6166 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

Commission with ‘‘descriptions’’ of the

nature of the subsidy (see November 23,

1999, Rebuttal Brief of the respondent

interested parties at 2). However, with

respect to the Bank of Israel Export

Loans, they assert that, because the

Department found in the original

investigation that the loans were no

longer at preferential rates, the

program’s consistency with the

Subsidies Agreement is irrelevant. Id. at

3.

With respect to the other programs,

respondent interested parties contend

that, even as measured by the

Department’s methodology, the other

programs will not exceed the five

percent threshold of Article 6 of the

Subsidies Agreement in future reviews.

First, of the six subsidies mentioned in

the Preliminary Results other than the

Bank of Israel Export Loans, three are

not relevant: The LTID Loans and the

Exchange Rate Risk Insurance Scheme

(‘‘ERIS’’) have been terminated, and the

Environmental Grant Program was used

only one time and provides no residual

benefits. Id. All the other programs

combined i.e., the ECIL Grants, EIRD

Grants, and Infrastructure Grant

Program will not exceed five percent in

the future. Id. at 3–4. This is because

ECIL and infrastructure grants are

diminishing, both as a result of their

allocation over time and as a result of

the fact that any new grants have been

minimal. Additionally, further

privatization of Rotem, from about 31

percent government ownership to about

two percent, will significantly reduce

the residual subsidization from prior

grants. Id. at 4.

Department’s Position

The Department agrees with the

respondent interested parties’ assertion

that descriptions of the Bank of Israel

Export Loans, LTID Loans, and ERIS

should not be included in the nature of

the subsidy section because these

programs were found to be terminated.

However, as noted above, the

Department has not found the

Environmental Grant Program to be

terminated. Therefore, we will revise

the descriptions of the nature of the

subsidies from these programs. Additionally, as we noted in our

preliminary results, we do not have

information with which to calculate the

net countervailable subsidy in

accordance with Annex IV of the

Subsidies Agreement, nor do we believe

it appropriate to attempt such a

calculation in the course of a sunset

review.

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 described in Article

3 or Article 6.1 of the Subsidies

Agreement. Although the programs conferring

benefits do not fall within the definition

of an export subsidy under Article 3.1(a)

of the Subsidies Agreement, they could

be found to be inconsistent with Article

6 if the net countervailable subsidy

exceeds five percent, as measured in

accordance with Annex IV of the

Subsidies Agreement. The Department,

however, has no information with

which to make such a calculation, nor

do we believe it appropriate to attempt

such a calculation in the course of a

sunset review. Rather, we are providing

the Commission with the following

program descriptions. The Encouragement of Capital

Investments Law (ECIL) Grants. In the

1987 original investigation, the

Department found that Negev

Phosphates, Ltd. (‘‘Negev’’) and Haifa

Chemicals, Ltd. received

countervailable subsidies from this

program, the benefits of which depend

on the geographic location of the

eligible enterprises. ECIL Grants were

found to confer subsidies in each

subsequent administrative review. Encouragement of Research and

Development Law (‘‘EIRD’’) Grants.

Israeli manufacturers, producers or

exporters of IPA may benefit from

research and development grants under

this program. With the exception of the

1988, 1989 and 1991 administrative

reviews, the Department found the EIRD

Law Grants to be countervailable in

each yearly review since the issuance of

the order.

Infrastructure Grant Program. In the

administrative review of the 1996

period, the Department found that this

program enables the GOI to establish

new industrial areas by partially

reimbursing companies for their costs of

developing the infrastructure in certain

geographical zones. Environmental Grant Program.

Additionally, in the 1996 administrative

review, the Department found that the

GOI administers this countervailable

subsidy program to provide financial

assistance for the adaptation of existing

industrial facilities to new

environmental requirements.

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

for the reasons set forth in the final

results of review. As discussed more

fully above, we will adjust our

calculations of the net subsidy to reflect

the termination of the LTID Loans

program on the rates listed below:

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)

Haifa, Ltd. ................................. 5.91

All Others .................................. 5.91

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 material 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 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2852 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–469–004]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From

Spain

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

expedited sunset review: Stainless steel

wire rod from Spain.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated a sunset review

of the countervailing duty order on

stainless steel wire rod from Spain (64

FR 35589) 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 adequate substantive

comments filed on behalf of the

domestic interested parties, as well as

inadequate response from respondent

interested parties, the Department

determined to conduct an expedited

(120 day) review. As a result of this

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6167

1See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determinations; Certain Stainless Steel Products

From Spain, 47 FR 51453 (November 15, 1982).

