```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6166-6171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2838]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 6167]]

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 
Five-year (``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 
(``PCEC-PF''), and cash grants.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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).
    \2\ See 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.)
    \3\ See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain: Countervailing Duty 
Order, 48 FR 52 (January 3, 1983).
    \6\ See 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).
    \7\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6168]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See footnote 6, supra. Also see Stainless Steel Wire Rod 
From Spain: Preliminary Results of 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.
    \9\ See footnote 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews 64 FR 62167 (November 16, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 order-wide 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

[[Page 6169]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ExpansionArea 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 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.
    \15\ The 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-year-old 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, 1999Response 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain; Termination of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 39197 (July 22, 
1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. (SeeAugust 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

[[Page 6170]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See footnote 1, supra.
    \19\ See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain; Preliminary 
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 9789 
(March 25, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain; Fnal Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 349 (January 4, 
1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 program-wide 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 PolicyBulletin.) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-to-
Prevail 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

[[Page 6171]]

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/government-
directed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See footnote 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See footnote 4, supra.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporters                      (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
```