[WPRT 105-9]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


105th Congress                                                    WMCP:
2d Session                  COMMITTEE PRINT                       105-9
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               __________

                            WRITTEN COMMENTS

                                   ON

 
         ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS TRADE AND TARIFF LEGISLATION


                                     
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

                                     
                             JULY 16, 1998

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means by its staff


                                 -------

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 48-968 CC                   WASHINGTON : 1998



                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                      BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois            CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
BILL THOMAS, California              FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida           ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut        BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky                WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
WALLY HERGER, California             BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana               JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota               JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa                     RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington            WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
MAC COLLINS, Georgia                 JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    XAVIER BECERRA, California
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania      KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri

                     A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

                  Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel

                                 ______

                         Subcommittee on Trade

                  PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois, Chairman

BILL THOMAS, California              ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida           CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota               MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington            WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
WALLY HERGER, California
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa


Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public 
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published 
in electronic form. The printed record of written comments remains the 
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare 
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing/written comments 
record, the process of converting between various electronic formats 
may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are 
inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the 
process is further refined.



                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________

                                                                   Page

Advisory of Thursday, March 26, 1998, announcing request for 
  written comments on additional miscellaneous trade and tariff 
  legislation....................................................     1

                                 ______

H.R. 3123: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3124:
    Bear Metallurgical Company, Butler, PA, Kevin H. Jones, 
      letter.....................................................    11
    Ferroalloys Association, statement and attachment............    12
    U.S. Vanadium Corporation, Danbury, CT, J. Kevin Horgan, 
      letter.....................................................    15
H.R. 3190:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3191:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3192:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3193:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3194:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3195:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3196:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3197:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3198:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3199:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3200:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3201:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3202:
    Clariant Corporation, Coventry, RI, Andrew Zamoyski, letter..    17
H.R. 3244: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3268: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3289:
    American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Carlos Moore, 
      letter.....................................................    21
H.R. 3294:
    Neckwear Association of America, Inc., New York, NY, 
      statement..................................................    22
H.R. 3316: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3323:
    American Fiber Manufacturers Association, Inc., Paul T. 
      O'Day, letter..............................................    23
    Amoco Corporation, D.J. DeLong, letter.......................    24
    Fortafil Fibers, Inc., Rockwood, TN, Roger Prescott, letter..    24
    North American Corporation, Elizabethton, TN, Charles K. 
      Green, letter..............................................    25
    Solutia Inc., St. Louis, MO, Robert R. Matzke, Jr., letter...    26
H.R. 3324:
    Clariant Corporation, Charlotte, NC, Janet L. Hunter, letter.    27
H.R. 3325: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3326: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3327: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3328: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3350: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3354: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3355: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3356: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3357: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3358: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3359: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3360: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3361: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3362: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3363: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3364: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3365: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3366: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3367: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3368: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3369: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3370: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3371: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3372: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3373: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3374: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3375: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3377:
    American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Carlos Moore, 
      letter.....................................................    32
    Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Representative in Congress 
      from American Samoa, letter................................    32
H.R. 3384: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3385: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3386: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3387: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3388: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3389: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3390: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3391: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3392: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3393: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3394: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3395:
    American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Carlos Moore, 
      letter.....................................................    35
H.R. 3407: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3409: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3414: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3415: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3416: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3417:
    AlliedSignal Inc., statement.................................    36
H.R. 3418:
    AlliedSignal Inc., statement.................................    38
H.R. 3419: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3421:
    American Agip Co., Inc., New York, NY, Francesco Antonietti, 
      letter.....................................................    39
    American Association of Exporters and Importers, New York, 
      NY, Ed Van Ek, letter......................................    40
    American Petroleum Institute, statement......................    41
    Basis Clearing, Inc., Westport, CT, Wayne Kubicek, letter....    42
    Cargill Energy Division, Minneapolis, MN, Gary W. Jarrett, 
      letter.....................................................    42
    Chevron Products Company, Walnut Creek, CA, Ken Zee, letter..    43
    CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Tulsa, OK, Ezra C. Hunt, letter.    44
    Conoco Inc., Ponca City, OK, James A. McDonald, letter.......    44
    Dow Chemical Company, Lake Jackson, TX, John D. Williams, 
      letter.....................................................    45
    Ecofuel S.p.A., New York, NY, Andrea Valerio, letter.........    45
    Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp., Houston, TX, Kevin W. 
      Beasley, statement.........................................    46
    Exxon Corporation, J.J. Rouse, letter........................    48
    Fina Oil and Chemical Company, Dallas, TX, Kevin Rupp, letter    49
    George E. Warren Corporation, Vero Beach, FL, Jonathan W. 
      Taylor, letter.............................................    49
    Global Petroleum Corp., Waltham, MA, Alfred A. Slifka, letter    50
    Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc., Katy, TX, Bobby Waid, 
      letter.....................................................    51
    Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association, statement...    51
    ITOCHU International Inc., Houston, TX, Daniel K. Maruyama, 
      letter.....................................................    54
    National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, 
      Peter H. Powell, Sr., letter...............................    55
    Northville Industries Corp., Melville, NY, Elizabeth Ann 
      McConaghy, letter..........................................    55
    Phibro Inc., Westport, CT, Michael N. Castellano, letter.....    56
    Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation, San Antonio, TX, 
      Cheryl K. Trevor, letter...................................    56
    Valero Refining Company-Texas, Corpus Christi, TX, George E. 
      Kain, letter...............................................    57
H.R. 3422:
    American Agip Co., Inc., New York, NY, Francesco Antonietti, 
      letter.....................................................    58
    American Association of Exporters and Importers, New York, 
      NY, Ed Van Ek, letter......................................    58
    American Petroleum Institute, statement......................    41
    ARCO Chemical Company, Newtown Square, PA, Louis S. Battista, 
      letter.....................................................    59
    Basis Clearing, Inc., Westport, CT, Wayne Kubicek, letter....    60
    BP Oil Company, Cleveland, OH, Nancy M. Carter, letter.......    60
    Cargill Energy Division, Minneapolis, MN, Gary W. Jarrett, 
      letter.....................................................    61
    Chevron Products Company, Walnut Creek, CA, Ken Zee, letter..    62
    CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Tulsa, OK, Ezra C. Hunt, letter.    63
    Conoco Inc., Ponca City, OK, James A. McDonald, letter.......    63
    Dow Chemical Company, Lake Jackson, TX, John D. Williams, 
      letter.....................................................    64
    Ecofuel S.p.A., New York, NY, Andrea Valerio, letter.........    65
    Entec Polymers, Inc., Maitland, FL, James P. Ashton, letter..    65
    Equistar Chemicals, LP, Houston, TX, LeRoy E. Pennock, letter    66
    Exxon Corporation, J.J. Rouse, letter........................    67
    Fina Oil and Chemical Company, Dallas, TX, Kevin Rupp, letter    68
    George E. Warren Corporation, Vero Beach, FL, Jonathan W. 
      Taylor, letter.............................................    68
    Georgia Gulf Corporation, Plaquemine, LA, Janice L. Owens, 
      letter.....................................................    69
    Global Petroleum Corp., Waltham, MA, Alfred A. Slifka, letter    70
    Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc., Katy, TX, Bobby Waid, 
      letter.....................................................    70
    Houston Marine Services, Inc., Houston, TX, Geren L. Graham, 
      letter.....................................................    71
    Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association, statement...    51
    ITOCHU International Inc., Houston, TX, Daniel K. Maruyama, 
      letter.....................................................    72
    Matrix Marine Fuels, Houston, TX, Ron Disbro, letter.........    73
    MIECO Inc., Long Beach, CA, Doug Jeter, letter...............    73
    Mobil International Aviation and Marine Sales Inc., Fairfax, 
      VA, Herb V. Rusk, letter...................................    74
    Montell USA, Inc., Wilmington, DE, Bernard F. LeBlanc, letter    75
    National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, 
      Peter H. Powell, Sr., letter...............................    75
    Northville Industries Corp., Melville, NY, Elizabeth Ann 
      McConaghy, letter..........................................    76
    Phibro Inc., Westport, CT, Michael N. Castellano, letter.....    76
    Rohm and Haas Company, Philadelphia, PA, John P. Mulroney, 
      letter.....................................................    77
    Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX, Stephen E. Ward, letter......    78
    Statoil Marketing & Trading (US) Inc., Stamford, CT, Jane 
      Nagy, letter...............................................    78
    Sterling Chemicals, Inc., Houston, TX, William J. Magnuson, 
      Jr., letter................................................    79
    Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation, San Antonio, TX, 
      Cheryl K. Trevor, letter...................................    80
    Valero Refining Company-Texas, Corpus Christi, TX, George E. 
      Kain, letter...............................................    80
    Williams Companies, Tulsa, OK, letter........................    81
H.R. 3423:
    American Agip Co., Inc., New York, NY, Francesco Antonietti, 
      letter.....................................................    82
    American Association of Exporters and Importers, New York, 
      NY, Ed Van Ek, letter......................................    58
    American Petroleum Institute, statement......................    41
    Basis Clearing, Inc., Westport, CT, Wayne Kubicek, letter....    83
    Chevron Products Company, Walnut Creek, CA, Ken Zee, letter..    84
    CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Tulsa, OK, Ezra C. Hunt, letter.    85
    Conoco Inc., Ponca City, OK, James A. McDonald, letter.......    86
    Dow Chemical Company, Lake Jackson, TX, John D. Williams, 
      letter.....................................................    87
    Ecofuel S.p.A., New York, NY, Andrea Valerio, letter.........    88
    Entec Polymers, Inc., Maitland, FL, James P. Ashton, letter..    89
    Equistar Chemicals, LP, Houston, TX, LeRoy E. Pennock, letter    90
    Fina Oil and Chemical Company, Dallas, TX, Kevin Rupp, letter    90
    George E. Warren Corporation, Vero Beach, FL, Jonathan W. 
      Taylor, letter.............................................    91
    Georgia Gulf Corporation, Plaquemine, LA, Janice L. Owens, 
      letter.....................................................    92
    Global Petroleum Corp., Waltham, MA, Alfred A. Slifka, letter    93
    Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc., Katy, TX, Bobby Waid, 
      letter.....................................................    94
    Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association, statement...    51
    ITOCHU International Inc., Houston, TX, Daniel K. Maruyama, 
      letter.....................................................    95
    Matrix Marine Fuels, Houston, TX, Ron Disbro, letter.........    96
    Mobil International Aviation and Marine Sales Inc., Fairfax, 
      VA, Herb V. Rusk, letter...................................    74
    National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, 
      Peter H. Powell, Sr., letter...............................    75
    Northville Industries Corp., Melville, NY, Elizabeth Ann 
      McConaghy, letter..........................................    97
    Phibro Inc., Westport, CT, Michael N. Castellano, letter.....    98
    Rohm and Haas Company, Philadelphia, PA, John P. Mulroney, 
      letter.....................................................    99
    Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX, Stephen E. Ward, letter......   100
    Statoil Marketing & Trading (US) Inc., Stamford, CT, Jane 
      Nagy, letter...............................................   101
    Sterling Chemicals, Inc., Houston, TX, William J. Magnuson, 
      Jr., letter................................................   102
    Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation, San Antonio, TX, 
      Cheryl K. Trevor, letter...................................   103
    Valero Refining Company-Texas, Corpus Christi, TX, George E. 
      Kain, letter...............................................   104
    Williams Companies, Tulsa, OK, letter........................    81
H.R. 3424: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3425: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3426: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3427: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3428: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3429: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3430:
    K2 Corporation, Vashon, WA, statement........................   106
H.R. 3431: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3432:
    California Pistachio Commission, Fresno, CA, Karen Reinecke, 
      and Western Pistachio Association, Michael Woolf, joint 
      statement..................................................   107
    Thomas, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California, statement.............................   109
H.R. 3446: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3452:
    Detroit, City of, Hon. Dennis W. Archer, Mayor, letter.......   110
    Metro Detroit Service Stations, Dearborn, MI, Allie Berry, 
      letter.....................................................   110
    Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, Reston, 
      VA, and National Association of Convenience Stores, 
      Alexandria, VA, joint statement............................   112
    Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, MI, Paul 
      Tait, letter...............................................   113
H.R. 3465: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3477: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3480: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3483: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3486: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3487: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3488: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3489: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3490: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3491: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3492: No comments submitted.
H.R. 3501:
    AlliedSignal Inc., statement.................................   116
    Amoco Corporation, statement.................................   117
    Petrotemex, S.A. de C.V., Monterrey, Mexico, statement.......   120
    Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX, Stephen E. Ward, statement...   121
    Thomas, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California, statement.............................   124
    Wellman, Inc., Charlotte, NC, statement......................   124
H.R. 3507:
    Bose Corporation, Framingham, MA, letter.....................   128
H.R. 3508:
    Bose Corporation, Framingham, MA, letter.....................   128
H.R. 3509:
    Bose Corporation, Framingham, MA, letter.....................   128
      

ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                             CONTACT: (202) 225-6649
March 26, 1998
No. TR-23

              Crane Announces Request for Written Comments
                   on Additional Miscellaneous Trade
                         and Tariff Legislation

    Congressman Philip M. Crane (R-IL), Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the 
Subcommittee is requesting written public comments for the record from 
all parties interested in miscellaneous trade and tariff proposals.
      

BACKGROUND:

      
    During the 105th Congress, a number of technical amendments have 
been proposed to facilitate the implementation of trade legislation 
passed during the 103rd and 104th Congresses, including the North 
American Free Trade Agreements Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182), the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465), and the Miscellaneous 
Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-295).
      
     On June 30, 1997, Chairman Crane requested written public comments 
from parties interested in technical corrections to U.S. trade laws, 
and legislation introduced by Members to provide temporary suspensions 
of duty for specific products (see TR-10). The requests for comments 
included all such bills introduced by Members during the 105th 
Congress.
      
     In response to Chairman Crane's request, the Subcommittee prepared 
a draft bill, including those provisions which were non-controversial 
and revenue neutral based on the public comments, Administration 
review, and estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. The 
provisions also reflected technical comments by the U.S. International 
Trade Commission and revisions proposed by the Administration. On 
October 7, 1997, Chairman Crane introduced H.R. 2622, the 
``Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1997.''; The 
Committee reported H.R. 2622 to the House on October 31, 1997 (H. Rept. 
105-367).
      
     Again on December 22, 1997, Chairman Crane requested a second 
public comment period for bills requesting technical corrections and 
duty suspensions introduced after July 1, 1997, and before the end of 
the first session of the 105th Congress (see TR-19). These bills have 
since received public comment and are awaiting reviews from the 
Administration and the Congressional Budget Office.
      