However, this product designation was changed to

‘‘stainless steel wire rod’’ in the subsequent

countervailing duty order because the International

Trade Commission determined that only imports of

SSWR from Spain are causing material injury or are

threatening material injury to a domestic industry.

The countervailing duty investigations pertaining to

hot-rolled stainless steel bars and cold-formed

stainless steel bars from Spain were terminated. See

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain;

Countervailing Duty Order. 48 FR 52 (January 3,

1983). 2See id. The Department found that there were

five known producers and exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States. The fifth

company, La Calibradora Mechanica, S.A., was

lumped with all others because it did not respond

to the Department’s inquiry. (Although Echevarria

also did not provide the Department with a

response, the Department had enough information

to employ the best information otherwise available

in determining the net subsidy rate for that

company.)

3See id. For other subsidy programs investigated,

the Department determined that some programs fall

outside the purview of the countervailing duty law

(such as, Desgravacion Fiscal a la Exportacion

(‘‘DFE’’) and Export Credit Insurance), and the

others are either not applicable to or not used by

Spanish producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise (such as, some of Certain Privileged

Circuit Exporter Credits, Warehouse Construction

Loans, Regional Investment Incentive Programs,

Equity Infusion, Special Credits to Aceros de

Llodio, and Research and Development Incentives).

4Although the Department determined that

Olarra was in a court-ordered bankruptcy

receivership and, therefore, any benefits associated

with pre-receivership loans have been lost (i.e.,

Olarra’s net countervailable subsidy rate is zero),

Olarra was not excluded from the final

determination, countervailing duty order, and final

results of subsequent administrative reviews

because the Department determined that if the

financial condition of Olarra improves, it could

again qualify for and obtain the benefits under these

programs in the future.

5Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain:

Countervailing Duty Order, 48 FR 52 (January 3,

1983).

6See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain; Final

Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 53 FR 28427 (July 28, 1988); Stainless Steel

Wire Rod From Spain; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative review, 54 FR

26826 (June 26, 1989); and Stainless Steel Wire Rod

From Spain; Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review. 55 FR 349 (January 4,

1990).

7See id. Roldan was the lone subject of all three

administrative reviews because the Department

determined that Roland was the only known

Spanish producer/exporter of the subject

merchandise during the relevant periods of reviews.

8See footnote 6, supra. Also see Stainless Steel

Wire Rod From Spain: Preliminary Results of

Continued

review, the Department finds that

revocation of the countervailing duty

order would be 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun

W. Cho or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of

Policy for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street & Constitution Avenue N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–1698 or (202) 482–1560,

respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

This review was conducted pursuant

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

The Department’s procedures for the

conduct of 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 in 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

Imports covered by this order are

shipments of stainless steel wire rod

(‘‘SSWR’’) from Spain, which includes

coiled, semi-finished, hot-rolled

stainless steel products of

approximately round solid cross

section, not under 0.20 inch nor over

0.74 inch in diameter, whether or not

tempered or treated or partly

manufactured, from Spain. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under item numbers 7221.00.0020 and

7221.00.0040 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) of the United States.

The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

On November 15, 1982, the

Department issued a final affirmative

countervailing duty determination on

certain stainless steel products from

Spain. 1 During the investigation, the

Department reviewed four companies:

Olarra, S.A. (‘‘Olarra’’), Roldan, S.A.

(‘‘Roldan’’), S.A. Echevarria

(‘‘Echevarria’’), and Forjas Alavesas,

S.A. (‘‘FASA’’).2 The Department

determined that four general subsidy

programs were providing

countervailable subsidies to Spanish

manufacturers, producers, and exporters

of the subject merchandise. The four

relevant subsidy programs are as

follows: medium- and long-term

preferential loans under the Concerted

Action Program (‘‘CAP’’), Privileged

Circuit Exporter Credits program

operating capital loans (‘‘PCEC-OC’’),

Privileged Circuit Exporter Credits

program pre-financing loans (‘‘PCECPF’’), and cash grants.3

Specifically, in its original

investigation, the Department found

Roldan was subsidized at the rate of

1.31 percent from the CAP and 1.88

percent from PCEC–OC and PCEC–PF;

hence, the net countervailable subsidy

rate for Roldan regarding the subject

merchandise was 3.19 percent.

