent

with commercial consideration, the

Department determined that this loan

confers a countervailable domestic

subsidy.23

Government-directed grants

Although initially the disbursements

were characterized as zero interest

loans, the Department found that this is

an untied cash grant meant to keep

some companies in operation until a

reconversion plan could be

implemented. Thus, the Department

determined that the disbursements were

government-directed grants and

countervailable subsidies.24

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

countervailing duty order would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy

at the rates listed below:

Manufacturer/exporters Margin

(percent)

Roldan, S.A. ............................... 0.19

S.A. Echevarria ........................... 13.55

Forjas Alavesas, S.A. ................. 0.21

Olarra .......................................... 25 0.00

All others ..................................... 13.55

This notice serves as the only

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 C.F.R. 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2838 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–475–821]

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy:

Rescission of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Rescission of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On October 28, 1999, in

response to a request from respondents,

the Department of Commerce initiated

an administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on stainless

steel wire rod from Italy. The review

covers the period January 1, 1998

through December 31, 1998. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),

the Department is now rescinding this

review because the respondents have

withdrawn their request for review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

B. Greynolds, AD/CVD Enforcement,

Group II, Office VI, Import

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 30, 1999, the Department

received a request for an administrative

review of the countervailing duty order

on stainless steel wire rod from Italy

from Accaiaerie Valbruna S.r.l. and

Accaiaerie di Bolzano SpA

(respondents), for the period January 1,

1998 through December 31, 1998. On

November 4, 1999, the Department

published in the Federal Register (64

FR 60161) a notice of ‘‘Initiation of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review’’ initiating the administrative

review. On November 15, 1999,

respondents withdrew their request for

review.

The applicable regulation, 19 CFR

351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that

requested an administrative review

withdraws the request within 90 days of

the date of publication of the notice of

initiation of the requested review, the

Secretary will rescind the review. In this

case, respondents have withdrawn their

request within the 90 day period. No

other interested party requested a

review, and we have received no other

submissions regarding respondents’

withdrawal of its request for review.

Therefore, we are rescinding this review

of the countervailing duty order on

stainless steel wire rod from Italy

covering the period January 1, 1998,

through December 31, 1998.

This notice is published in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Dated: January 27, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2844 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–533–807]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review: Sulfanilic Acid From India

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review: Sulfanilic

Acid from India.

SUMMARY: On October 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the countervailing duty order on

sulfanilic acid from India (64 FR 53320)

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On

the basis of a notice of intent to

participate and an adequate response

filed on behalf of a domestic interested

party and an inadequate response (in

this case no response) from respondent

interested parties, the Department

decided to conduct an expedited (120-

day) review. As a result of this review,

the Department finds that revocation of

the countervailing duty order would be

6172 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

1HTSUS subheadings for sulfanilic acid and

sodium salts of sulfanilic acid have changed since

the issuance of this order. The petitioner asserts

that the HTSUS subheading for sulfanilic acid was

2921.42.24.20 in 1993 and has remained at

2921.42.22 since 1994.

2See Countervailing Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid

From India, 58 FR 12026 (March 2, 1993).

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.

The net countervailable subsidy and the

nature of the subsidy are identified in

the Final Results of Review section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Young or Melissa G. Skinner,

Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3207 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

Statute and Regulations

This review was conducted pursuant

to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act.

The Department’s procedures for

conducting sunset reviews are set forth

in Procedures for Conducting Five-year

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR

13516 (March 20, 1998) (‘‘Sunset

Regulations’’), and 19 CFR Part 351

(1999) in general. Guidance on

methodological or analytical issues

relevant to the Department’s conduct of

sunset reviews is set forth in the

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98:3—

Policies Regarding the Conduct of Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Scope

The products covered by this order

are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which

include technical (or crude) sulfanilic

acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid

and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid

(sodium sulfanilate). The principal

differences between the grades are the

undesirable quantities of residual

aniline and alkali insoluble materials

present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades

are available as dry free flowing

powders. Technical sulfanilic acid

contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and

1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Refined sulfanilic acid

contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and

0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Sodium salt of sulfanilic acid

(sodium sulfanilate) is a granular or

crystalline material containing 75

percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5

percent maximum aniline, and 0.25

percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials based on the equivalent

sulfanilic acid content. The

merchandise is classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings

2921.42.22 and 2921.42.24.20. 1

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of the order is dispositive.