     Chairman Crane is now requesting final submission of written 
comments on additional proposals to amend U.S. trade law and on 
legislation introduced to provide temporary suspensions of duty or 
other duty changes for specific products. This request for written 
comments includes all such bills introduced by Members from January 27, 
1998.
      
     The Subcommittee encourages that copies of comments submitted also 
be sent to the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 
Washington, D.C. 20436, to the attention of Mr. Leo Webb.
      

PROPOSED MISCELLANEOUS TRADE PROVISIONS, DUTY-SUSPENSION, DUTY-
                    REDUCTION, AND DUTY-FREE ENTRY BILLS:

      
     1. H.R. 3123 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) by inserting a new heading for Niobium 
oxide (CAS No. 1313-96-8) (provided for in subheading 2825.90.15) as 
duty free through December 31, 2001.
      
     2. H.R. 3124 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for vanadium pentoxide (anhydride) (CAS No. 
1314-62-1) (provided for in subheading 2825.30.10) as duty free through 
December 31, 2001.
      
     3. H.R. 3190 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for Benzoic acid, 2-[[1-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-
iH-benzimidazol-5-yl) amino] (CAS No. 031837-42-0) (provided for in 
subheading 3204.17.90) as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     4. H.R. 3191 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for 4-[[5-[[[4-(Aminocarbonyl) phenyl] amino] 
carbonyl]-2-methoxyphenyl] azo]-N-(5-chloro-2,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-3-
hydroxynaphthalene-2-carboxamide (CAS No. 059487-23-9) (provided for in 
subheading 3204.17.60) as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     5. H.R. 3192 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-[[3-[[2-hydroxy-3-
[[4-methoxyphenyl) amino]carbonyl]-1-naphtha-lenyl]azo]-4-
methylbenzoyl]amino]-,calcium salt (2:1) (CAS No. 043035-18-3) 
(provided for in subheading 3204.17.60) as duty free through December 
31, 2002.
      
     6. H.R. 3193 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for N-(2,3-Dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)-
5-methyl-4-[(methylamino)sulphonyl]phenyl]azo]naphthalene-2-
carboxaminde (CAS No. 051920-12-8) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.04) as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     7. H.R. 3194 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for N-[4-(aminocarbonyl)phenyl]-4-[[1-[[(2,3-
dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)amino] carbonyl]-2-oxopropyl]azo] 
benzamide (CAS No. 074441-05-7) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.60) 
as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     8. H.R. 3195 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for Butanamide, 2,2'-[3,3'-dichloro[1,1'-
biphenyl]-4,4'-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N-(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-
5-yl)-3-oxo (CAS No. 078245-94-0) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.60) as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     9. H.R. 3196 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for Butanamide, N,N'-(3,3'dimethyl[1,1'-
biphenyl]-4,4'-diyl)bis[2-[2,4-dichlorophenyl)azo]-3-oxo- (CAS No. 
005979-28-2) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.04) as duty free 
through December 31, 2002.
      
     10.H.R. 3197 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for Benzoic acid, 2-[[3-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-
1H-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)amino]carbonyl]-2-hydroxy-1-naphthalenyl]azo]-
,butyl ester (CAS No. 031778-10-6) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.04) as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     11. H.R. 3198 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Butanamide, N-(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-
benzimidazol-5-yl)-3-oxo-2-[[2-(triflouro-methyl)phenyl]azo]- (CAS No. 
068134-22-5) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.60) as duty free 
through December 31, 2002.
      
     12. H.R. 3199, would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Benzoic acid, 4-[[(2,5-
dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2-[[2-hydroxy-3-[[(2-
methoxyphenyl)amino]carbonyl]-1-naphthalenyl]-, methyl ester (CAS No. 
061847-48-1) (provided for in subheading 3204.17.04) as duty free 
through December 31, 2002.
      
     13. H.R. 3200 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 2-[[1-
[[(2,3-di-hydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)amino carbonyl]-2-
oxypropyl]azo]-, dimethyl ester (CAS No. 035636-63-6) (provided for in 
subheading 3204.17.60) as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     14. H.R. 3201 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Butanamide, 2,2'-[1-2,-ethanediylbis 
(oxy-2,1-phenylene-azo)] bis [N-2(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-
yl)-3-oxo- (CAS No. 077804-81-0) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.60) as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     15. H.R. 3202 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-chloro-2-[[5-
hydroxy-3-methyl-1-(3-sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]azo]-5-methyl-
,calcium salt (1:1) (CAS No. 043035-18-3) (provided for in subheading 
3204.17.60) as duty free through December 31, 2002.
      
     16. H.R. 3244 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for KN001 (a hydrochloride), 2-4-dichlon-5-
hydrozyhydrazine hydrochloride (CAS No. 189-573-21-5) (provided for in 
subheading 2928.00.2500) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     17. H.R. 3268 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for DEMT, N,n-diethyl-m-toluidine (CAS No. 
91-67-8) (provided for in subheading 2921.43.80) as duty free through 
December 31, 2000.
      
     18. H.R. 3289 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for certain weaving machines (looms) for 
weaving fabrics of a width exceeding 30 cm, shuttle type: power looms 
for weaving fabrics of a width not exceeding 4.9 m, if imported without 
off-loom or large loom take-ups, drop wires, heddles, reeds, harness 
frames, and beams (provided for in subheading 8446.21.50) as duty free 
through December 31, 1999.
      
     19. H.R. 3294 would amend Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
(19 U.S.C. 1304) to modify the marking of certain silk products and 
containters by redesignating subsection (h), (i), (j), and (k) as 
subsections (i), (j), (k), and (l), respectively and by inserting after 
subsection (g) the following new subsection: (h) which states that the 
marking requirements of certain silk products in subsection (a) and (b) 
shall not apply either to ``(1) articles provided for in subheading 
6214.10.10 of the HTS as in effect on January 1, 1997, which contain 70 
percent or more by weight of silk or silk waste, or (2) goods provided 
for in heading 5007 of the HTS as in effect on January 1, 1997.'' 
Section 304(j) of such Act, as redesignated by subsecion (a)(1) of this 
section, is amended by striking ``subsection (h)'' and inserting 
``subsection (i).''
      
     20. H.R. 3316 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for IN-W4280, (2,4-dichloro-5-hydroxy-
phenylhydrazine) (CAS No. 39807-21-1) (provided for in subheading 
2928.00.2500) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     21. H.R. 3323 would amend Chapter 55 of the HTS by inserting a new 
heading for oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers (provided for in 
subheadings 5501.30, 5501.30.10, and 5501.30.20) designating 5501.30.10 
as duty free and 5501.30.20 with a tariff rate of 9.2 percent through 
December 31, 2000.
      
     22. H.R. 3324 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for SE2SI Spray Granulated (HOE S 4291) 
(provided for in subheading 3907.99.00) as duty free through December 
31, 2002.
      
     23. H.R. 3325 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for triethyleneglycol bis(2-ethyl hexanoate) 
(CAS No. 94-28-0) (provided for in subheading 2915.90.50) as duty free 
through December 31, 2000.
      
     24. H.R. 3326 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 2-Ethylhexanoic acid (CAS No.149-57-5) 
(provided for in subheading 2915.90.18) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     25. H.R. 3327 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Polyvinyl butyral (CAS No. 63148-65-2) 
(provided for in subheading 3905.99.80) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     26. H.R. 3328 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for a certain anti-HIV and anti-AIDS drug, 
(6-Chloro-4-(cyclopropylethynyl)-1,4-Dihydro-4-(trifluro-methyl)-2H-3, 
1-benzoxazin-2-one (CAS No. 154598-52-4) (provided for in subheading 
2934.90.3000) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     27. H.R. 3350 would direct the Foreign Trade Zones Board to expand 
Foreign Trade Zone No. 143 to include areas in the vicinity of the 
Chico Municipal Airport, Chico, California, in accordance with the 
application submitted by the Sacramento-Yolo Port District of 
Sacramento, California, to the Board on March 11, 1997.
      
     28. H.R. 3354 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for trifluoromethylaniline (CAS No. 98-16-8) 
(provided for in subheading 2921.43.24) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     29. H.R. 3355 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 2-chloro-N-[2,6-dinitro-4-(tri-
fluoromethyl) phenyl]-N-ethyl-6-fluorobenzenemethanamine (CAS No. 
62924-70-3) (provided for in subheading 2924.29.90) as duty free 
through December 31, 2000.
      
     30. H.R. 3356 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for streptomycin sulfate (CAS No. 57-92-1) 
(provided for in subheading 2941.20.50) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     31. H.R. 3357 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for propanoic acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-
fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2-propynyl ester) (CAS No. 105512-06-
9) (provided for in subheading 2918.90.20.50) as duty free through 
December 31, 2000.
      
     32. H.R. 3358 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 2,4 dichloro 3,5 dinitro 
benzotrifluoride (CAS No. 29091-09-6) (provided for in subheading 
2910.90.20) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     33. H.R. 3359 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for acetic acid, [(5-chloro-8-
quinolinyl)oxy]-, 1-methyhexyl ester (CAS No. 99607-70-2) (provided for 
in subheading 2933.90.82.90) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     34. H.R. 3360 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for acetic acid, [[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-
[(tetrahydro-3-oxo-1H, 3H-[1,3,4] thiadiazolo [3,4-a] pyridazin-1-
ylidene)amino]phenyl]thio]-, methyl ester (CAS No. 117337-19-6) 
(provided for in subheading 2934.90.15) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     35. H.R. 3361 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for orthonitrophenyl, (CAS No. 88-75-5) 
(provided for in subheading 2908.90.08) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     36. H.R. 3362 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for chloroacetone (CAS No. 78-95-5) 
(provided for in subheading 2914.11.50) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     37. H.R. 3363 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for calcium oxytetracycline (CAS No. 79-57-
2) (provided for in subheading 2921.30.00) as duty free through 
December 31, 2000.
      
     38. H.R. 3364 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for sodium N-methyl-N oleoyl taurate (CAS 
No. 137-28-2) (provided for in subheading 2904.10.50) as duty free 
through December 31, 2000.
      
     39. H.R. 3365 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for dialkylnaphthalene sulfonic acid sodium 
salt (CAS No. 25638-17-9) (provided for in subheading 2904.10.10) as 
duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     40. H.R. 3366 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for O-(6-chloro-3-phenyl-4-pyridazinyl)-S-
octyl-carbonothioate (CAS No. 55512-33-9) (provided for in subheading 
3808.30.15) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     41. H.R. 3367 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-2-phenylamino-
pyrimidine (CAS No. 121552-61-2) (provided for in subheading 
2933.59.15) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     42. H.R. 3368 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for O,O-Dimethyl-S-[5-methoxy-2-oxo-1,3,4-
thiadiazol-3(2H)-yl-methyl]-dithiophosphate (CAS No. 950-37-8) 
(provided for in subheading 2934.90.90) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     43. H.R. 3369 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for (Ethyl [2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy) ethyl] 
carbamate (CAS No. 79127-80-3) (provided for in subheading 2924.10.80) 
as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     44. H.R. 3370 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-
[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea (CAS No. 94125-34-5) 
(provided for in subheading 2936.00.75) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     45. H.R. 3371 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 3-[4,6-Bis(difluoromethoxy)-pryimidin-2-
yl]-1-(2-methoxy-carbonylphenylsulfonyl) urea (CAS No. 86209-51-0) 
(provided for in subheading 2935.00.75) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     46. H.R. 3372 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 3-(6-methoxy-4-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl)-1-[2-(2-chloroethoxy)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea (CAS No. 82097-50-5) 
(provided for in subheading 3808.30.15) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     47. H.R. 3373 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for [(2S,4R)/(2R,4S)]/[(2R,4R)/(2S,4S)-1-(2-
[4-(4-chloro-phenoxy)-2-chlorophenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-diaxolan-2-yl-
methyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole (CAS No. 119446-68-3) (provided for in 
subheading 2934.90.12) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     48. H.R. 3374 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for plating lines for semiconductors and 
integrated circuits (provided for in subheading 8543.30.0000) as duty 
free through December 31, 2001.
      
     49. H.R. 3375 would amend subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for synthetic quartz substrates imported 
into the United States in bulk or in forms or packages for retail sale 
(provided for in subheading 7006.00.40) with a tariff rate of 1 percent 
through December 31, 2000.
      
     50. H.R. 3377 would clarify the rules of origin for textile and 
apparel products from American Samoa under section 334 of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C 3592) so that textile and apparel 
products that are cut in American Samoa from fabric wholly formed in 
the United States and, under rulings and administrative practices in 
effect on June 30, 1996, would have originated or been the growth, 
product, or manufacture of, American Samoa.
      
     51. H.R. 3384 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for (S)- Triphenylmethylglycidol (CAS No. 
129940-50-7) (provided for in subheading 2910.90.20) as duty free 
through December 31, 1999.
      
     52. H.R. 338 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS by 
inserting a new heading for [R-(R*,R*)]-1,2,3,4-Butanetetrol-1,4-
dimethanesulfonate (CAS No. 1947-62-2) (provided for in subheading 
2905.49.50) as duty free through December 31, 1999.
      
     53. H.R. 3386 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for (S)-N-[[5-[2-(2-amino-4,6,7,8-
tetrahydro-4-oxo-1II-pyrimido[5,4-b][1,4]thiazin-6-yl)ethyl]-2-
thienyl]carbonyl]-L-glutamic acid (CAS No. 177575-17-6) (provided for 
in subheading 2934.90.90) as duty free through December 31, 1999.
      
     54. H.R. 3387 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 2-amino-6-methyl-5-(4-pyri-dinylthio)-
4(1H)-Quinazolinone, dihydrochloride (CAS No. 152946-68-4) (provided 
for in subheading 2933.59.70) as duty free through December 31, 1999.
      
     55. H.R. 3388 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 9-[2-
[[Bis[(pivaloyloxy)methoxy]phosphinyl]-methoxy]ethyl]adenine (CAS No. 
142340-99-6) (provided for in subheading 2933.59.59) as duty free 
through December 31, 1999.
      
     56. H.R. 3389 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 9-[(R)-2-(Phosphononmethoxy)-
propyl]adenine (CAS No.147127-20-6) (provided for in subheading 
2933.59.59) as duty free through December 31, 1999.
      
     57. H.R. 3390 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inseting a new heading for (R)-Propylene carbonate (CAS No. 166-6-
55-6) (provided for in subheading 2920.90.50) as duty free through 
December 31, 1999.
      
     58. H.R. 3391 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 9-(2-Hydroxy-ethyl)adenine (CAS No. 707-
99-3) (provided for in subheading 2933.59.95) as duty free through 
December 31, 1999.
      