Likewise, the Department found

Echevarria was subsidized at the rates of

11.48 from the CAP, 1.88 percent from

PCEC–OC, and 2.07 percent from a

government-directed grant. Therefore,

the net countervailable subsidy rate for

Echevarria regarding the subject

merchandise was 15.43 percent.

Similarly, the subsidy rates for FASA

are 0.21 and 1.88 percent for the CAP

and for PCEC-OC, respectively. Thus,

the net countervailable subsidy rate for

FASA regarding the subject

merchandise was 2.09 percent. As for

Olarra, the Department determined that

the net countervailable subsidy rate was

0.00 percent.4 Finally, the all-others rate

was 15.43 percent.

The Department published the

countervailing duty order on SSWR

from Spain in the Federal Register on

January 3, 1983.5 Since that time, the

Department has completed several

administrative reviews.6 In the first

administrative review, covering the

period January 1, 1986 through

December 31, 1986, the Department

determined that the net countervailable

subsidy for Roldan was 1.42 percent: 7

the benefits from PCEC–OC, PCEC–PF,

and the CAP were 0.07, 1.02, and 0.33

percent ad valorem, respectively. At the

same time, however, the Department

found that two subsidy programs were

terminated: PCEC–OC (effective January

1, 1986 as per Treasury Order of April

14, 1982) and PCEC–PF (effective March

5, 1987 pursuant to Royal Decrees 321/

1987 and 322/1987). Since the net

countervailable subsidy for Roldan was

reduced to de minimis (0.33 percent ad

valorem) when the Department

incorporated the above terminations

into consideration, it waived cash

deposits for any future shipments from

Roldan, until the final results of the next

administrative review.

In its second administrative review,

covering January 1, 1987 through

December 31, 1987, the Department

determined that Roldan benefitted from

PCEC–PF and the CAP at the rate of 0.15

and 0.27 percent ad valorem—combined

rate of 0.42 percent ad valorem.8 In its

6168 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR

16384 (April 24, 1989). Since PCEC–PF was

terminated pursuant to Royal Decrees 321/1987 and

322/1987, effective March 5, 1987, the Department

preliminarily determined that cash deposit of

estimated countervailing duties under this program

is zero. In its final results of the administrative

review, because the combined subsidy rate was de

minimis, the Department required zero cash

deposits for Roldan until the final results of the

next administrative review is published.

9See footnote 6, supra.

10See footnote 1, supra. AL Tech Specialty Steel

Corp., Carpenter Technology Corp., and Republic

Engineered Steels were members of the original

group which filed the petition.

11Although both the KOS and EC did not

explicitly claim their interested party status, they

are interested parties within the meaning of

771(9)(B) of the Act.

12See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results

of Five-Year Reviews 64 FR 62167 (November 16,

1999).

third and the latest administrative

review, covering January 1, 1988

through December 31, 1988, the

Department determined that the only

subsidy program that conferred a benefit

to Roldan was the CAP at the rate of

0.19 percent ad valorem.9 The order

remains in effect for all manufacturers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise.

Background

On July 1, 1999, the Department

initiated a sunset review of the

countervailing duty order on SSWR

from Spain (64 FR 35588), pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act. The

Department received a Notice of Intent

to Participate on behalf of AL Tech

Specialty Steel Corp., Carpenter

Technology Corp., Republic Engineered

Steels, Inc., Talley Metals Technology,

Inc., and United Steelworkers of

America (collectively referred to as ‘‘the

domestic interested parties’’), on July

16, 1999, within the deadline specified

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

Regulations. In their Notice of Intent to

Participate, the domestic interested

parties denoted that none of them is

related to a foreign producer/exporter or

is a U.S. importer of the subject

merchandise, nor are any of them

importers of the subject merchandise.

We received a complete substantive

response on behalf of the domestic

interested parties on August 2, 1999,

within the 30-day deadline specified in

the Sunset Regulations under section

351.218(d)(3)(i). The domestic

interested parties claimed interested

party status pursuant to sections

771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as U.S.

producers of the domestic like product

and as a union representing workers

that engage in the production of the like

product in the United States. In their

substantive response, the domestic

interested parties indicated that the

most of them have participated in this

proceeding since its inception and that,

as a group, they remain committed to a

full participation in the instant review.

(See the domestic interested parties’

August 2, 1999 Substantive Response, at

4–5.) 10 The domestic interested parties

also submitted their rebuttal comments

on August 9, 1999, within the five-day

deadline in accordance with section

351.218(d)(4).