This review covers imports from all

manufacturers and exporters of

sulfanilic acid from India.

History of the Order

The Department published its final

affirmative countervailing duty

determination on sulfanilic acid from

India in the Federal Register on January

8, 1993 (58 FR 3259). In the final

determination the Department found an

estimated net subsidy, for all

manufacturers/producers/exporters of

sulfanilic acid from India, of 43.71

percent ad valorem based on four

programs: (1) 2.17 percent under the

Preferential Export Financing Through

Packing Credits; (2) 1.69 percent under

the Preferential Post-Shipment

Financing; (3) 6.13 percent under the

Import Tax Deduction for Exporters

(Section 80HHC); and (4) 33.72 percent

under the Import Duty Exemptions

Available Through Advance Licenses.

Receipt of benefits under each of these

programs was contingent upon exports.

On March 2, 1993, the Department

issued the countervailing duty order,

utilizing the subsidy rates found in the

original investigation. 2 Since the

issuance of the order, the Department

has not conducted an administrative

review.

Background

On October 1, 1999, the Department

initiated a sunset review of the

countervailing duty order on sulfanilic

acid from India (64 FR 53320), pursuant

to section 751(c) of the Act. The

Department received a Notice of Intent

to Participate on behalf of National Ford

Chemical Company (‘‘NFC’’) on October

18, 1999, within the deadline specified

in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. Pursuant to section

771(9)(C) of the Act, NFC claimed

interested party status as a U.S.

manufacturer whose workers are

engaged in the production of domestic

like products. Moreover, NFC claims

that it was a petitioner in the original

investigation. The Department received

a complete substantive response from

NFC by November 1, 1999, within the

30-day deadline specified in the Sunset

Regulations under section

351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a

substantive response from any

respondent interested party to this

proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 19

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department

determined to a conduct an expedited,

120-day, review of this order.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1)

of the Act, the Department conducted

this review to determine whether

revocation of the countervailing duty

order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy. Section 752(b)

of the Act provides that, in making this

determination, the Department shall

consider the net countervailable subsidy

determined in the investigation and

subsequent reviews, and whether any

change in the program which gave rise

to the net countervailable subsidy has

occurred and is likely to affect that net

countervailable subsidy. Pursuant to

section 752(b)(3) of the Act, the

Department shall provide to the

International Trade Commission (‘‘the

Commission’’) the net countervailable

subsidy likely to prevail if the order is

revoked. In addition, consistent with

section 752(a)(6), the Department shall

provide to the Commission information

concerning the nature of the subsidy

and whether it is a subsidy described in

Article 3 or Article 6.1 of the 1994 WTO

Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures (‘‘Subsidies

Agreement’’).

The Department’s determinations

concerning continuation or recurrence

of a countervailable subsidy, the net

countervailable subsidy likely to prevail

if the order is revoked, and nature of the

subsidy are discussed below. In

addition, NFC’s comments with respect

to each of these issues are addressed

within the respective sections.

Continuation or Recurrence of a

Countervailable Subsidy

Drawing on the guidance provided in

the legislative history accompanying the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’), specifically the Statement of

Administrative Action (the ‘‘SAA’’),

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1 (1994), the

House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103–826,

pt.1 (1994), and the Senate Report, S.

Rep. No. 103–412 (1994), the

Department issued its Sunset Policy

Bulletin providing guidance on

methodological and analytical issues,

including the basis for likelihood

determinations. The Department

clarified that determinations of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6173

3See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).

4See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).

5See section III.B.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.

likelihood will be made on an orderwide basis (see section III.A.2 of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally,

the Department normally will determine

that revocation of a countervailing duty

order is likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy

where (a) a subsidy program continues,

(b) a subsidy program has been only

temporarily suspended, or (c) a subsidy

program has been only partially

terminated (see section III.A.3.a of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin). Exceptions to

this policy are provided where a

company has a long record of not using

a program (see section III.A.3.b of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin).