     59. H.R. 3392 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for (R)-9-(2-Hydroxypropyl)adenine (CAS No. 
14047-28-0) (provided for in subheading 2933.59.95) as duty free 
through December 31, 1999.
      
     60. H.R. 3393 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Chloromethyl-2-propyl carbonate (CAS No. 
35180-01-9) (provided for in subheading 2920.90.50) as duty free 
through December 31, 1999.
      
     61. H.R. 3394 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for (R)-Chloropropanediol (CAS No. 57090-45-
6) (provided for in subheading 2905.39.90) as duty free through 
December 31, 1999.
      
     62. H.R. 3395 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for ink-jet textile printing machinery 
(provided for in subheading 8443.51.10) as duty free through December 
31, 1999.
      
     63. H.R. 3407 would provide for the reliquidation of certain 
entries of self-tapping screws filed at the Port of Philadelphia under 
subheading 7318.12 of the HTS between August 11, 1993 and August 18, 
1994.
      
     64. H.R. 3409 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 5-tertiary butylisophthalic acid (CAS 
No. 2359-09-3) (provided for in subheading 2917.39.70) and any mixtures 
containing the same, as duty free through December 31, 2001.
      
     65. H.R. 3414 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for KL540, Methyl-4-trifluoromethoxyphenyl-
N-(chlorocarbonyl) carbamate (CAS No. 173903-15-6) (provided for in 
subheading 2924.29.70) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     66. H.R. 3415 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for methyl thioglycolate (CAS No. 2365-48-2) 
(provided for in subheading 2930.90.90) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     67. H.R. 3416 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for tebufenozide, benzoic acid, 3,5-
dimethyl-,1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-(-4-ethylbenzoylhydrazide (CAS No. 
112410-23-8) (provided for in subheading 2928.00.25) as duty free 
through December 31, 2000.
      
     68. H.R. 3417 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for organic luminescent pigments, dyes, and 
fibers for security applications (provided for in subheading 
3204.90.00) as duty free through December 31, 2001, and for 4-
Hexylresorcinol (CAS No. 136-77-6) (provided for in subheading 
2907.29.90) as duty free through December 31, 2001.
      
     69. H.R. 3418 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting new headings for polymethine photosensitizing dyes 
(provided for in subheadings 2934.90.90 and 2933.19.90), potassium 
hexafluorozirconate (CAS No. 16923-95-8) (provided for in subheading 
2826.90.00), and hexafluorozirconium acid (CAS No. 12021-95-3) 
(provided for in subheading 2811.19.60) as duty free through December 
31, 2001.
      
     70. H.R. 3419 would provide for the reliquidation of certain 
entries of mueslix cereals after July 31, 1994, and before January 1, 
1996, which was classified under the special column rate applicable for 
Canada in subheading 2008.92.10 of the HTS and for certain entries of 
mueslix cereal after December 31, 1995, and before January 1, 1998, 
which was classified under the special column rate applicable for 
Canada in subheading 1904.20.10 of the HTS.
      
     71. H.R. 3421 would amend section 313(p)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(p)(3)(A)(i)(I)) to allow duty drawback for 
Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (``MTBE''), a finished petroleum 
derivative, by striking ``and 2902'' and inserting ``2902 and 
2909.19.14.''
      
     72. H.R. 3422 would provide for the drawback of finished petroleum 
derivatives by amending Section 313(p)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1313(p)(1)) to allow for substitution of both the qualified 
article and the exported article of the same kind and quality, matching 
imports and exports through the commercial chain of events. It would 
also allow for process by which firms may certify to the Commissioner 
of Customs that they have not and will not issues a certificate for 
quantities greater than the amount eligible for drawback and will 
maintain appropriate records to demonstrate that fact. The effective 
date shall take effect as if included in the amendment made by section 
632(a)(6) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
Act. For purpose of section 632(b) of that Act, the three-year 
requirement set forth in section 313(r) of the Tariff Act of 1930 shall 
not apply to any drawback claim filed within six months after the date 
of the enactment of this Act for which that three-year period would 
have expired.
      
     73. H.R. 3423 would provide for the drawback of finished petroleum 
derivatives by amending Section 313(p)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1313(p)(1)) to allow for substitution of both the qualified 
article and the exported article of the same kind and quality, matching 
imports and exports through the commercial chain of events. It would 
also allow for process by which firms may certify to the Commissioner 
of Customs that they have not and will not issues a certificate for 
quantities greater than the amount eligible for drawback and will 
maintain appropriate records to demonstrate that fact. The amendments 
made by this section shall apply to drawback claims filed on or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
      
     74. H.R. 3424 would provide for reductions in duty for Rimsulfuron 
Technical N-[(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl) aminocarbonyl] -3-
(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridine-sulfonamide (CAS No. 122931-48-0) (provided 
for in subheading 2933.59.10) to 8.0 percent for goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, during the period beginning 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 
on December 31, 1998; and 7.3 percent for goods entered, or withdrawn 
for consumption, during calendar year 1999; and free for goods entered 
or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, during calendar year 2000.
      
     75. H.R. 3425 would provide for reductions in duty for carbamic 
acid (U-9069), [3-((dimenthylamino)carbonyl)-2-pyridinyl sulfonyl]-
,pheynl ester (CAS No. 112006-94-7) (provided for in subheading 
2935.00.75) to 9.0 percent for goods entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption, during the period beginning on the 15th day 
after the date of the enactment of this Act and ending December 31, 
1998; and 8.3 percent for goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse 
for consumption, during calendar year 1999; and 7.6 percent for goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, during calendar 
year 2000.
      
     76. H.R. 3426 would provide for reductions in duty for DPX-E9260, 
3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide (CAS No. 117671-01-9) (provided 
for in subheading 2935.00.75) to 6.0 percent for goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, during calendar year 1999; 
and 5.3 percent for goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, during calendar year 2000.
      
     77. H.R. 3427 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for DPX-E6758, (4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl) 
carbamic acid, phenyl ester (CAS No. 89392-03-0) (provided for in 
subheading 2933.59.70) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     78. H.R. 3428 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for 9-[2-(R)-
[[Bis[[isopropoxycarbonyl)oxy[methoxy]-
phosphinoyl]methoxy]propyl]adenine fumarate (1:1) (provided for in 
subheading 2933.59.59) as duty free through December 31, 1999.
      
     79. H.R. 3429 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Diethyl p-toluene 
sulfonyloxymenthylphosphonate (CAS No. 31618-90-3) (provided for in 
subheading 2933.59.80) as duty free through December 31, 1999.
      
     80. H.R. 3430 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Polythylene base materials that are 
under 250 mm in width, sanded on one side and surface-treated for use 
in the manufacture of skis (provided for in subheading 3920.10.00) as 
duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     81. H.R. 3431 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Benzenepropanal 4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-
Methyl- (CAS No. 80-54-6) (provided for in subheading 2912.29.60.00) 
with a tariff rate of 6 percent through December 31, 2000.
      
     82. H.R. 3432 would provide that five-year reviews of 
countervailing duty or antidumping duty orders would not be conducted 
in certain cases in which the merchandise subject to the orders was 
prohibited from being imported into the United States because of trade 
sanctions imposed against the country in which the merchandise 
originates, by amending section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1751(c)).
      
     83. H.R. 3446 would provide for the elimination of the duty on 
Ziram by amending subheading 3808.20.24 of the HTS by striking ``and 
Metiram'' and inserting ``Metiram; and Ziram''.
      
     84. H.R. 3452 would amend section 555(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
by redesignating paragraph 8 as paragraph 9 and insert after paragraph 
7 ``(8)(A) Gasoline, alternative fuels (in an amount not to exceed 120 
liters per vehicle), and motor oil (in an amount not to exceed 6 liters 
per vehicle), may be sold at a duty-free sales enterprise without prior 
approval by the Customs Service. (B) The Customs Service may not 
prohibit the sale of such merchandise unless the Secretary of the 
Treasury determines that (i) there is a pattern of re-importation of 
the merchandise without declaration; and (ii) other means of preventing 
the re-importation of the merchandise without declaration are not 
available.''
      
     85. H.R. 3465 would provide for an exemption from Executive Order 
13067 on November 3, 1997, with respect to imports of articles 
described in HTS headings 1301.20.00 and 1301.90.90 (other than 
balsams, tragacanth, and karaya).
      
     86. H.R. 3477 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Chloromethyl Pivalate (CAS No. 18997-19-
8) (provided for in subheading 2915.90.50) as duty free through 
December 31, 1999.
      
     87. H.R. 3480 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene copolymer 
(ETFE) (provided for in subheading 3904.69.5000) with a reduced tariff 
rate of 3.3 percent through December 31, 2000.
      
     88. H.R. 3483 would provide for the liquidation or reliquidation 
of certain entries made at Los Angeles, California, and New Orleans, 
Louisiana, which are listed in subsection (c), in accordance with the 
final decision of the International Trade Administration of the 
Department of Commerce for shipments entered between October 1, 1984, 
and December 14, 1987 (case number A-274-001).
      
     89. H.R. 3486 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Phosphonic acid, [[(phosphonomethyl) 
imino]bis[2,1-ethane-diylnitrilobis (methylene)]tetrakis- (CAS No. 
15827-60-8) (provided for in subheading 2931.00.9030) as duty free 
through December 31, 2000.
      
     90. H.R. 3487 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Phosphonic acid, [[(phosphonomethyl) 
imino]bis[2,1-ethane-diylnitrilobis (methylene)]]tetrakis- (CAS No. 
22042-96-2) (provided for in subheading 2931.00.9030) as duty free 
through December 31, 2000.
      
     91. H.R. 3488 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Phosphonic acid, [1,6-
hexanediylbis[nitrilobis(methylene)] tetrakis-potassium salt (CAS No. 
38820-59-6) (provided for in subheading 2931.00.9030) as duty free 
through December 31, 2000.
      
     92. H.R. 3489 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Phosphonic acid, (1-
hydroxyethylidene)bis- (CAS No. 2809-21-4) (provided for in subheading 
2931.00.9030) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     93. H.R. 3490 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Phosphonic acid, 
[nitrolotris(methylene)]tris-, pentasodium salt (CAS No. 2235-43-0) 
(provided for in subheading 2931.00.9030) as duty free through December 
31, 2000.
      
     94. H.R. 3491 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Phosphoric acid, [nitrilostris 
(methylene)]tris- (CAS Nos. 6419-19-8; 10294-56-1; 7732-18-5) (provided 
for in subheading 2931.00.9030) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     95. H.R. 3492 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for Phosphonic acid, (1-
hydroxyethylidene)bis,-tetrasodium salt (CAS No. 2794-83-0) (provided 
for in subheading 2931.00.9030) as duty free through December 31, 2000.
      
     96. H.R. 3501 would amend subheading 2917.36.00 of the HTS by 
striking ``1.8c/kg + 8.9 percent (MX)'' in the special rates of duty 
subcolumn and inserting ``MX'' in the parenthetical after ``J''.
      
     97. H.R. 3507 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for certain electrical transformers having a 
power handling capacity less than 1 kVA for use in the manufacture of 
audio systems (provided for in subheading 8504.31.40) as duty free 
through December 31, 2001.
      
     98. H.R. 3508 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for loudspeakers not mounted in their 
enclosures (provided for in subheading 8518.29.80) as duty free through 
December 31, 2001.
      
     99. H.R. 3509 would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 of the HTS 
by inserting a new heading for parts used in the manufacture of 
loudspeakers (provided for in subheading 8518.90.80) as duty free 
through December 31, 2001.
      

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSIONS OF REQUESTS TO BE HEARD:

      
    Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement 
for the printed record should submit at least six (6) single-space 
legal-size copies of their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-
inch diskette in ASCII DOS Text or WordPerfect 5.1 format only, with 
their name, address, and hearing date noted on a label, by the close of 
business, Monday, May 4, 1998, to A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff, 
Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.
      

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

      
    Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a 
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed 
record or any written comments in response to a request for written 
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or 
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, 
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the 
Committee.
      
    1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must 
be typed in single space on legal-size paper and may not exceed a total 
of 10 pages including attachments. At the same time written statements 
are submitted to the Committee, witnesses are now requested to submit 
their statements on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in ASCII DOS or 
WordPerfect 5.1 format. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will 
rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 
record.
      
     2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will 
not be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be 
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting 
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for 
review and use by the Committee.
      
     3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a 
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written 
comments in response to a published request for comments by the 
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all 
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
      
     4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the 
name, full address, a telephone number where the witness or the 
designated representative may be reached and a topical outline or 
summary of the comments and recommendations in the full statement. This 
supplemental sheet will not be included in the printed record.
      
     The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material 
being submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary 
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press 
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted 
in other forms.
      

    Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on 
the World Wide Web at `HTTP://WWW.HOUSE.GOV/WAYS__MEANS/'.
      

                                

                                H.R. 3123

    To suspend the duty on Niobium oxide until January 1, 2002.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3124

    To suspend the duty on vanadium pentoxide (anhydride) until 
January 1, 2002.

                                

                             Bear Metallurgical Company    
                                      Butler, PA 16002-9127
                                                        May 1, 1998

A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    As President of Bear Metallurgical, I write to you to express our 
opposition to H.R. 3124, a bill which would temporarily suspend the 
duty on vanadium pentoxide (anhydride) (HTS # 2825.30.0010).
    Bear Metallurgical is located in Butler, Pennsylvania, roughly 35 
miles from Pittsburgh. We currently provide good, high-wage paying jobs 
to 45 individuals. Bear Metallurgical is a producer of ferrovanadium, 
which serves the domestic steel industry. As a producer of 
ferrovanadium, vanadium pentoxide is a critical raw material used in 
our production process.
    Bear opposes H.R. 3124 for four reasons: (1) increased imports will 
result which will have a harmful impact on Bear Metallurgical and the 
U.S. vanadium industry; (2) a slowdown in U.S. production could prove 
harmful to the U.S. environment; (3) duty free access for all countries 
will harm countries currently in the GSP program; and (4) given the 
current rapid growth in imports, this legislation is clearly not 
necessary.

     (1) Harm to Bear Metallurgical and the domestic U.S. industry

    As mentioned, Bear Metallurgical employs 45 people in 
Butler, Pennsylvania. Bear's economic health and viability and 
the jobs of our employees are directly tied to the vanadium 
pentoxide industry. Bear simply cannot effectively compete with 
increased imports from countries with little or no 
environmental, safety, and health regulations. As you know, 
vanadium is vital to many other domestic industries such as 
steel and for defense/aerospace applications. It is imperative 
that the U.S. maintains a strong and healthy vanadium industry. 
To that end, it is imperative that the U.S. Congress not grant 
duty free treatment for imports of vanadium pentoxide.