The Department received substantive

responses from the Government of the

Kingdom of Spain (‘‘KOS’’) and from the

European Commission (‘‘EC’’) on July

30, 1999 and July 29, 1999,

respectively.11 Both the KOS and EC

indicated, in their respective

substantive responses, that they are

willing to participate in the instant

review and that they have in the past

participated in the proceedings of the

order. However, the Department did not

receive a substantive response from any

foreign producer/manufacturer,

exporter, or the U.S. importer, etc., as

defined under 771(9)(A) of the Act.

Thus, pursuant to section

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) of the Sunset

Regulations, the Department determined

that respondent interested parties’

substantive responses were inadequate

to warrant a full review. Consequently,

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C),

the Department determined to conduct

an expedited, 120-day, review of this

order.

In accordance with section

751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the

Department may treat a review as

extraordinarily complicated if it is a

review of a transition order (i.e., an

order in effect on January 1, 1995).

Therefore, on November 16, 1999, the

Department determined that the sunset

review of the countervailing duty order

on SSWR from Spain is extraordinarily

complicated and extended the time

limit for completion of the final results

of this review until not later than

January 27, 2000, in accordance with

section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.12

Although the deadline for this

determination was originally January

27, 2000, due to the Federal

Government shutdown on January 25

and 26, 2000, resulting from inclement

weather, the time frame for issuing this

determination has been extended by two

days.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1)

of the Act, the Department is conducting

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 that 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 the subsidy 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, the domestic interested

parties’ 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 (‘‘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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6169

13The Department did not receive a substantive

response from Roldan, which is the only known

exporter of the subject merchandise. (See footnote

7, supra.) As noted earlier, the Department received

substantive responses from the respondent

governments, the KOS and EC.

14The domestic interested parties’ claims,

however, do not go beyond a general statement; i.e.,

their claims lack specifics. In other words, other

than merely arguing that other or new subsidies are

benefitting Roldan, with respect to manufacturing/

exporting the subject merchandise, the domestic

interested parties did not provide the Department

with any evidence or information in support of

their claims.

15The domestic interested parties acknowledge

that resumption or continuation of subsidization

might not be likely if the terminations of subsidy

programs are permanent and not replaced. (See the

domestic interested parties’ substantive response at

15, footnote 5.)

16As noted above, the domestic interested parties

failed to supply any specific facts with respect to

their claim that other or new subsidies will benefit

Roldan.

17See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain;

Termination of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 58 FR 39197 (July 22, 1993).

18See footnote 1, supra.

19See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain;

Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review, 53 FR 9789 (March 25,

1988).

Sunset Policy Bulletin). Also, if the

Department determines that the fully

allocated benefit stream of a

countervailable subsidy is likely to

continue after the end of a sunset

review, it will normally determine that

the subsidy continues to exist regardless

whether the program that gave rise to

such benefit continues to exist. (See Id.

at section III.A.4.)

In addition to considering guidance

on likelihood provided in the Sunset

Policy Bulletin and legislative history,

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. In

the instant review, the Department did

not receive a response from any

respondent manufacturers/producers or

exporters of the subject merchandise.13

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

the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes

a waiver of participation.

In their substantive response, the

domestic interested parties contend that

revocation of the countervailing duty

order would be likely to lead to

continued unfair subsidization by the

KOS. The domestic interested parties

further contend that the KOS and its

regional governments continue to

provide an array of subsidy programs

benefitting the Spanish steel industry.

In support of their contention, the

domestic interested parties point to

Roldan’s 1990–1994 financial

statements, in which Roldan allegedly

admitted receiving unspecified

subsidies. Also, the domestic interested

parties state that Roldan received

subsidies from the Industrial Expansion

Area of Castilla Leon in 1987 and

1990.14 In addition, the domestic

interested parties request the

Department to reconsider, in the instant

sunset review, the legal method by

which the KOS eliminated some of its

subsidy programs and to analyze

whether the KOS is likely to reinstate

such programs. In other words, the

domestic interested parties are urging

the Department to revisit its decisions in

previous administrative reviews in

which the Department determined that

PCEC–OC and PCEC–PF were

eliminated. (See August 2, 1999

Substantive Response of the domestic

interested parties at 14–17 and 21–

23.) 15

In conclusion, the domestic interested

parties suggest that the countervailing

duty order has been only marginally

effective because of the existence of the

other subsidy provisions 16 and that it is

likely that the KOS and its regional

governments will continue and resume

subsidizing Spanish manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise. Id.

