2800 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

the agreement in order to ensure that the

excess amounts of the tax certificates are

repaid and that the signatories do not

receive any benefits in the future that

would constitute a violation of the

agreement.

Final Results of Review

For the period May 18, 1992 through

December 31, 1993, we determine that

the signatories were not in violation of

the suspension agreement.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 C.F.R. 355.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)(1994))

and 19 C.F.R. 355.22(1994).

Dated: December 14, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–1454 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[C–549–401]

Certain Textile Mill Products From

Thailand; Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review on Noncontinuous

Noncellulosic Yarns (NCNC Yarns)

covered under the Suspended

Investigation on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand.

SUMMARY: On July 18, 1995, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register its preliminary results of

administrative review on NCNC Yarns

covered under the agreement

suspending the countervailing duty

investigation on Certain Textile Mill

Products from Thailand for the period

January 1, 1993 through December 31,

1993 (suspension agreement). We have

completed this review and have

determined that the signatories were not

in violation of the suspension

agreement. However, we do note that

the Department will require that one

signatory repay the Royal Thai

Government (RTG), in an annual

adjustment, the amount by which the

tax certificate received exceeded the

import duties on physically

incorporated inputs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Yarbrough or Jim Doyle, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone (202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 26, 1990, the Department

published in the Federal Register (55

FR 6669) a notice stating its intent to

terminate the suspension agreement on

certain textile mill products from

Thailand (50 FR 9837, March 12, 1985).

On March 26, 1990, the American Yarn

Spinners Association (AYSA), a trade

association, objected to the

Department’s intent to terminate the

suspension agreement. As a result, on

November 23, 1990, the Department

terminated the suspension agreement

with regard to all non-yarn products

covered by the suspension agreement

(55 FR 48885).

Subsequent to publication of the

November 23, 1990 notice, counsel for

the RTG filed a lawsuit in the United

States Court of International Trade (CIT)

challenging the Department’s

determination that AYSA had standing

to oppose the termination of the

suspension agreement. On May 17,

1991, the CIT remanded the

determination to the Department for

reconsideration of AYSA’s standing to

oppose the termination. On July 3, 1991,

the Department issued remand results

finding that AYSA had standing to

oppose the termination vis-a-vis only

one like product covered by the

suspension agreement, i.e., NCNC yarns.

The CIT affirmed the remand

determination in its entirety on August

5, 1991. The Royal Thai Government, et

al., v. United States, Slip Op. 91–68

(August 5, 1991).

On March 16, 1994, the Department

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review’’ (59 FR 12240)

of the suspension agreement for the

period January 1, 1993 to December 31,

1993. The Department received requests

for an administrative review of NCNC

yarns on March 31, 1994, from AYSA

and certain individual producers. On

April 15, 1994, the Department initiated

a countervailing duty administrative

review on NCNC yarns for the period

January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993

(59 FR 18099, April 15, 1994). The

Department verified the responses of the

RTG and the Thai Textile Manufacturers

Association (TTMA) from January 16

through January 25, 1995 pursuant to

the administrative review.

On July 18, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 36779) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of NCNC yarns

for the period January 1, 1993 through

December 31, 1993. The Department

invited interested parties to comment on

the preliminary results. On August 14,

1995, a case brief was submitted by

Economic Consulting Services (ECS), a

representative for the AYSA and

individual member companies of the

AYSA.

The Department has now completed

this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The review covers nine programs and

seven producers/exporters: Saha Union,

Venus Thread, Union Thread, Union

Spinning, Union Knitting, Union

Industries, and Thai Melon.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act. Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of NCNC Yarns from

Thailand. During the period of review

(POR), such merchandise was

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) item numbers

5508.10.0000, 5509.21.0000,

5509.22.0010, 5509.22.0090,

5509.32.0000, 5509.51.3000,

5509.51.6000, 5509.69.4000,

5511.10.0030, 5511.10.0060, and

5511.20.0000.

Analysis of Programs

Based upon our analysis of our

questionnaire and verification we

determine the following:

I. Programs Found To Be Used

A. Tax Certificates

Under Section II (c) of the suspension

agreement, the producers and exporters

can apply for or receive tax certificates

on shipments of subject merchandise

exported directly or indirectly to the

United States for import duties paid on
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices 2801

items that are physically incorporated

into exported products. If the producers

and exporters apply for tax certificates

in excess of the items physically

incorporated, the suspension agreement

requires that the producers and

exporters repay to the RTG, in an annual

adjustment, the amount by which the

tax certificates exceed the import duties

on physically incorporated inputs.

Tax certificate applications are made

on a shipment by shipment basis after

the producer/exporter receives payment

for its shipment. The application can

include up to 10 shipments and must be

submitted within one year of the

shipment date. Exporters can apply for

an extension if they do not meet the one

year deadline.