                 (2) Potential harm to the environment

    A majority of the vanadium pentoxide produced in the United 
States is the result of a recycling process. Changed market 
conditions which slow down domestic production will ultimately 
have the unintended effect of causing increased landfilling of 
wastes containing vanadium and other metals. Given the 
importance of recycling and the environment, it would be 
counter productive to create a situation which would reduce 
recycling activities in this industry.

                   (3) Harm to current GSP countries

    The GSP program was created as a means to ``promote the 
development of developing countries, which often need temporary 
preferential advantages to compete ef-

fectively with industrialized countries.'' \1\ Two countries, 
Russia and South Africa, have taken advantage of this 
preferential advantage in the last several years. To now offer 
duty free status to every country would necessarily undermine 
their efforts, cause damage to the purpose of the GSP program, 
and most likely prevent other GSP nations (who would no longer 
have preferential treatment) from entering into the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Section 501(b) Generalized System of Preferences Renewal Act of 
1984, P.L. 98-573(1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   (4) Duty suspension not necessary

    From 1992 until 1997, imports of vanadium pentoxide grew 
from 110,523 kilograms to 1,206,578 kilograms--nearly an 11-
fold increase. Given this rapid growth, there clearly is no 
current significant barrier to the importation of vanadium 
pentoxide. Unlike other articles, this is obviously not a 
situation where an importer does not have access to a foreign 
supply. In addition, since vanadium pentoxide is an eligible 
article in the Generalized System of Preferences, duty free 
access is already available.
    If you should have any further questions concerning these 
comments, please feel free to contact me at 724-283-6800 ext. 
101.
    Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
            Very truly yours,
                                             Kevin H. Jones
                                                          President

                                

Comments of The Ferroalloys Association, in Opposition to Temporary 
Duty Suspension of Vanadium Pentoxide in H.R. 3124

    On behalf of The Ferroalloys Association (TFA) and its 
members, we write in opposition to H.R. 3124, a bill designed 
to grant duty free treatment to imports of vanadium pentoxide 
(anhydride) through January 1, 2002.
    The Ferroalloys Association is an industry advocacy group 
made up of the producers of vanadium, chromium, manganese, 
silicon ferroalloys and related basic alloys/metals in the 
United States. Founded in 1971, TFA represents over 20 
companies with facilities in 25 different states.
    Approximately 100 years ago, the U.S. ferroalloy industry 
emerged with the introduction of the electric arc furnace and 
rapidly expanded to meet the United States' domestic needs for 
projectiles and armor plates during the Spanish-American War. 
Today, the U.S. ferroalloy industry continues to make products 
vital to U.S. national security and economic interests, such as 
steel, iron, and aluminum, available to the American economy, 
due to ferroalloys such as: vanadium, ferrochrome, manganese 
metal, and silicon metal, as well as specialty inoculants and 
graphitizers.
    However, in the 1970s and 1980s, the domestic ferroalloy 
industry sharply declined, largely due to foreign import 
penetration and rising environmental standards. From 1970 to 
1990, the annual domestic production of alloys decreased from 
2,340,000 to 645,000 net tons per year, while imports increased 
from 350,000 to 1,490,000 net tons per year. Foreign 
competitors flooded the U.S. market at significantly lower 
costs, resulting from foreign government subsidization of 
electricity costs, capital investments, transportation, and 
taxes. As a result, U.S. producers faced high operating costs 
and declining prices, which forced them to reluctantly lay off 
workers and shut down plants at an alarming rate. These 
closings resulted in plants abandoning vital research and 
development programs, in order to remain in business. 
Simultaneously, the U.S. government imposed strict 
environmental standards on metals producers, forcing companies 
to direct large amounts of capital to environmental control 
equipment.
    Despite such gloomy statistics, the American ferroalloy 
industry is emerging from previous years smaller and leaner, 
and, through cooperation with the government, can become more 
prepared to compete in the global economy.
    The Ferroalloys Association has several concerns with the 
proposed legislation. Our primary argument against H.R. 3124 is 
that the legislation is simply needless at this time. As you 
can see from the attached Appendix 1, imports of vanadium 
pentoxide have increased dramatically over the last five years. 
Any product which sees a 992% increase in imports in five years 
obviously has relatively few barriers to trade. From these 
numbers, as well as the domestic output, it is clear that 
domes-

tic importers have access to an adequate supply of vanadium 
pentoxide--both foreign and domestic.
    In addition, this legislation, if approved, could have a 
severe impact on other countries that the U.S. is attempting to 
support through the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). In 
particular, South Africa and Russia have exported vanadium 
pentoxide to the U.S. in the past few years. The GSP program, 
as the Committee on Ways and Means is aware, was initially 
developed in order to assist developing nations through 
preferential tariff treatment. The GSP program attempts to move 
the U.S. in a direction of mutual trade with these economically 
disadvantaged countries rather than the typical U.S. program of 
continued foreign aid. To suddenly offer duty free treatment to 
every country not only hurts those countries which have made 
investments in infrastructure to develop this industry, but 
also effectively takes away any incentive for other developing 
countries to enter the market in the future.
    Finally, TFA is concerned about the overall effect this 
legislation would have on the domestic vanadium industry and 
the ferroalloy industry as a whole. Ferroalloy jobs are good, 
high-paying jobs. If vanadium pentoxide is afforded duty free 
treatment from all countries we expect that the increase in 
imports would skyrocket! These increased imports will come at 
the expense of U.S. producers who must deal with environmental, 
health, and safety regulations to which many foreign entities 
are not subject. Many of our members' employees have been with 
them for several years. To put these companies', as well as 
their workers', economic well-being at risk for what looks like 
proposal without any substantial merit, seems to be a rather 
senseless exercise. In addition to those workers and companies 
who would be immediately affected, maintaining a domestic 
vanadium industry is vital for other sectors of the U.S. 
economy, as well as for the national security of this country. 
As you are aware, vanadium is a prime component of steel, and 
in addition, the number two user of vanadium is the aerospace 
industry.
    On behalf of all of the members of The Ferroalloys 
Association, we believe that the Committee on Ways and Means 
will realize, based on these comments, that temporarily 
suspending the duty on vanadium pentoxide is a proposal without 
merit which will cause substantial harm in the U.S. and to 
developing nations. TFA strongly urges opposition to H.R. 3124. 
In addition, TFA would like to express its desire to remain 
involved in the debate over this issue. Should the Committee on 
Ways and Means need anyone from our industry to testify on the 
harmful impact of H.R. 3124 we stand ready to assist in 
coordinating that testimony.
    In closing, on behalf of the industry, TFA would like to 
thank the Committee on Ways and Means for taking the time to 
consider the impact legislation such as this will have on 
domestic interests. We are confident our concerns will be given 
full consideration.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8968.001

                                

                      Law Offices of DeKieffer & Horgan    
                                     Washington, D.C. 20005
                                                    April 28, 1998.

Mr. Bradley Schreiber
Chief of Staff
Ways and Means Committee
U.S. Congress
1102 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20436

Re: Subcommittee on Trade Press Release; Comments in opposition to the 
        proposed Bill H.R. 3124.

    Dear Mr. Schreiber:

    These comments are filed on behalf of U.S. Vanadium Corporation 
(``USV''), as instructed and in response to the International Trade 
Commission's April 13, 1998 letter to USV. USV is a Delaware 
corporation headquartered in Danbury, Connecticut. USV is a subsidiary 
of Strategic Minerals Corporation (Stratcor), also headquartered in 
Danbury CT. Stratcor and its related companies mine, process, source 
and sell a variety of metal and mineral products, including vanadium 
pentoxide, at several facilities in the United States (Connecticut, 
Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and New York) and other parts of the world, 
including its facilities located in the Republic of South Africa. 
Stratcor employs over 150 persons throughout the U.S. in manufacturing, 
sales and distribution, and research and development facilities.
    Bill H.R. 3124 (``HR 3124'') has been introduced to suspend the 
duty on imports of vanadium pentoxide (anhydride) until January 1, 
2002. USV's U.S. production would be adversely affected by the proposed 
suspension of duties on imports of vanadium pentoxide. Therefore, USV 
submits these comments in opposition of the proposed bill HR 3124.
    USV has also learned that the Ferroalloys Association, of which USV 
is a member, will submit opposing comments regarding HR 3124. In 
addition, another U.S. producer of vanadium products, Bear 
Metallurgical Company, will also oppose the passage of HR 3124.
    As argued hereinafter, USV strongly opposes HR 3124 because 
currently (A) almost 99% of all U.S. imports of vanadium pentoxide 
already enter tariff-free under the Generalized System of Preferences 
(GSP) program; (B) suspending the general duty on vanadium pentoxide 
would dilute the intended benefits of the GSP program; (C) suspending 
the general duty may allow GSP-eligible countries to unfairly 
circumvent competitive need limits; and (D) suspending the general duty 
would hurt the domestic vanadium industry.

(A) Almost 99% of all U.S. imports of vanadium pentoxide already enter 
                   tariff-free under the GSP program.

    Vanadium pentoxide is currently classified under subheading 
2825.30.10 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States 
(HTSUS). According to data prepared by the Department of 
Commerce's Bureau of the Census, imports of vanadium pentoxide 
for 1997 amounted up to 1,236,178 kilograms (kg) (out of which 
1,206,578 kg were for consumption) with a Customs value of 
$9,515,120 ($9,306,542 for consumption).
    Out of those import figures for 1997, according to the same 
source, 98.9% entered from the Republic of South Africa 
(1,222,762 kg--1,205,762 kg for consumption), representing 
98.8% of the Customs value ($9,409,571--$9,284,633 for 
consumption). It should be noted that the Republic of South 
Africa is included in the GSP program. Therefore, almost 99% of 
the total vanadium pentoxide imports into the United States for 
1997 entered tariff-free under the GSP program.
    The GSP program already provides the intended duty-
suspension effect of HR 3124 for imports from South Africa. The 
GSP program has a well established mechanism of checks and 
balances that makes HR 3124 unnecessary. Thus, at the time of 
its conception, HR 3124 is moot.

 (B) Suspension of the general duty on vanadium pentoxide would dilute 
               the intended benefits of the GSP program.

    The GSP program is intended to promote investment in 
developing countries. At the same time, the GSP furthers U.S. 
economic interests. This bifold approach has been modified and 
adjusted over the years to find a delicate balance.
    If HR 3124 is passed, its effects would necessarily disrupt 
GSP's finely-tuned mechanism. Ever since its institution in 
1976, the GSP has established a clear set of rules and 
procedures to grant its benefits.
    The GSP Subcommittee of the United States Trade 
Representative Office (USTR) reviews various factors while 
considering removing a country or a particular product from GSP 
benefits. Those factors are:
    (1) the country's general level of development; (2) its 
competitiveness in the particular product; (3) the country's 
practices relating to trade, investment and worker rights; (4) 
and the overall economic interests of the United States, 
including the effect continued GSP treatment would have on 
relevant U.S. producers, workers and consumers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A Guide to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, Office 
of the United States Trade Representative, Executive Office of the 
President, at vi (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These factors considered by the GSP Subcommittee embrace a 
broader spectrum than mere numbers and economical figures. For 
a country or a product to qualify as GSP-eligible in the U.S., 
a significant threshold must be cleared. Correspondingly, the 
benefits for such country or product are considerable.
    If HR 3124 is passed, its effects would dilute and in all 
practical terms, deny GSP's intended benefits. This would 
translate into offsetting the efforts and considerations of the 
USTR's GSP Subcommittee.

  (C) Suspending the general duty may allow GSP-eligible countries to 
              unfairly circumvent competitive need limits.

    Competitive need limits provide a ``ceiling'' \2\ on GSP 
benefits. In fact, competitive need limits represent one of the 
most important measures to prevent a possible abuse of GSP 
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id. at iv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Competitive-need limits may be waived under some 
circumstances. Again, as with every other aspect of the GSP 
program, the waivers to GSP competitive-need limits are 
carefully determined under the law. 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2463(c)(2). 
The vanadium pentoxide imports from South Africa presently 
qualify for a de minimis waiver of the competitive need limits. 
However, those imports are approaching the level where they may 
no longer be eligible for a de minimis waiver.
    HR 3124 would allow GSP-eligible countries to circumvent 
competitive-need limits without making a well-founded argument 
for a competitive-need limit waiver. If HR 3124 is passed, any 
GSP-eligible country could inundate the U.S. market without 
having to worry about complying with statutory GSP ceilings. HR 
3124 would represent an automatic and clearly unfair blanket-
waiver.

   (D) Suspending the general duty would hurt the domestic vanadium 
                               industry.

    According to USV's data, the volume of vanadium pentoxide 
imports to the U.S. market has grown from 110,523 kg in 1993, 
to 1,206,578 kg in 1997. This represents a ten-fold increase in 
4 years. We should remember that almost 99% of vanadium 
pentoxide imports already enter the U.S. duty-free. Thus, the 
U.S. vanadium pentoxide industry is already forced to compete 
with duty-free imports.
    Consequently, suspending the general duty on vanadium 
pentoxide could injure the U.S. industry by removing the 
competitive need limits on GSP benefits, and by allowing duty-
free imports from non-GSP countries. Finally, the tariff 
elimination and consequent injury to the U.S. industry would 
deprive the U.S. treasury of revenue.

                            (E) Conclusion.

    For the foregoing reasons, USV respectfully requests that 
the U.S. Congress does not pass HR 3124.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                            J. Kevin Horgan

                                

                                H.R. 3190

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on Benzoic 
acid, 2-[[1-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl) amino].