In its substantive response, the KOS

indicates that the programs, on which

the countervailing duty order was

determined, have expired a long time

ago: the CAP was only applicable during

the period 1974–1982, and the PCEC–

OC has not been applicable since 1986.

Thus, according to the KOS, any

outstanding benefit stream from 16-yearold programs would have long been

amortized. Also, the KOS insists that the

countervailing duty rates established in

the original investigation were either

zero or insignificant. Last, the KOS

argues that the records clearly indicate

that there is no subsidization of the

product concerned. (See July 30, 1999

Response of the KOS.)

The EC emphasizes, in its substantive

response, that the countervailing duty

order under consideration is very old.

According to the EC, all subsidies which

were relevant in the original

investigation, have since been

terminated or no longer benefit the

Spanish exporters/manufacturers of the

subject merchandise. Also, the EC

contends that, because the domestic

interested parties withdrew their

request for an administrative review in

1993,17 the domestic interested parties

acknowledged that there was no further

evidence of subsidization in Spain. In

conclusion, the EC asserts that

revocation of the order is not likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of

subsidization. (See July 29, 1999

Response of the EC.)

The domestic interested parties, in

their rebuttal, claim that the KOS

continues to provide significant

countervailable subsidies to its domestic

steel industry. Also, the domestic

interested parties argue against the

respondent interested parties’

suggestion that outstanding benefit

streams have already been amortized

and, therefore, that the order should be

revoked. The domestic interested parties

note that because the analytical

framework applied by the Department

in a sunset review is forward-looking,

the Department should not give undue

significance to the respondents’ claim

that subsidies provided to Roldan have

been completely allocated. (See August

9, 1999 the domestic interested parties’

Rebuttal Comments, at 1–7.)

Furthermore, the domestic interested

parties note that the countervailable

subsidy rates for Roldan, Echevarria,

and all others, determined in the

original investigation, are significant

because the subsidies enable the

manufacturers/exporters to aggressively

price the subject merchandise in the

U.S. market, where purchasers of SSWR

consider price to be a significant factor.

Id.

As noted above, in the final

affirmative countervailing duty

determination, the Department

determined that all Spanish producers/

exporters of the subject merchandise,

except one, were benefitting from

countervailable subsidies under the

CAP, PCEC–OC, PCEC–PF, and cash

grants programs at levels above de

minimis.18 In the first administrative

review, however, the Department found

that PCEC–OC was terminated pursuant

to a Treasury Order of April 14, 1982,

effective January 1, 1986; that PCEC–PF

was terminated as per Royal Decrees

321/1987 and 322/1987, effective March

5, 1997; and that Roldan was not

benefitting from a cash grant.19

Therefore, based on the Department’s

prior findings regarding the termination

of PCEC–OC and PCEC–PF and based on

lack of evidence to the contrary, we

determine that PCEC–OC and PCEC–PF

were eliminated and are not likely to be

reinstated if the order is revoked. In

addition, the Department determines

that the domestic interested parties’

claim that other or new subsidies are

benefitting Roldan is not supported by

sufficient facts. Specifically, the

domestic interested parties did not

provide sufficient and/or appropriate

information, evidence, or arguments to

warrant consideration of newly alleged

6170 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

20See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain; Fnal

Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review, 55 FR 349 (January 4, 1990).

21See footnote 6, supra. The Department, in its

administrative reviews, determined that PCEC–OC

and PCEC–PF had been terminated with no residual

benefits. Moreover, the Department found that the

Cash Grant program was never used by Roldan

during the investigation and throughout the

existence of the order. 22See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain:

Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review, 53 FR 9789 (March 25,

1988). The maximum amount of loan a company

can acquire was expressed in terms of the

percentage of the company’s exports in previous

years. Also, see footnote 1.

subsidy programs in this sunset review.

Moreover, whether the domestic

interested parties are making subsidy

allegations on products within the

purview of the instant review is unclear.

Finally, the domestic interested parties

have provided no information that

would cause us to revisit the final

results of our prior administrative

reviews, in which the above

terminations and the non-usage of

grants were found, and to reconsider the

legal method by which the KOS

eliminated the above subsidy programs.