In addition to considering the

guidance on likelihood cited above,

section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine that

revocation of an order is likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy where a

respondent interested party waives its

participation in the sunset review.

Pursuant to the SAA, at 881, in a review

of a countervailing duty order, when the

foreign government has waived

participation, the Department shall

conclude that revocation of the order

would be likely to lead to a continuation

or recurrence of a countervailable

subsidy for all respondent interested

parties.3 In the instant review, the

Department did not receive a response

from the foreign government or from

any other respondent interested party.

Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of

the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes

a waiver of participation.

In its substantive response, NFC

argues that revocation of the

countervailing duty order on sulfanilic

acid from India will result in the

continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy. Citing the

SAA, at 888, NFC asserts that

continuation, or temporary or partial

termination, of a subsidy program will

be highly probative of the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of

countervailable subsidies, absent

significant evidence to the contrary (see

November 1, 1999, Substantive

Response of NFC regarding sulfanilic

acid from India at 6). NFC asserts that

there is no indication that the Indian

government’s subsidy programs have

been modified or eliminated (see

November 1, 1999, Substantive

Response of NFC regarding sulfanilic

acid from India at 8). NFC argues as

support the fact that the order has never

been subject to an administrative

review, nor has any evidence been

submitted to the Department

demonstrating the termination of these

programs that conferred countervailable

subsidies. Therefore, NFC adds, it is

reasonable to assume that these

programs continue to exist and are

utilized. Moreover, NFC notes that

section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides

that the Department shall determine that

revocation of an order is likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy where a

respondent interested party waives its

participation in the sunset review.

As stated above, the continued use of

a program is highly probative of the

likelihood of continuation or recurrence

of countervailable subsidies if the order

were revoked. Additionally, the

presence of programs that have not been

used, but have also not been terminated,

is also probative of the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy. Absent

argument or evidence to the contrary,

we find that countervailable programs

continue to exist and be used.

Therefore, because countervailable

programs continue to exist and be used,

the foreign government and other

respondent interested parties waived

their right to participate in this review

before the Department, and absent

argument to the contrary, the

Department concludes that revocation of

the order would be likely to lead to a

continuation or recurrence of a

countervailable subsidy for all

respondent interested parties.4

Net Countervailable Subsidy

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that, consistent with

the SAA and House Report, the

Department normally will select a rate

from the investigation as the net

countervailable subsidy likely to prevail

if the order is revoked, because that is

the only calculated rate that reflects the

behavior of exporters and foreign

governments without the discipline of

an order or suspension agreement in

place. The Department noted that this

rate may not be the most appropriate

rate if, for example, the rate was derived

from subsidy programs which were

found in subsequent reviews to be

terminated, there has been a programwide change, or the rate ignores a

program found to be countervailable in

a subsequent administrative review.5

NFC, citing the SAA, notes that the

Administration intends that Commerce

normally will select the rate from the

investigation as the net countervailable

subsidy likely to prevail if the order is

revoked, because that is the only

calculated rate that reflects the behavior

of exporters and foreign governments

without the discipline of an order in

place (see November 1, 1999,

Substantive Response of NFC regarding

sulfanilic acid from India at 8).

Therefore, NFC argues that the

Department should determine that the

net countervailable subsidy likely to

prevail is 43.71 percent, the rate set

forth in the original investigation.

As noted above, the Department has

not conducted an administrative review

of this order. Thus, we have never found

that substantive changes have been

made to any of the Indian subsidy

programs. Therefore, absent any

argument or evidence to the contrary,

the Department determines that the net

countervailable subsidy that would be

likely to prevail in the event of

revocation of the order would be 43.71

percent. This rate is for all producers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise from India.

Nature of the Subsidy

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department states that, consistent with

section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the

Department will provide to the

Commission information concerning the

nature of the subsidy, and whether the

subsidy is a subsidy as described in

Article 3 or Article 6.1 of the Subsidies

Agreement. NFC did not address this

issue in its substantive response of

November 1, 1999.

Because the receipt of benefits

provided by the Government of India

under all four of the programs are

contingent on exports, these programs

fall within the definition of an export

subsidy under Article 3.1(a) of the

Subsidies Agreement. Therefore, the

Department is providing the

Commission with the following program

descriptions.