                                

                                        Clariant Corporation    
                                            Coventry, RI 02816
                                                April 29, 1998

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Committee on Ways and Means
U. S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Request for Comments on Additional Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff 
        Legislation (Advisory No. TR-23)

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    On behalf of the Clariant Corporation, I am submitting comments in 
support of thirteen duty suspension bills listed in your March 26, 1998 
Advisory No. TR-23. Clariant Corporation is headquartered in Charlotte, 
NC and is one of the largest specialty chemical companies in the world. 
Its Coventry, Rhode Island pigments and dyes facility will benefit from 
this legislation.
    Clariant strongly supports the passage by the House of 
Representatives this year of the following bills introduced by 
Representative Robert A. Weygand to suspend the duties on a number of 
pigments covered under Chapter 32 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of 
the United States:

    H.R. 3190--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Benzoic acid, 2-[[1-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-
yl)amino]carbonyl]-2-oxopropyl]azo]-
    CAS 31837-42-0

    H.R. 3191--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
2-Naphthalenecarboxamide, 4-[[5-[[[4-
(aminocarbonyl)phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-2-methoxyphenyl]azo]-N-(5-chloro-
2,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-3-hydroxy-
    CAS 59487-23-9

    H.R. 3192--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-[[3-[[2-hydroxy-3-[[(4-methoxyphenyl) 
amino]carbonyl]-1-naphthalenyl]azo]-4-methylbenzoyl]amino]-, calcium 
salt (2:1)
    CAS 43035-18-3

    HR 3193--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 2-
Naphthalenecarboxamide, N-(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)-3-
hydroxy-4-[[2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-[(methylamino)sulphonyl]phenyl]azo]-
    CAS 51920-12-8

    H.R. 3194--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Benzamide, N-[4-(aminocarbonyl)phenyl]-4-[[1-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-
benzimidazol-5-yl)amino]carbonyl]-2-oxopropyl]azo]-
    CAS 74441-05-7

    H.R. 3195--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Butanamide,2,2'-[(3,3'-dichloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-
diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N-(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)-3-oxo]-
    CAS 78245-94-0

    H.R. 3196--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Butanamide, N,N'-(3,3'-dimethyl[1,1'-byphenyl]-4,4'-diyl)bis[2-[(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)azo]-3-oxo]-
    CAS 5979-28-2

    HR 3197--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Benzoic acid, 2-[[3-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-
yl)amino]carbonyl]-2-hydroxy-1-naphthalenyl]azo]-,butyl ester
    CAS 31778-10-6

    H.R. 3198--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Butanamide, N-(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)-3-oxo-2-[[2-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]azo]-
    CAS 68134-22-5

    HR 3199--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Benzoic acid, 4-[[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2-[[2-hydroxy-3-
[[(2-methoxyphenyl)amino]carbonyl]-1-naphthalenyl]azo]-, methyl ester
    CAS 61847-48-1

    H.R. 3200--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
1,4-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 2-[[1-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-
benzimidazol-5-yl)amino]carbonyl]-2-oxopropyl]azo]-, dimethyl ester
    CAS 35636-63-6

    H.R. 3201--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Butanamide, 2,2'-[1,2-ethanediylbis(oxy-2,1-phenyleneazo)]bis[N-(2,3-
dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)-3-oxo]-
    CAS 77804-81-0

    H.R. 3202--A bill to suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-chloro-2-[[4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1-(3-
sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]azo]-5-methyl-,calcium salt (1:1)
    CAS 129423-54-7

    The products covered by these bills are organic replacements for 
colorants that use heavy metals--such as lead, molybdenum, chrome, and 
cadmium--in the plastics and coatings industries. Until recently, heavy 
metal colorants were used in plastics and coatings, especially where 
the applications are subjected to high heat, or where high 
weatherfastness or lightfastness are required. It was difficult to find 
substitutes for these heavy metal-based products. However, new 
formulations have lead to a number of organic products that are now 
satisfactory substitutes, and their use in place of heavy metal 
colorants is a sound environmental step forward.
    None of the organic substitutes covered by the pending legislation 
is produced in the United States, leaving domestic producers no choice 
but to import them and pay the tariffs which range from approximately 
6.5 percent to over 14 percent. Payment of the tariff for all of these 
products together is a substantial business cost that hurts Clariant's 
ability to compete, maintain production levels and employment, and does 
not serve the tariffs' original purpose of providing a measure of 
protection to U.S. producers.
    The bills introduced by Representative Weygand would remedy this 
situation without harming a U.S. industry. They would reduce 
manufacturing costs, increase competitiveness and lead to increased 
production and employment.
    On behalf of the Clariant Corporation, I want to thank you for this 
opportunity to present our views and stand ready to respond to any 
questions from the Ways and Means Committee or its staff.
    Clariant urges the Ways and Means Committee to approve a package of 
miscellaneous tariff measures this year, including the above mentioned 
legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                            Andrew Zamoyski
                                        Technical Manager--Pigments

cc: Representative Robert A. Weygand

                                

                                H.R. 3191

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 4-[[5-[[[4-
(Aminocarbonyl) phenyl] amino] carbonyl]-2-methoxyphenyl]azo]-
N-(5-chloro-2,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-3-hydroxynaphthalene-2-
carboxamide.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

      

                                

                                H.R. 3192

    To suspend  until  December  31,  2002,  the duty  on  
Benzenesulfonic  acid, 4-[[3-[[2-hydroxy-3-[[4-methoxyphenyl) 
amino]carbonyl]-1-naphtha-lenyl]azo]-4-methylbenzoyl]amino]-
calcium salt (2:1)

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3193

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on N-(2,3-
Dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5- yl)-5-methyl- 4- 
[(methylamino) sulphonyl] phenyl] azo] naphthalene- 2-
carboxaminde.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3194

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on N-[4-
(aminocarbonyl)phenyl]-4-[[1-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-
benzimidazol-5-yl)amino] carbonyl]-2-oxopropyl]azo] benzamide.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3195

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on Butanamide, 
2,2'-[3,3'-dichloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-diyl)bis(azo)]bis[N-
(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)-3-oxo.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3196

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on Butanamide, 
N,N'-(3,3'dimethyl[1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-diyl)bis[2-[2,4-
dichlorophenyl)azo]-3-oxo-.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                               H.R. 3197

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on Benzoic 
acid, 2-[[3-[[(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-1H-benzimidazol-5-
yl)amino]carbonyl]-2-hydroxy-1-naphthalenyl]azo]-,butyl ester.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3198

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on Butanamide, 
N-(2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)-3-oxo-2-[[2-
(trifluoro-methyl)phenyl]azo]-.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3199

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on Benzoic 
acid, 4-[[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2-[[2-hydroxy-3-
[[(2-methoxyphenyl)amino]carbonyl]-1-naphthalenyl]-, methyl 
ester.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3200

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 1,4-
Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 2-[[1-[[(2,3-di-hydro-2-oxo-1H-
benzimidazol-5-yl)amino carbonyl]-2-oxopropyl]azo]-, dimethyl 
ester.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3201

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on Butanamide, 
2,2'-[1-2,-ethanediylbis (oxy-2,1-phenylene-azo)] bis [N-(2,3-
dihydro-2-oxo-1H-benzimidazol-5-yl)-3-oxo-.

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3202

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Benzenesulfonic acid, 4-chloro-2-[[5-hydroxy-3-methyl-1-(3-
sulfophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]azo]-5-methyl-,calcium salt (1:1).

                see Clariant Corporation under H.R. 3190

                                

                                H.R. 3244

    To suspend temporarily the duty on KN001 (a hydrochloride).

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3268

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical DEMT.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3289

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain weaving 
machines.

                                

               American Textile Manufacturers Institute    
                                  Washington, DC 20036-3954
                                                        May 4, 1998

The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Legislation--H.R. 3289

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This is in response to Ways and Means Committee Advisory #TR-23, 
dated March 26, 1998, requesting comments on certain miscellaneous 
trade and tariff proposals. The American Textile Manufacturers 
Institute (ATMI) is the trade association for the domestic textile 
industry. Our members operate in more than 30 states and account for 
more than 80 percent of all textile fibers consumed in the United 
States.
    ATMI would like to express our support for H.R. 3289, a bill to 
temporarily suspend the duties collected on certain textile machinery 
used by domestic textile manufacturers.
    We have confirmed with the American Textile Machinery Association 
that there is no domestic source for this machinery and that they have 
no objections to this proposal. In fact, we are not aware of any 
opposition to suspending this duty. The current revenues generated by 
this duty are less than $500,000, thus meeting the standard criteria 
for duty suspension.
    The machinery in question are shuttle type power looms with less 
than 4.9 meters weaving width. These weaving looms are absolutely 
essential to producers of woven fabric, who collectively comprise the 
largest segment of the American textile industry.
    We urge the Committee to approve H.R. 3289.
            Sincerely,
                                               Carlos Moore
                                           Executive Vice President

                                

                                H.R. 3294

    To modify the marketing of certain silk products and 
containers.

                                

STATEMENT OF THE NECKWEAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (NAA)

RE: REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS ON MISCELLANEOUS TRADE AND TARIFF 
LEGISLATION (TR-23)

IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3294, TO MODIFY THE MARKING OF CERTAIN SILK PRODUCTS

                              Introduction

    The Neckwear Association of America (NAA) is a trade 
association comprised of domestic necktie producers and their 
suppliers. NAA member companies account for the vast majority 
of neckties produced in the United States.
    This statement is submitted by NAA in response to the Ways 
and Means Trade Subcommittee's request for public comments on 
certain miscellaneous trade and tariff bills. Among these bills 
is H.R. 3294, introduced by Congressman Matsui, ``to modify the 
marking of certain silk products.'' H.R. 3294 has NAA's strong 
support for the reasons set out below.

                               Background

    Under revised customs rules of origin, which took effect in 
July 1996, silk fabric--formerly considered to be the product 
of the country where the fabric was dyed, printed, and subject 
to at least two other processes--converted to the country, 
where the fabric is woven. In the case of silk printed fabric, 
the country where the fabric is woven is generally China.
    U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rules guide the 
labeling of textile and apparel products that are offered for 
sale in the U.S. market. Pursuant to the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act (Rule 33(a)(3), ``[e]ach textile fiber 
product made in the United States, either in whole or part, of 
imported materials shall contain a label disclosing these 
facts, for example: Made in USA of imported fabric''
    Therefore, U.S. necktie producers who had formerly 
advertised these silk fabrics as Italian could no longer do so 
without being in violation of U.S. marking rules.

                Silk Printed Fabric: Chinese or Italian?

    Italy is the primary supplier of printed silk fabrics to 
the U.S. neckwear industry. Italy's reputation for top fashion, 
design, and fabric selection is unparalleled in the world 
today. While Italy does not actually weave the silk greige 
goods, its printing and processing of them is quite 
substantial, and, Italy adds the all important ``Italian'' 
designs that give these fabrics their unique identity and great 
value. Therefore, our industry, its customers, and, up until 
recently, the U.S. Government have always considered these 
fabrics to be Italian; and U.S. necktie makers have 
traditionally utilized labeling practices that portray them as 
Italian.

                      Impact on U.S. Tie Producers

    Two thirds of all neckties produced in the United States 
are made of imported silk print fabric. Silk print fabric is 
not available or even made in the United States; the vast 
majority is imported from Italy. In short, there are no 
domestic alternatives.
    The adoption of the new U.S. textile origin rules in July 
1996 jeopardized the ability of U.S. necktie producers to 
continue their previous marking practices for sales in the U.S. 
market: Under the new origin rules, the marking could no longer 
indicate that the silk tie fabric was of Italian origin. Such a 
change threatened U.S. producers' ability to recover the costs 
of the very expensive Italian piece goods in the U.S. 
marketplace, and also placed them at a competitive disadvantage 
with Italian finished silk necktie producers, who are able to 
label their goods as being entirely the product of Italy, even 
though the piece goods used in the U.S. and Italian ties are 
the same.
    To its credit, the FTC has provided some help to the 
industry in the form of a letter ruling dated March 27, 1996, 
which permits U.S. tie producers to show on the label that the 
imported silk fabric was printed in Italy. While this step was 
welcomed by the industry, NAA strongly supports Congressional 
action that will codify the FTC's ruling. Such a step will 
provide assurance to U.S. necktie producers that their labeling 
practices conform with U.S. law. The legislation will also go a 
long way toward clearing up any confusion that remains about 
how these fabrics should be marked when they are used as a 
component in U.S.-made neckties.

                 Need to Revert to Old Rules of Origin

    NAA also understands that the change in the marking statute 
with respect to silk fabrics is just the first step in a 
reversion to the former rules of origin (pre-July 1996). NAA is 
highly supportive of this effort as it would allow U.S. tie 
manufacturers to return to unambiguous labeling practices with 
respect to its products.

                                

                                H.R. 3316

    To suspend temporarily the duty on IN-W4280.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3323

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide for duty-free treatment of oxidized 
polyacrylonitrile fibers.
      

                                

             American Fiber Manufacturers Association, Inc.
                                                        May 1, 1998

Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-6348

ATTENTION: A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

RE: H.R. 3323 and H.R.3657

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    The American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA) respectfully 
registers its opposition to enactment of H.R.3323 and H.R.3657, bills 
that would suspend the existing duty on oxidized polyacrylonitrile 
fiber, classified in the Harmonized System under 5501.30.00.
    AFMA is the trade association for U.S. producers of manufactured 
fiber. Our membership represents over 90% of domestic manufactured 
fiber production. A number of these member companies are filing 
separate petitions in opposition to H.R.3323 and H.R.3657.
    If enacted, this legislation would have a damaging effect on both 
current and planned production of the related acrylic and other 
competing fiber used in domestic carbonizing operations. In addition, 
there is no question that there is ample continuing domestic supply of 
the fibers associated with this product line.
    Please contact us if more information would be helpful.
            Sincerely,
                                              Paul T. O'Day
                                                          President

                                

                                      Amoco Corporation    
                                     Washington, D.C. 20036
                                                        May 4, 1998

Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-6348

ATTENTION: A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

RE: H.R. 3323 and H.R. 3657

    Dear Mr. Chairman,

    I am writing this letter to express Amoco's strong opposition to 
H.R. 3323 and to urge the Committee to reject its inclusion in any 
miscellaneous tariff package. The legislation would suspend the duty on 
oxidized polyacrylonitrile (PAN) fiber and create a new tariff line to 
distinguish the product from other acrylic fiber for duty suspension. 
These comments are submitted in response to the Subcommittee on Trade's 
Advisory No. 23, dated March 26, 1998.
    Amoco produces fibers from petroleum pitch which compete in certain 
end uses with the PAN fibers referenced in H.R. 3323. Our fibers are 
produced in our Greenville, South Carolina plant. This facility also 
produces oxidized PAN fibers with are supplied to users in the United 
States. These fibers compete directly with the imported fibers.
    Amoco's Greenville, S.C., plant employs over 400 people who are 
directly involved in the manufacturing of PAN fibers. Also, this 
product is supported by a sales and research staff from our Alpharetta, 
Georgia facility which employs over 60 people.
    Eliminating the duty as proposed in H.R. 3323 would severely hurt 
our ability to compete for business.
    On behalf of Amoco, I thank you for this opportunity to submit our 
views and stand ready to respond to any questions from Ways and Means 
members or their staff.
                                                D.J. DeLong
                                    Business Manager--Carbon Fibers

                                