Nevertheless, despite the KOS’s claim

that the CAP is expired as of 1982 and

the EC’s contention that the subsidies

countervailed in the original

investigation either were terminated or

no longer benefit the exporters of the

subject merchandise, the Department

found that Roldan had an outstanding

balance of long-term loans that were

extended under the CAP and that

Roldan, consequently, was benefitting

from the said loan, as late as December

31, 1989, the last period considered by

the Department in an administrative

review.20

Section III.A.4 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin stipulates that in considering a

subsidy for which the benefits are

allocated over time, the Department

normally will determine that the

countervailable subsidy will continue to

exist when the benefit stream will

continue beyond the end of the sunset

review regardless of whether the

program that gave rise to the long-term

benefit continues to exist. In the instant

review, Roldan or other respondent

parties did not come forth with

information which would indicate

whether Roldan’s long-term loans under

the CAP have been fully paid off or

whether Roldan is no longer benefitting

from the CAP. Hence, the Department is

forced to rely on the information

contained in the latest administrative

review, in which the Department found

residual benefits from the CAP still

lingering with respect to Roldan, and to

determine that Roldan is still benefitting

from the eliminated subsidy, the CAP.

In conclusion, because we find that a

countervailable program currently is

being used (or the benefit stream

therefrom continues beyond the end of

this sunset review), and respondent

interested parties waived their right to

participate in this review before the

Department, we determine that it is

likely that a countervailable subsidy

will continue or recur were the order

revoked.

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, 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 went on to

clarify that this rate may not be the most

appropriate 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 review. Additionally,

where the Department determined

company-specific countervailing duty

rates in the original investigation, the

Department normally will report to the

Commission company-specific rates

from the original investigation or where

no company-specific rate was

determined for a company, the

Department normally will provide to the

Commission the country-wide or all

others rate. (See Sunset Policy Bulletin

at section III.B.2.)

The domestic interested parties, citing

the Sunset Policy Bulletin, state that the

Department should select, as the net

countervailable subsidy that is likely to

prevail if the order is revoked, the

company-specific and all-others rates

from the original investigation. (See the

domestic interested parties substantive

response at 24–25.) In contrast, the

respondent interested parties assert that

all the countervailing duty rates

established at the original investigation

were either zero or insignificant and

that the only meaningful or significant

rate in the investigation was imposed

against a particular producer because

the producer had not cooperated. Both

the KOS and EC stress that the order is

16 years old; therefore, any outstanding

benefit streams have long been

amortized. Therefore, they argue the

rates likely to prevail if the order is

revoked would be zero. (See the KOS

and EC’s July 30, 1999 and July 29, 1999

substantive responses, respectively.) The Department disagrees with the

domestic interested parties’ argument

concerning the net countervailable

subsidy rate that is likely to prevail

were the order revoked. The Department

normally will choose the rates from the

investigation because such rates reflect

how companies will act without the

discipline of an order in place. (See

section III.B.1 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin.) Section III.B.3 of Sunset

Policy Bulletin also provides that the

Department may make an adjustment

with respect to the likely-to-prevail

subsidy rate to reflect change(s) in the

programs that gave rise to the order. As

the Department noted in its

administrative reviews and as the KOS

indicated in its substantive response, all

subsidies pertaining to manufacturing/

exporting of the subject merchandise,

except cash grants, have been

terminated.21 Also, the KOS stipulates

in its substantive response that the CAP

was applicable only during the period

1974–1982.

As a result of changes in programs

since the imposition of the

countervailing duty order, we determine

that selecting the net countervailable

subsidy rates, as determined in the

original investigation, is no longer

appropriate. Rather, to reflect these

changes in the programs, which gave

rise to the net countervailable subsidy

determination in the investigation or

subsequent reviews, we have adjusted

the company-specific and all-others

countervailing duty rates from the

original investigation by subtracting the

subsidy rates from programs that have

been terminated and that have no

existing benefit stream. (See Memos to

the File—Calculation of the Likely-toPrevail Rates.) As a result, the

Department will report to the

Commission the rates as contained in

the Final Results of Review section of

this notice.

Nature of the Subsidy

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that, consistent with

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

Department will provide information to

the Commission concerning the nature

of the subsidy and whether the subsidy

is a subsidy described in Article 3 or

Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.

The domestic interested parties do not

specifically address this issue in their

substantive response. Among the benefits provided by the

KOS’s countervailable programs, the

Department determined that those

provided by the PCEC–OC and PCEC–

PF were contingent upon export

performance;22 therefore, both programs

fall within the purview of Article 3(a).

Since the CAP and government-directed

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