1. Preferential Export Financing

Through Packing Credits

The Reserve Bank of India, through

commercial banks, provides ‘‘packing’’

credits or pre-shipment loans to

exporters. With these pre-shipment

loans, exporters may purchase raw

materials to produce goods for export

based on the presentation of a

confirmed purchase order. In general,

the pre-shipment loans are granted for a

period of up to 180 days. Because only

exporters are eligible for these preshipment loans, they are countervailable

to the extent that they are provided at

preferential rates.

2. Preferential Post-Shipment Financing

The Reserve Bank of India, through

commercial banks, provides postVerDate 27<JAN>2000 19:53 Feb 07, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 08FEN1
6174 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

shipment financing loans to exporters.

The purpose of post-shipment financing

is to enable exporters to extend

favorable payment terms such as

deferred payment, to the foreign

purchaser. Post-shipment financing

loans may not exceed a period of 180

days. Because only exporters are eligible

for the post-shipment loans, they are

countervailable to the extent that they

are provided at preferential interest

rates.

3. Import Tax Deduction for Exporters

(Section 80HHC)

For tax returns filed during the period

of investigation, the Indian government

allowed exporters to claim a tax

deduction related to their export sales.

This tax deduction was calculated by

dividing export sales by total sales and

then multiplying the resulting figure by

the exporter’s profit as shown in the tax

return. This amount is then deducted

from taxable profits. Because this

program is only available to exporters,

we determine it to be countervailable.

4. Import Duty Exemptions Available

Through Advance Licenses

Advance licenses are available to

exporters, to enable them to import raw

material inputs used in the production

of exports duty-free. Recipients of

advance licenses are obligated under the

terms of the license to export the

products produced with the duty-free

imports. The amount of imports allowed

under an advance license is closely

linked to the amount of exports to be

produced. We consider the use of the

advance licenses to be equivalent to a

duty drawback program insofar as

customs duties are not paid on

physically incorporated, imported

products used in the production of

exports. However, where imported

inputs are not physically incorporated

into the exported product, we consider

the duty savings afforded by the

advance license to be a countervailable

export subsidy.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

countervailing duty order would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy

at the rates listed below:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

All manufacturers/producers/exporters ................................... 47.31

This notice serves as the only

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 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

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 five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2840 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 011100F]

Marine Mammals; File No. 738–1454

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application for

amendment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

Ms. Carole Conway, University of

California, Davis, CA 95616–8521, has

requested an amendment to scientific

research Permit No. 738–1454.

DATES: Written or telefaxed comments

must be received on or before March 9,

2000.

ADDRESSES: The amendment request

and related documents are available for

review upon written request or by

appointment in the following office(s):

Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705,

Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713–

2289); and

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,

CA 090802–4213.

Written comments or requests for a

public hearing on this request should be

submitted to the Chief, Permits and

Documentation Division, F/PR1, Office

of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315

East-West Highway, Room 13130, Silver

Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals

requesting a hearing should set forth the

specific reasons why a hearing on this

particular amendment request would be

appropriate.

Comments may also be submitted by

facsimile at (301) 713–0376, provided

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy

submitted by mail and postmarked no

later than the closing date of the

comment period. Please note that

comments will not be accepted by email or other electronic media.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth Johnson, 301/713–2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

subject amendment to Permit No. 738–

1454, issued on January 13, 1998(63 FR

38391) is requested under the authority

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of

1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et

seq.), the Regulations Governing the

Taking and Importing of Marine

Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the

regulations governing the taking,

importing, and exporting of endangered

and threatened species (50 CFR 222–

226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

Permit No. 739–1454 authorizes the

permit holder to import blue whale

samples from Canada. The permit

holder now requests authorization to

import samples from any where blue

whales are found. Currently, samples

are available in Mexico. No additional

samples above that already authorized is

requested.

In compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial

determination has been made that the

activity proposed is categorically

excluded from the requirement to

prepare an environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register,

NMFS is forwarding copies of this

application to the Marine Mammal

Commission and its Committee of

Scientific Advisors.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Gene Nitta,

Acting Chief, Permits and Documentation

Division, Office of Protected Resources,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–2810 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F