                                  Fortafil Fibers, Inc.    
                                         Rockwood, TN 37854
                                                         1 May 1998
Honorable Bill Archer
Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-6348

ATTENTION: Pete Singleton, Chief of Staff

RE: H.R. 3323 and H.R. 3657

    Dear Mr. Chairman,

    Fortafil Fibers Incorporated would like to place on the record its 
strong opposition to H.R. 3323 and H.R. 3657, a miscellaneous tariff 
bill that would reduce the duty on certain oxidized polyacrylonitrile 
fibers to 0% by creating a new heading of 9902.55.01 Oxidized 
polyacrylonitrile fibers (provided for in subheading 5501.30.0).
    Our opposition is based on the fact that Fortafil Fibers has to pay 
a 9.2% duty on the raw material (polyacrylonitrile), from which 
oxidized polyacrylonitrile is derived, thereby creating an unfair 
competitive advantage to an importer when competing against domestic 
(U.S. sources) for the same material by allowing a foreign source a 
zero duty on this product when imported into the United States. It is 
further strongly felt that sufficient sources exist domestically for 
the production of this product which is used in the manufacture of 
aircraft brake linings and that the granting of a zero duty tariff, as 
proposed in H.R. 3323 and H.R. 3657, would create an unfair trade 
advantage to foreign producers of this material and further reduce 
domestic production and revenue from this product.
    Thank you for this opportunity to make our view know on this. I 
would be pleased to provide any additional information you request.
            Sincerely,
                                             Roger Prescott
                                      President and General Manager

cc: Ms. Troy Cribb, Deputy Asst. Sec. of Commerce
Ms. Mary Elizabeth Sweet, ITC
      

                                

                             North American Corporation    
                              Elizabethton, Tennessee 37643
                                                     April 29, 1998

Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-6348

ATTN: Mr. Pete Singleton, Chief of Staff

REFERENCE: HR 3323 AND HR 3657

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    On behalf of North American Corporation I am writing to oppose the 
passage of the above legislation to suspend the ten percent duty now in 
effect on imported oxidated PAN (Polyacrylonitrile). Passage of the 
legislation is important to our company since we are the only remaining 
manufacturer of carbonizable rayon in the United States. This product, 
even though used in brakes, is in direct competition, in certain 
applications, to our company as it relates to the space shuttle and the 
various programs of the Department of Defense.
    We are finding it more and more difficult to remain in the rayon 
business as a direct result of continuous imports on rayon textile 
products. If we are unable to continue in the rayon production business 
then the United States will lose the last remaining producer of 
carbonizable rayon, a component which should be considered vital to our 
national security. We believe it is important that the United States 
maintain these vital manufacturing facilities for national defense 
purposes.
    It is important to note that not only will the United States 
government lose its manufacturing capacity for producing this vital 
carbonizable rayon product but that our government spent in excess of 
$50 million in qualifying us to produce this product for vital NASA and 
Department of Defense programs.
    Please let us know if we can provide any additional information.
            Sincerely,
                                           Charles K. Green
                              President and Chief Executive Officer

                                

                                            Solutia        
                         Office of Business Development    
                                          Fibers and Saflex
                                                        May 1, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman,
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6354

RE: Proposed Duty Suspension on PAN Precursor in H.R. 3323 and 
        companion H.R. 3657 HS 5501.30.10; oxidized polyacrylonitrile 
        fiber; DUTY FREE

    Dear Representative Crane:

    Solutia Inc. is a United States based company with headquarters in 
St. Louis, Missouri. We have annual sales of more than $3 billion and 
employ approximately 8,800 people. Solutia is the largest producer of 
acrylic fiber in the U.S. with a capacity of over 300 million pounds. 
We employ approximately 1000 people at our Decatur, Alabama site where 
we make acrylic fiber. Our Decatur plant and process could be modified 
to make the polyacrylonitrile tow that is oxidized to make the product 
on which Duty Suspension is proposed.
    In Mid-1997, Toray Industries of Japan, the world's leading 
producer of carbon fiber (oxidized polyacrylonitrile PAN), reached 
agreement with Solutia to invest $45 million to build a carbon fiber 
plant at our Decatur site. The plant will be completed in April, 1999.
    Solutia has the key facilities and raw materials at Decatur to make 
polyacrylonitrile, but does not currently make this particular polymer. 
Doing so will require additional investment, an option that is a key 
reason why Toray chose to locate their plant at Decatur where they 
could have their key raw material produced and available on site.
    The duty suspension elimination proposed in H.R. 3323 and companion 
H.R. 3657 will make the economics of Solutia's investment unattractive. 
We at Solutia Inc., therefore, strongly object to any reduction or 
suspension of duties on oxidized polyacrylonitrile. We thank you for 
your consideration of our position.
            Sincerely,
                                      Robert R. Matzke, Jr.
                                      Business Development Director

                                

                                H.R. 3324

    To suspend from January 1, 1998, until December 31, 2002, 
the duty on SE2SI Spray Granulated (HOE S 4291).

                                

                                   Clariant Corporation    
                                              Charlotte, NC
                                                        May 4, 1998

Mr. A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Advisory No. TR-23: Comments in Support of H.R. 3324

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    I am writing this letter on behalf of the Clariant Corporation to 
express their strong support for H.R. 3324 and to urge the Committee to 
include these bills in any miscellaneous tariff package it is 
considering. These comments are submitted in response to the 
Subcommittee on Trade's Advisory No. 23, dated March 26, 1998. 
Companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senator 
Jesse Helms, S. 1430..
    Clariant, headquartered in Charlotte, NC, imports this product from 
Germany for its customers in the household consumer goods sector. It is 
currently imported under HTS 3907.9900 at a duty rate of 8 percent ad 
valorem, plus 1.9 cents/kg.
    We request that the Ways and Means Committee adopt this measure as 
part of a miscellaneous tariff package and urge the Committee to act 
this session of Congress. There is no U.S. production of this chemical, 
and there has been no opposition expressed to the suspension of the 
duty. In addition, it meets the de minimus cost requirement that the 
Committee plans to use to guide its consideration of miscellaneous 
tariff bills. Enactment would improve the competitiveness of Clariant 
and the consumers of this product.
    On behalf of Clariant, I thank you for this opportunity to express 
their views. If you have any questions you should feel to call myself, 
or David Del Guercio, North American Key Accounts Manager, Clariant 
Corporation, (704) 395-6619.
    Best Regards,
            Sincerely,
                                            Janet L. Hunter
Vice President, International Business-Government Counsellors, Inc.

                                

                                H.R. 3325

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3326

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Ethylhexanoic acid.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3327

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical Polyvinyl 
butyral.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3328

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain anti-HIV and 
anti-AIDS drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3350

    To direct the Foreign Trade Zones Board to expand Foreign 
Trade Zone No. 143 to include an area of the municipal airport 
of Chico, California.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3354

    To suspend temporarily the duty on trifluoromethylaniline.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3355

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-chloro-N-[2,6-dinitro-
4-(tri-fluoromethyl) phenyl]-N-ethyl-6-
fluorobenzenemethanamine.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3356

    To suspend temporarily the duty on streptomycin sulfate.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3357

    To suspend temporarily the duty on propanoic acid, 2-[4-
[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]-phenoxy]-2-propynyl 
ester).

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3358

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 2,4 dichloro 3,5 dinitro 
benzotrifluoride.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3359

    To suspend temporarily the duty on acetic acid, [(5-chloro-
8-quinolinyl)oxy]-, 1-methyhexyl ester.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3360

    To suspend temporarily the duty on acetic acid, [[2-chloro-
4-fluoro-5-[(tetrahydro-3-oxo-1H, 3H-[1,3,4] thiadiazolo [3,4-
a] pyridazin-1-ylidene)amino]phenyl]thio]-, methyl ester.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3361

    To suspend temporarily the duty on orthonitrophenyl.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3362

    To suspend temporarily the duty on chloroacetone.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3363

    To suspend temporarily the duty on calcium oxytetracycline.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3364

    To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium N-methyl-N oleoyl 
taurate.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3365

    To suspend temporarily the duty on dialkylnaphthalene 
sulfonic acid sodium salt.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3366

    To suspend temporarily the duty on O-(6-chloro-3-phenyl-4-
pyridazinyl)-S-octyl-carbonothioate.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3367

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-
2-phenylamino-pyrimidine.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3368

    To suspend temporarily the duty on O,O-Dimethyl-S-[5-
methoxy-2-oxo-1,3,4-thiadiazol-3(2H)-yl-methyl]-
dithiophosphate.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3369

    To suspend temporarily the duty on (Ethyl [2-(4-
phenoxyphenoxy) ethyl] carbamate.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3370

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-
triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-
urea.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3371

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-[4,6-
Bis(difluoromethoxy)-pyrimidin-2-yl]-1-(2-methoxy-
carbonylphenylsulfonyl) urea.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3372

    To suspend temporarily the duty on 3-(6-methoxy-4-methyl-
1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-[2-(2-chloroethoxy)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3373

    To suspend temporarily the duty on [(2S,4R)/(2R,4S)]/
[(2R,4R)/(2S,4S)-1-(2-[4-(4-chloro-phenoxy)-2-chlorophenyl]-4-
methyl-1,3-diaxolan-2-yl-methyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3374

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to provide for temporary duty-free treatment for 
semiconductor plating lines.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3375

    To provide for the temporary reduction of duty on synthetic 
quartz substrates.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3377

    To clarify the rules of origin for textile and apparel 
products from American Samoa.

                                

               American Textile Manufacturers Institute    
                                  Washington, DC 20036-3954
                                                        May 1, 1998

The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Legislation--H.R. 3377

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This is in response to Ways and Means Committee Advisory #TR-23, 
dated March 26, 1998, requesting comments on certain miscellaneous 
trade and tariff proposals. The American Textile Manufacturers 
Institute (ATMI) is the trade association for the domestic textile 
industry. Our members operate in more than 30 states and account for 
more than 80 percent of all textile fibers consumed in the United 
States.
    ATMI would like to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3377, a 
bill to amend the rules of origin for textile and apparel products from 
American Samoa under section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(19 U.S.C. 3592).
    This legislation would permit fabric formed in the United States 
and merely cut into component pieces in American Samoa to be assembled 
(sewn) into finished garments and textile furnishings in any country in 
the world and then enter the United States free of duty or quantitative 
restraint (quota). If this were to become law, it is clear that the 
country where this assembly would most likely be done is China, 
although other likely beneficiaries would be Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam. 
Unlike the countries which stand to benefit from proposed programs of 
trade preference for Caribbean/Central American nations and Sub-Saharan 
Africa, the putative beneficiaries of H.R. 3377 are wholly undeserving 
of the substantial benefits they would reap because their political, 
economic and social systems are antiethical to everything the United 
States stands for and tries to encourage among its trading partners. It 
is also worth noting that no industrialized country in the world has a 
unilateral trade preference program for the aforementioned countries. 
It is unacceptable for apparel and sewn textiles made in China, et al 
to be allowed to enter the United States duty and quota-free, 
regardless of the origin of their fabrics.
    Accordingly, ATMI opposes H.R. 3377 and urges the Committee not to 
approve this measure.
            Sincerely,
                                               Carlos Moore
                                           Executive Vice President

                                

                                  Eni F.H. Faleomavaega    
                              U.S. House of Representatives
                                                      March 9, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1104 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Phil:

    Thank you for your letters informing me of the opportunity to 
submit bills for technical corrections to current trade laws. In 
response I introduced H.R. 3377, a bill to clarify the rules of origin 
for textile and apparel products from American Samoa. The printed 
copies of the bill are not yet available, but I have enclosed a copy of 
the text of the bill reprinted from the House's web page, along with a 
copy of my statement on introduction.
    You have mentioned to me before that you did not support the 
changes in the rules governing country of origin which took effect in 
1996, and it has turned out, for American Samoa at least, that the new 
rules are hindering expansion of the American Samoan economy. My bill 
would make effective the pre-July 1, 1996 country of origin rules for 
textiles and apparel products cut in American Samoa from fabric wholly 
formed in the United States.
    There are currently approximately 300 foreign nationals working in 
the textile industry in American Samoa. My bill would permit us to 
return those foreign nationals to their native land, increase 
production levels, and increase purchases of U.S.-made fabric. 
Consistent with prior law, final assembly, not to exceed 30% of 
production, would be completed on foreign soil. While this is not the 
perfect solution, it is my opinion that it is a better solution than 
the current law, which permits foreign nationals to make apparel from 
foreign fabric and enter the mainland as a product of the United 
States, so long as final assembly is done on U.S. soil (which includes 
the U.S. territories).
    I respectfully request that H.R. 3377 be included in your list of 
bills upon which pubic comment is sought for possible consideration in 
this year's comprehensive trade legislation.
    With kindest regards,
            Sincerely,
                                      Eni F.H. Faleomavaega
                                                 Member of Congress

                                

                                H.R. 3384

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used 
in the formulation of an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3385

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
HIV/anti-AIDS drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3386

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3387

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the production of anti-
cancer drugs.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3388

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain drug substance 
used as an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3389

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain drug substance 
used as an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3390

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used 
in the formulation of an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3391

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used 
in the formulation of an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3392

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used 
in the formulation of an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3393

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used 
in the formulation of an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3394

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used 
in the formulation of an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3395

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain printing 
machinery.

                                

               American Textile Manufacturers Institute    
                                  Washington, DC 20036-3954
                                                        May 4, 1998

The Honorable Phil Crane
Chairman
House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
1102 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Legislation--H.R. 3395

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    This is in response to Ways and Means Committee Advisory #TR-23, 
dated March 26, 1998, requesting comments on certain miscellaneous 
trade and tariff proposals. The American Textile Manufacturers 
Institute (ATMI) is the trade association for the domestic textile 
industry. Our members operate in more than 30 states and account for 
more than 80 percent of all textile fibers consumed in the United 
States.
    ATMI would like to express our support for H.R. 3395, a bill to 
temporarily suspend the duties collected on certain textile machinery 
used by domestic textile manufacturers.
    We have confirmed with the American Textile Machinery Association 
that there is no domestic source for this machinery and that they have 
no objections to this proposal. In fact, we are not aware of any 
opposition to suspending this duty. The current revenues generated by 
this duty are less than $500,000, thus meeting the standard criteria 
for duty suspension.
    The machinery in question are ink-jet textile printing machines. 
These machines, which are extremely costly, are used to print patterns, 
designs and motifs on fabrics and are thus indispensable to a large 
segment of the domestic textile industry.
    We urge the Committee to approve H.R. 3395.
            Sincerely,
                                               Carlos Moore
                                           Executive Vice President

                                

                                H.R. 3407

    To provide for the reliquidation of certain entries of 
self-tapping screws.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3409

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a chemical known as 5-
tertiary butyl-isophthalic acid.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3414

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical KL540.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3415

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical methyl 
thioglycolate.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3416

    To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on tebufenozide.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3417

    To suspend temporarily the duty on organic luminescent 
pigments, dyes and fibers for security applications; and, 4-
Hexylresorcinol.