The law governing this program is the

‘‘Tax and Duty Compensation of

Exported Goods Produced in the

Kingdom Act, B.E. 2524 (1981).’’

Effective January 1, 1992, new nominal

rebate rates were established for all

products by the Committee on Tax and

Duty Rebates for Exported Goods

Produced in the Kingdom. The new

nominal rates applicable to signatories

are categorized by the following sectors:

spinning, weaving, made-up textile

goods, and knitting. Because nominal

rates are in excess of the physically

incorporated inputs, the Department has

calculated, and requested that the RTG

implement, non-excessive rates. See

verification report dated September 15,

1994, and letter from Roland L.

MacDonald to Arthur J. Lafave III dated

November 15, 1994.

In the preliminary results, we found

that Thai Melon applied for a tax

certificate on subject merchandise to the

United States at a nominal rate during

the POR. Our analysis of the comments

submitted by the interested parties,

summarized below, has not led us to

change our findings in the preliminary

results. On this basis, the Department

will require that Thai Melon repay the

RTG, in an annual adjustment, the

amount by which the tax certificate

exceeded the import duties on

physically incorporated inputs.

B. International Trade Promotion Fund

Under Section II (h) of the suspension

agreement, the producers and exporters

are to notify the Department in writing

prior to applying for or accepting any

new benefit which is, or is likely to be,

a countervailable bounty or grant on

shipments of subject merchandise

exported, directly or indirectly, to the

United States. Although the Department

has never determined this program to be

countervailable, we reviewed this

program in the administrative review.

This program, governed by the ‘‘Rule

on Administration of the International

Trade Promotion Fund (ITPF), B.E. 2532

(1989),’’ promotes and develops Thai

exports worldwide through incoming

and outgoing trade missions. The ITPF

provides training and seminars for

exporters, and publicity through public

advertisements.

In the preliminary results, we

confirmed that Saha Union and its

relateds (Union Spinning, Union

Thread, and Venus Thread) participated

in an international trade fair, promoting

subject merchandise. However, Saha

Union and its related companies paid

their own expenses to participate in the

trade fair. Thus, the signatories were not

found to be in violation of the

agreement. Our analysis of the

comments submitted by the interested

parties, summarized below, has not led

us to change our findings in the

preliminary results.

C. Duty Drawback

Under Section II (c) of the suspension

agreement, exporters and producers are

not to apply for, or receive, rebates on

shipments of subject merchandise in

excess of the import duties paid on

items that are physically incorporated

into exported products.

Under this program, Thai Customs

will refund import duties paid on

imported goods used in the production

of an exported product. In order to

qualify for duty drawback, the goods

must be exported through an authorized

port, the exports must be shipped

within one year of the date of

importation of the goods on which

drawback is claimed, and the producer/

exporter must request drawback within

six months of the date of exportation of

the goods.

In the preliminary results, we found

that Saha Union, Union Spinning,

Union Thread, Venus Thread, and Thai

Melon used duty drawback on exported

goods of subject merchandise to the

United States. Based on verification, we

determined that the amount of

drawback received was not in excess of

the items physically incorporated into

the exported product. Hence, the

signatories were not found to be in

violation of the agreement. Our analysis

of the comments submitted by the

interested parties, summarized below,

has not led us to change our findings in

the preliminary results.

II. Programs Found Not To Be Used

In the preliminary results we found

that the producers/exporters of the

subject merchandise did not apply for or

receive benefits under the following

programs:

A. Electricity Discounts

B. Repurchase of Industrial Bills

C. Investment Promotion Act: Sections

28, 31, 35, and 36

D. Export Processing Zones

E. Double Deduction of Foreign

Marketing Expenses

F. Export Packing Credits

Our analysis of the comments

submitted by the interested parties,

summarized below, has not led us to

change our findings in the preliminary

results.

Analysis of Comments

Comment 1

ECS argues that the Department

verified the continued existence of

numerous subsidy programs and the

continued receipt by several Thai yarn

producers and exporters of benefits from

several of the subsidy programs. They

further claim that these subsidy benefits

found by the Department are distinct

from and are above and beyond the large

subsidy benefits that were given to the

Thai yarn industry under the

Investment Promotion Act. ECS

maintains that the large subsidy benefits

received by the Thai yarn industry

under the Investment Promotion Act

were instrumental in the massive

expansion of the capacity of the Thai

yarn industry several years ago.

Department’s Position

The Department disagrees with the

arguments raised by ECS. As described

in the preliminary results of

administrative review (60 FR 39363),

the programs found to be used did not

confer a subsidy which violated the

terms of the agreement.

In regard to the tax certificate received

by Thai Melon during the POR, under

Section II (c) of the suspension

agreement, the producers and exporters

can apply or receive tax certificates on

shipments of subject merchandise

exported directly or indirectly to the

United States for import duties paid on

items that are physically incorporated

into exported products. However, if the

producers and exporters apply for tax

certificates in excess of the items

physically incorporated, the suspension

agreement requires that the producers

and exporters repay to the RTG, in an

annual adjustment, the amount by

which the tax certificates exceed the

import duties on physically

incorporated inputs.