                                

Statement of AlliedSignal Inc. on H.R. 3417, a Bill to Suspend 
Temporarily the U.S. Duty on Organic Luminescent Pigments, Dyes and 
Fibers for Security Applications and on 4-Hexylresorcinol As Provided 
for in 3204.90.00 and 2907.29.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States

    AlliedSignal Inc. appreciates the opportunity to comment on 
H.R. 3417, introduced by Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen of 
New Jersey. This measure provides for the temporary suspension 
of the U.S. import duty on organic luminescent pigments, dyes 
and fibers for security applications, and on 4-hexylresorcinol, 
classified under 3204.90.00 and 2907.29.90 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States.
    Granting a suspension of the duty on the products subject 
to this legislation is justified and appropriate. To our 
knowledge there are no domestic producers of the exact products 
in question. For this reason passage of H.R. 3417, while having 
a positive impact on the competitiveness of AlliedSignal 
Specialty Chemicals and many of its U.S. customers, would not 
have a detrimental effect on a U.S. industry.

                    Description of AlliedSignal Inc.

    AlliedSignal manufactures advanced technology products for 
the aerospace, automotive and other markets. Some of our main 
aerospace products are jet propulsion engines, commercial 
avionics such as the enhanced ground proximity warning colli-

sion-avoidance system, and small-scale power systems. Our 
automotive product names include Fram filters, 
Autolite sparkplugs, Prestone car care 
products, and Garrett turbochargers for passenger 
cars, light trucks and earth-moving equipment. We also are a 
leading producer of nylon and industrial fibers, specialty 
chemicals, and advanced materials for the electronics and 
electric power distribution sectors.
    AlliedSignal has some 70,500 employees worldwide, 
approximately 50,000 of whom are in the United States. The 
company's principal U.S. manufacturing operations are located 
in Arizona, California, Missouri, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, New 
Jersey, Kansas and South Carolina.

               Description of the Products and Their Uses

Organic Luminescent Pigments, Dyes and Fibers for Security Applications

     Organic luminescent pigments, dyes and fibers are used by 
AlliedSignal customers in various products which require security and 
anti-counterfeiting technology. Examples of end uses in which trace 
amounts of highly specialized luminescent pigments, dyes and fibers may 
be used are: Currency, stock certificates, credit cards, postal stamps, 
labels for packages, software certificates of authenticity, drivers 
licenses, etc. These luminescent compounds are complex organic 
molecules, and each one is typically designed on a proprietary basis 
for a specific anti-counterfeiting application. Once a customer has 
decided upon a particular molecular structure, and specifications for 
the material, the product becomes truly unique to that particular 
customer, to the supplier and to the application.

4-Hexylresorcinol

     4-Hexylresorcinol is used by AlliedSignal customers for a variety 
of applications, including in throat lozenges, to reduce spoilage in 
shrimp, in topical antiseptics, and in other pharmaceutical and 
cosmetic applications (some of which are still in the research and 
development stage).

 Suspending the Duty on Organic Luminescent Pigments, Dyes and Fibers 
    for Security Applications and on 4-Hexylresorcinol is Warranted

    There are no U.S. producers of the specific organic 
luminescent pigments, dyes and fibers on which suspension of 
duty is being sought. There are no U.S. producers of commercial 
quantities of 4-hexylresorcinol.
    In 1997 the U.S. government (Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative and Department of Commerce) compiled a list (so-
called ``zero list'') of chemical products whose U.S. tariffs 
it tried unsuccessfully to use the November 1997 Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum ministerial meeting to 
eliminate in exchange for concessions from trading partners. 
AlliedSignal submitted the products subject to H.R. 3417 for 
inclusion on that list. In a chemical industry-wide formal 
review of the proposed ``zero list,'' undertaken at the behest 
of the U.S. government and carried out under the auspices of 
the U.S. Industry Sector Advisory Committee on Chemicals and 
Allied Products for Trade Policy Matters (a.k.a. ISAC 3), no 
one objected to these products' presence on that list, i.e., 
had no objections to their duties being eliminated.

                                Summary

    To AlliedSignal's knowledge there are no domestic producers 
of the exact products in question. Further, when scrutinized 
thoroughly for possible inclusion on the U.S. government's APEC 
``zero list,'' these products' inclusion on said list did not 
engender any opposition from or controversy among U.S. 
industry. Regrettably, notwithstanding the good intentions and 
tireless efforts of U.S. trade negotiators, it is uncertain if 
and when the APEC process will yield the desired tariff cuts 
provided for in H.R. 3417.
    For these reasons passage of H.R. 3417, while having a 
positive impact on the competitiveness of AlliedSignal 
Specialty Chemicals and many of its U.S. customers, would not 
have a detrimental effect on a U.S. industry. Granting a 
suspension of the duty on the products subject to this 
legislation is justified and appropriate.
      

                                

                                H.R. 3418

    To suspend temporarily the duty on polymethine sensitizing 
dyes for photo/imaging applications; and, certain 
fluorozirconium compounds.
      

                                

Statement of AlliedSignal Inc. on H.R. 3418, a Bill to Suspend 
Temporarily the U.S. Duty on Polymethine Sensitizing Dyes for Photo/
Imaging Applications and on Certain Fluorozirconium Compounds as 
Provided for in 2933.19.90, 2934.90.90, 2811.19.60 and 2826.90.00 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

    AlliedSignal Inc. appreciates the opportunity to comment on 
H.R. 3418, introduced by Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen of 
New Jersey. This measure provides for the temporary suspension 
of the U.S. import duty on polymethine sensitizing dyes for 
photo/imaging applications and certain fluorozirconium 
compounds, classified under 2933.19.90, 2934.90.90, 2811.19.60 
and 2826.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States.
    Granting a suspension of the duty on the products subject 
to this legislation is justified and appropriate. To our 
knowledge there are no domestic producers of the exact products 
in question. For this reason passage of H.R. 3418, while having 
a positive impact on the competitiveness of AlliedSignal 
Specialty Chemicals and many of its U.S. customers, would not 
have a detrimental effect on a U.S. industry.

                    Description of AlliedSignal Inc.

    AlliedSignal manufactures advanced technology products for 
the aerospace, automotive and other markets. Some of our main 
aerospace products are jet propulsion engines, commercial 
avionics such as the enhanced ground proximity warning 
collision-avoidance system, and small-scale power systems. Our 
automotive product names include Fram filters, 
Autolite sparkplugs, Prestone car care 
products, and Garrett turbochargers for passenger 
cars, light trucks and earth-moving equipment. We also are a 
leading producer of nylon and industrial fibers, specialty 
chemicals, and advanced materials for the electronics and 
electric power distribution sectors.
    AlliedSignal has some 70,500 employees worldwide, 
approximately 50,000 of whom are in the United States. The 
company's principal U.S. manufacturing operations are located 
in Arizona, California, Missouri, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, New 
Jersey, Kansas and South Carolina.

               Description of the Products and Their Uses

Polymethine Sensitizing Dyes for Photo/Imaging Applications

    These products are used by AlliedSignal customers to improve the 
spectral response of photo-sensitive emulsions used on films, including 
photographic films of all types, medical imaging films, and graphic 
arts films. These dyes are complex organic molecules, and each one is 
typically designed on a proprietary basis for a specific film emulsion. 
Once a customer has decided upon a particular molecular structure and 
specifications for the material (e.g., metals content, crystal size, 
etc.), the product becomes truly unique to that particular customer, to 
the supplier and to the application. These dyes are generally added in 
small amounts to film emulsions to adjust the photon sensitivity of the 
film.

Certain Fluorozirconium Compounds

    These products--potassium hexafluorozirconate and 
hexafluorozirconium acid (45%)--are used by AlliedSignal customers 
primarily for the treatment of aluminum alloys. Potassium 
hexafluorozirconate is used in the production of aluminum master 
alloys, which are then used in a variety of applications, including 
aerospace. Hexafluorozirconium acid is used in the pre-treatment of 
aluminum prior to surface finishing, for example, prior to painting 
aluminum beverage cans, automotive surfaces and appliances. A smaller 
application for potassium hexafluorozirconate is as a flame retardant 
for wool used in blankets found on aircraft, and the wool used in some 
military uniforms.

 Suspending the Duty on Polymethine Sensitizing Dyes for Photo/Imaging 
   Applications and on Certain Fluorozirconium Compounds is Warranted

    There are no U.S. producers of the specific polymethine 
sensitizing dyes on which suspension of duty is being sought. 
There are no U.S. producers of commercial quantities of 
potassium hexafluorozirconate or hexafluorozirconium acid 
(45%).
    In 1997 the U.S. government (Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative and Department of Commerce) compiled a list (so-
called ``zero list'') of chemical products whose U.S. tariffs 
it tried unsuccessfully to use the November 1997 Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum ministerial meeting to 
eliminate in exchange for concessions from trading partners. 
AlliedSignal submitted the products subject to H.R. 3418 for 
inclusion on that list. In a chemical industry-wide formal 
review of the proposed ``zero list,'' undertaken at the behest 
of the U.S. government and carried out under the auspices of 
the U.S. Industry Sector Advisory Committee on Chemicals and 
Allied Products for Trade Policy Matters (a.k.a. ISAC 3), no 
one objected to these products' presence on that list, i.e., 
had no objections to their duties being eliminated.

                                Summary

    To AlliedSignal's knowledge there are no domestic producers 
of the exact products in question. Further, when scrutinized 
thoroughly for possible inclusion on the U.S. government's APEC 
``zero list,'' these products' inclusion on said list did not 
engender any opposition from or controversy among U.S. 
industry. Regrettably, notwithstanding the good intentions and 
tireless efforts of U.S. trade negotiators, it is uncertain if 
and when the APEC process will yield the desired tariff cuts 
provided for in H.R. 3418.
    For these reasons passage of H.R. 3418, while having a 
positive impact on the competitiveness of AlliedSignal 
Specialty Chemicals and many of its U.S. customers, would not 
have a detrimental effect on a U.S. industry. Granting a 
suspension of the duty on the products subject to this 
legislation is justified and appropriate.

                                

                                H.R. 3419

    To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 
entries of mueslix cereals.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3421

    To amend section 313(p)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 to 
allow duty drawback for Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (``MTBE''), 
a finished petroleum derivative.
      

                                

                                American Agip Co., Inc.    
                                         New York, NY 10103
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    American Agip Company Inc. wishes to express our strong support for 
H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam 
Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl 
Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially inter-

changeable'' and, therefore, able to qualify for the special petroleum 
drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                       Francesco Antonietti
                                                          President
      

                                

        American Association of Exporters and Importers    
                                         New York, NY 10036
                                                     April 29, 1998

The Honorable Phillip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Miscellaneous Trade Bill--Item 71

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    The American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) is a 
national organization comprised of approximately 1000 company members 
engaged in the import, export and distribution of goods between the 
United States and throughout the world. The multitude of products sold 
by AAEI member companies covers a broad range, including textiles and 
apparel, chemicals, machinery, electronics, footwear, food products, 
automobiles, wine, specialty items and petroleum products. Over one 
hundred of our members are active participants on our Duty Drawback 
Committee.
    In response to the request for comments in connection with 
miscellaneous trade bills (TR-23) we express our strong support of H.R. 
3421, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson. This bill contains 
technical amendments to P.L. 103-182 (``Customs Modernization Act'') 
needed to clarify the treatment for drawback purposes of Methyl 
Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE).
    When the Harmonized Tariff list of ``commercially interchangeable'' 
petroleum products, entitled to use the special accounting drawback 
rules, was originally adopted, MTBE was not widely used and its absence 
was of little consequence. In recent years, MTBE has become an 
important petroleum derivative used for fuel oxygenation and is the 
equivalent of the products on the list. This bill will add the 
appropriate HTSUS subheading for MTBE to the list.
    We thank you for the opportunity to express our views and would 
appreciate the Subcommittee's support of the bill.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Ed Van Ek
                                Vice Chair, AAEI Drawback Committee
      

                                

Statement of the American Petroleum Institute

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) represents over 350 
companies involved in all aspects of the oil and gas industry, 
including exploration, production, transportation, refining, 
and marketing. Because petroleum products make up a significant 
part of the U.S. domestic and foreign trade, API and its 
members have extensive dealings with the U.S. Customs Service 
(Customs) on which they rely heavily for information and 
guidance. When problems have surfaced in the past, mutually 
acceptable solutions have often been found, thereby limiting 
the burden for both Customs and the petroleum industry, while 
keeping within the frame work of the applicable laws and 
regulations. However, some unresolved issues affecting 
commercial operations remain. The drawback program is one 
current unresolved issue, particularly the accounting and 
attribution rules for petroleum products. For this reason, API 
strongly supports the proposed miscellaneous corrections to 
trade legislation as described in your advisory from the 
Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, dated June 
30, 1997, specifically H.R. 3421, H.R. 3422, and H.R. 3423, 
introduced by Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas.
    H.R.3422 and H.R. 3423, which pertain to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products, an 
issue which was addressed in detail in Title VI--Customs 
Modernization, Section 632, of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act [P.L. 103-182]. That law 
provided special rules to allow the petroleum industry to 
account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis 
for purposes of duty drawback claims. Without that provision, 
in order to file certain drawback claims for a product that is 
exported, our member companies would have to track the actual 
molecules of certain petroleum derivatives as the product 
travels through a series of pipelines and tanks, commingled 
with like products from other sources. This, of course, would 
be an impossible accounting feat that in effect would prevent 
us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of various 
petroleum products
    API and the broader trade community thought that the 1993 
legislation had settled the matter once and for all. However, 
Customs' interpretation that the ``imported qualified article'' 
cannot be an article of the same kind and quality as the 
imported qualified article, or any combination thereof, in 
order to qualify for drawback, violates the intent of the 
statute, in effect requiring the tracking of actual molecules 
which P.L. 103-182 intended to eliminate.
    This technical correction would instruct Customs to do what 
Congress directed in 1993. As such, this technical 
clarification will take effect as if included in the 1993 law, 
providing U.S. exporters the ability to claim drawback on the 
exports the law is intended to cover.
    H.R. 3422 and H.R. 3423 are nearly identical. The only 
difference is that H.R. 3423 would take effect upon the date of 
enactment of this legislation, while H.R.3422 would take effect 
as if included in the original 1993 law that sought to make 
this change. Since this legislation is simply directing Customs 
to do what Congress directed in 1993, we believe the effective 
date of H.R 3422 is far more appropriate.
    Another bill which we strongly support is H.R 3421. This 
legislation updates the drawback law by adding Methyl Tertiary-
butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and 
therefore, able to qualify for the petroleum drawback rules 
under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p). When the harmonized tariff 
numbers for the list of ``commercially interchangeable'' 
petroleum products was originally identified, MTBE was not 
widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence to the petroleum industry. However, in recent 
years, MTBE has become an important petroleum derivative used 
as a fuel oxygenate. It is now the equivalent of other 
petroleum products eligible for the drawback accounting rules 
of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the appropriate 
harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum drawback 
statute. Without this small, but important technical change, 
duty drawback for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, 
even though there is no reason for treating it any different 
than the other petroleum products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    In conclusion, we believe that H.R. 3422 and H.R. 3423 will 
finally put an end to Customs' inconsistent interpretation and 
application of existing law, and along with H.R. 3421 will help 
achieve the goal of promoting U.S. exports, as intended by the 
drawback law.