The Department will require that Thai

Melon repay to the RTG, in an annual

adjustment, any amount by which the

tax certificate received exceeded the

amount of import duties on physically

incorporated inputs. The annual
2802 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Notices

adjustment shall be calculated in

accordance with Section II c(i) and (ii)

of the suspension agreement.

With respect to the use of duty

drawback, the Department verified that

the amount received was not in excess

of the import duties paid on physically

incorporated inputs. Thus, the

signatories were not in violation. (See

verification report dated June 1, 1995).

Finally, the participation in the

international trade promotion fund by

four signatories does not confer a benefit

because the Department verified that the

signatories paid their own expenses.

Furthermore, the Department has never

determined this program to be

countervailable.

Comment 2

ECS wants assurance that any benefits

found by the Department during the

period of review are repaid to the RTG

in order to reverse any benefits received

by the Thai yarn producers during the

POR.

Department’s Position

As stated above, the Department will

require that Thai Melon repay the

amount in which the tax certificate

exceeds the import duties on physically

incorporated inputs. If Thai Melon fails

to comply with this requirement, the

Department will have grounds to

determine that the signatory has

violated the agreement.

Comment 3

ECS urges the Department to maintain

close scrutiny over the administration of

the agreement so that the U.S. industry

can be assured that the subsidies found

by the Department will be repaid to the

RTG and that such benefits will not

continue in the future.

Department’s Position

The Department will continue to

closely monitor the administration of

the agreement in order to ensure that the

excess amount of the tax certificate is

repaid and that the signatories do not

receive any benefits in the future that

would constitute a violation of the

agreement.

Final Results of Review

For the period January 1, 1993

through December 31, 1993, we

determine that the signatories were not

in violation of the suspension

agreement.

This notice serves as a reminder to

parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 C.F.R. 355.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

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

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)(1994))

and 19 CFR 3.5.5.22 (1994).

Dated: December 14, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–1455 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

U.S. Automotive Parts Advisory

Committee; Closed Meeting

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Closed meeting of U.S.

Automotive Parts Advisory Committee.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Automotive Parts

Advisory Committee (the ‘‘Committee’’)

advises U.S. Government officials on

matters relating to the implementation

of the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act of

1988. The Committee: (1) reports

annually to the Secretary of Commerce

on barriers to sales of U.S.-made auto

parts and accessories in Japanese

markets; (2) assists the Secretary in

reporting to the Congress on the

progress of sales of U.S.-made auto parts

in Japanese markets, including the

formation of long-term supplier

relationships; (3) reviews and considers

data collected on sales of U.S.-made

auto parts to Japanese markets; (4)

advises the Secretary during

consultations with the Government of

Japan on these issues; and (5) assists in

establishing priorities for the

Department’s initiatives to increase

U.S.-made auto parts sales to Japanese

markets, and otherwise provide

assistance and direction to the Secretary

in carrying out these initiatives. At the

meeting, committee members will

discuss specific trade and sales

expansion programs related to U.S.-

Japan automotive parts policy.

DATES AND LOCATION: The meeting will

be held on February 22, 1996 from 10:00

a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department

of Commerce in Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Robert Reck, Office of Automotive

Affairs, Trade Development, Room

4036, Washington, D.C. 20230,

telephone: (202) 482–1418.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Assistant Secretary for Administration,

with the concurrence of the General

Counsel formally determined on July 5,

1994, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the

Federal Advisory Act, as amended, that

the series of meetings or portions of

meetings of the Committee and of any

subcommittee thereof, dealing with

privileged or confidential commercial

information may be exempt from the

provisions of the Act relating to open

meeting and public participation therein

because these items are concerned with

matters that are within the purview of

5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (9) (B). A copy

of the Notice of Determination is

available for public inspection and

copying in the Department of Commerce

Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020,

Main Commerce.

Dated: January 22, 1996.

Henry P. Misisco,

Director, Office of Automotive Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–1459 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 011796A]

North Pacific Fishery Management

Council; Committee Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Pacific Northwest Crab

Industry Advisory Committee

(PNCIAC), an advisory committee to the

North Pacific Fishery Management

Council (Council) will hold a meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

February 27, 1996, beginning at 9:00

a.m., and will end at approximately 5:00

p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

Leif Erikson Hall, 2245 NW 57th St,

Seattle, WA.

Council address: North Pacific

Fishery Management Council, 605 W.

4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK

99501–2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arni

Thomson, Alaska Crab Coalition, 206–

547–7560.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

PNCIAC will review Alaska crab fishery

issues and proposed changes to current

regulations, and develop

recommendations to be forwarded to the

Alaska Board of Fisheries and the

Council.