For additional information, please contact Michael Platner at 
202/682-8418.
      

                                

                                   Basis Clearing, Inc.    
                                         Westport, CT 06880
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Basis Clearing, Inc. wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 
3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam 
Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl 
Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                              Wayne Kubicek
                                                           Director
      

                                

                                Cargill Energy Division    
                                  Minnetonka, MN 55343-9497
                                                        May 1, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Cargill Energy, a division of Cargill, Incorporated, is writing in 
response to your subcommittee's request for comments to support 
enactment of H.R. 3421. This bill, which is referenced as number 71 in 
your March 26, 1998, request for public comments on miscellaneous trade 
issues legislation, was introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to 
ensure that exports of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) will qualify 
for duty drawback on the same basis as other petroleum products.
    Cargill Energy has international petroleum and petroleum product 
trading and distribution businesses. In the United States, Cargill is 
both an importer and exporter of petroleum products. Cargill Energy is 
a division of Cargill, Incorporated, which is an international 
marketer, processor and distributor of agricultural, food, financial 
and industrial products with some 79,000 employees in more than 1,000 
locations in 72 countries and with business activities in 100 more.
    H.R. 3421 would add MTBE to the list of petroleum products that are 
``commercially interchangeable'' under the terms of the special 
petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 1313(p). This is to recognize 
that MTBE is now playing a much greater role in U.S. energy trade and 
use, including both imports and exports. When the list of 
``commercially interchangeable'' products was first drawn up, MTBE was 
not a significant fuel additive. With the adoption of the requirements 
for reformulated gasoline under the Clean Air Act, however, MTBE use 
has grown dramatically as a fuel oxygenate. It is time that MTBE be 
treated the same as other petroleum derivatives for the purpose of U.S. 
tariff laws.
    Therefore, this technical change to the law is needed to ensure 
that MTBE will be eligible for duty drawback on the same basis as other 
petroleum derivatives. We respectfully urge your committee to support 
this needed change, and we hope that Congress will act expeditiously to 
enact H.R. 3421.
            Sincerely yours,
                                            Gary W. Jarrett
     President, Cargill Energy, a division of Cargill, Incorporated
      

                                

                                   Chevron Products Company
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Chevron U.S.A. Inc. wishes to express its strong support for H.R. 
3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam 
Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl 
Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Ken Zee
        Team Leader, Management Reporting and Regulatory Compliance
      

                                

                            CITGO Petroleum Corporation    
                                      Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
                                                        May 4, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane,
    CITGO Petroleum Corporation is a major refining, marketing and 
transportation company with 5,000 employees, 6 major manufacturing 
facilities, ownership of 54 marketing terminals and a product supplier 
to more than 14,000 branded gasoline stations.
    CITGO wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3421 (Item 
number 71 on TR-23). This bill updates the drawback law by adding 
Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products 
that are considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, 
therefore, able to quality for the special petroleum drawback rules 
under 10 U.S.C. Section 1313(p).
    When harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Section 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our position and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                               Ezra C. Hunt
                     Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

cc. A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
      

                                

                                            Conoco Inc.    
                                  Ponca City, OK 74602-1267
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Conoco Inc. wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3421 
(Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of 
Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl Tertiary-
butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                          James A. McDonald
            Director, Excise Tax Division, UPNA--Leveraged Services
      

                                

                                   Dow Chemical Company    
                                     Lake Jackson, TX 77566

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    The Dow Chemical Company wishes to express our strong support for 
H.R. 3421 (item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam 
Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl 
Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statue.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                           John D. Williams
                                            Import Services Manager

                                

                                             Ecofuel S.p.A.
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Ecofuel S.p.A. wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3421 
(Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of 
Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl Tertiary-
butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                             Andrea Valerio
                                                   Authorized Agent

                                

Statement of Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. on H.R. 3421, a Bill 
to Amend Section 313(p)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p)(3)) to Allow Duty Drawback for Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether 
(MTBE)

    In response to the House Ways and Means Trade 
Subcommittee's request for written comments on miscellaneous 
trade and tariff legislation dated April 26, 1998, ENRON 
CAPITAL & TRADE RESOURCES CORP. (``ENRON'') submits the 
following comment in support of H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on 
TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas.\1\ 
This bill updates the duty drawback law by adding the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') number for MTBE to the 
list of petroleum products that are considered to be 
``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able to 
qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under Section 
313(p) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p)).\2\ 
Specifically, the addition of MTBE to Sec. 1313(p)(3)(A)(i)(I) 
will allow U.S. producers exporting MTBE to compete on a level 
playing field with foreign producers for sales of MTBE into 
Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas introduced a companion 
bill in the Senate, S. 1860.
    \2\ The HTS number for MTBE is 2909.10.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             A. Background

    ENRON through its subsidiaries is a producer, importer and 
exporter of MTBE, and is headquartered in Houston, Texas, with 
assets in most of the fifty states. MTBE is a finished 
petroleum product derived from natural gas, and its primary use 
is as an oxygenate in reformulated gasoline. Duty drawback 
cannot currently be claimed for MTBE exports to our North 
American Free Trade Agreement (``NAFTA'') partners, although 
drawback can be claimed for all other MTBE exports from the 
U.S. pursuant to applicable regulations. ENRON imports MTBE 
from the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia to the West Coast 
for sale to MTBE suppliers on the West Coast, and produces MTBE 
at its Gulf Coast facilities and exports the product to Mexico. 
ENRON currently exports approximately 150,000 to 200,000 
barrels a month to Mexico. To our knowledge, there are no 
exports of MTBE from the U.S. to Canada. We believe that other 
U.S. MTBE producers exporting the product to Mexico could 
benefit from duty drawback.

              B. Background and Reason for the Legislation

    H.R. 3421 adds the appropriate HTS subheading for MTBE to 
the petroleum drawback statute correcting the inadvertent 
omission of MTBE from the list of finished petroleum 
derivatives eligible for drawback under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p). 
When HTS numbers for ``commercially interchangeable'' petroleum 
products were originally identified for inclusion on the list 
of products for duty drawback, MTBE was not widely used, making 
its absence from the list of little consequence.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The current rate of duty for MTBE imports into the U.S. from 
non-NAFTA and non-GSP countries is 5.5 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As MTBE became more widely used and U.S. MTBE exports 
increased, drawback was claimed under Sec. 1313(j)(2).\4\ Under 
that section, a claim can be made for unused substitution 
drawback for products that are ``commercially 
interchangeable.'' In other words, if a U.S. duty is paid on an 
imported product that is ``commercially interchangeable'' with 
a domestic product, and the domestic product is exported rather 
than used within the U.S., any U.S. duty or fees paid on the 
imported product can be claimed as drawback when an equal or 
lesser amount of the ``commercially interchangeable'' domestic 
product is exported. However, passage of the NAFTA 
Implementation Act prevented duty drawback for U.S. MTBE 
exports to Mexico after January 1, 1994.\5\ Pursuant to the 
NAFTA Implementation Act, 19 C.F.R. Sec. 181.42(d) prohibits 
drawback claims for ``commercially interchangeable'' products 
exported under Sec. 1313(j)(2) from the U.S. to NAFTA 
countries. Therefore, the exclusion of MTBE from the list of 
finished petroleum derivatives within Sec. 1313(p) 
unjustifiably restricts U.S. MTBE producers' ability to claim 
drawback for exports to NAFTA countries, specifically Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ P.L. 103-182; 19 U.S.C. Sec. 3301, et. seq.
    \5\ 19 C.F.R. Sec. 181.42(d)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MTBE has become an important petroleum derivative used as a 
fuel oxygenate in the U.S. and in foreign markets, making it 
equivalent to the other petroleum products eligible for the 
special drawback accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p) upon the 
exportation of the products' to a NAFTA country. In fact, duty 
drawback for MTBE could provide up to $6 million in annual 
savings to several U.S. MTBE producers. Thus, H.R. 3421 would 
correct the Tariff Act of 1930 by including MTBE on the list of 
finished petroleum derivatives eligible for drawback under 
Sec. 1313(p).

        C. The Need for Duty Drawback for MTBE Exports to Mexico

    Amending 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p)(3) to allow duty drawback 
for MTBE would level the playing field for U.S. producers when 
competing for sales of MTBE into the Mexican market. Because 
duty drawback currently cannot be claimed for MTBE exports to 
Mexico, U.S. producers that import and subsequently export MTBE 
are placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign 
producers selling the product in that Latin American market.
    Correcting the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow ``same 
substitution'' duty drawback for MTBE exports to Mexico would 
remove any cost disadvantage realized by U.S. MTBE producers 
exporting the product compared to foreign MTBE producers. A 
technical correction of this nature would enable U.S. MTBE 
producers to compete more aggressively for market share in 
Mexico. Many U.S. producers encounter difficulty competing 
against foreign MTBE producers exporting the product to Mexico 
because foreign producers often have lower production costs, 
and in certain instances are state-owned or receive government 
subsidies. Foreign MTBE producers, therefore, often have a 
distinct competitive advantage over U.S. producers in total 
production costs, including variable (raw materials), fixed 
(direct and indirect labor), and support (environment, health 
and safety) costs. Due to these cost differences, and nontariff 
trade barriers, ENRON and other U.S. producers are placed at a 
competitive disadvantage in the cost of MTBE production 
compared to foreign MTBE producers. Currently, this 
disadvantage is significantly increased by the devaluation of 
foreign currencies relative to the strength of the U.S. dollar.
    Duty drawback for MTBE would give U.S. MTBE producers 
substantial savings, providing greater opportunity for them to 
compete for market share in Mexico. U.S. MTBE exporters also 
could better match any competitive pricing structure for MTBE 
in that market.

      D. The Benefits of Duty Drawback for MTBE Exports to Mexico

    Duty drawback would level the playing field for U.S. MTBE 
producers competing for sales into the Mexican market. The 
continued use, and potential increase, of MTBE as a fuel 
additive in developing nations such as Mexico also can benefit 
the environment.
    Duty drawback for MTBE would provide U.S. companies 
exporting MTBE with substantial savings, potentially spurring 
additional growth and reinvestment in the industry within the 
U.S. As a result, U.S. MTBE producers such as ENRON would be 
encouraged to increase exports of MTBE to Mexico, and either 
expand U.S. production capacity, or increase capacity 
utilization, for MTBE. Promoting growth in the U.S. industry 
and the exportation of greater amounts of MTBE can contribute 
to a positive trade balance with Mexico and can strengthen the 
U.S. petroleum industry's presence in Latin America. As the 
U.S. pursues negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the Americas 
(``FTAA''), and similar bilateral or multilateral agreements 
with other Latin and South American nations, it is extremely 
important that trade barriers are removed in order that U.S. 
companies, including MTBE producers and exporters, can compete 
on equal footing in the global market with foreign companies.
    Promoting exports of MTBE to Mexico, and encouraging growth 
in U.S. MTBE production for domestic and foreign consumption, 
can provide substantial benefits to the environment. As a 
derivative of natural gas, MTBE reduces air toxics when used as 
a fuel additive in gasoline. When added to reformulated 
gasoline, MTBE helps reduce the emission of ozone, which is a 
precursor to smog. The addition of MTBE to oxygenated fuel 
assists in the reduction of carbon monoxide emissions. 
Therefore, any increase in the exportation of U.S. MTBE to 
developing nations could have a positive environmental impact 
by helping to decrease emissions of hazardous air pollutants in 
those nations.

                             E. Conclusion

    The addition of MTBE to Sec. 1313(p)(3) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 would correct the product's omission from the list of 
finished petroleum derivatives eligible for drawback under that 
section, and allow U.S. producers exporting MTBE to compete on 
a level playing field with foreign producers for sale of the 
product in Mexico. Without this technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though no 
reason exists for treating it differently than the other 
petroleum products listed in Sec. 1313(p). In addition, ENRON 
and other U.S. producers would be able to make capital 
investments and expand production to meet future growth and 
demand for MTBE in the markets in which they participate. The 
U.S. is currently attempting to negotiate with many Latin and 
South American countries with regard to the development of free 
trade areas and the establishment of open market access. Duty 
drawback for MTBE would further encourage both, contributing to 
the overall goals and policies of this Congress.
    We appreciate your consideration of our comments and we 
hope the Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at 
the earliest opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                           Kevin W. Beasley
                                                     Vice President

cc: Mr. Leo Webb
U.S. International Trade Commission

                                

                                      Exxon Corporation    
                                     Washington, D.C. 20006
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    I want to express our strong support for H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 
on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas. This bill 
updates the drawback law by adding Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) 
to the list of petroleum products that are considered to be 
``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able to qualify for 
the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating MTBE any differently from the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                J. J. Rouse
                                  Vice President, Washington Office

                                

                          Fina Oil and Chemical Company    
                                              Dallas, Texas
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Fina Oil and Chemical Company wishes to express our strong support 
for H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative 
Sam Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding 
Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products 
that are considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, 
therefore, able to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules 
under 19 U.S.C. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Kevin Rupp
                                        Vice President & Controller

                                

                   George E. Warren Corporation--Energy    
                             Vero Beach, Florida 32960-5518
                                                     April 29, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    George E. Warren Corporation wishes to express our strong support 
for H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative 
Sam Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding 
Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products 
that are considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, 
therefore, able to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules 
under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                         Jonathan W. Taylor
                                                          Treasurer

                                

                                 Global Petroleum Corp.    
                                     Waltham, MA 02254-9161

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Global Petroleum Corp. wishes to express our strong support for 
H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam 
Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl 
Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Section 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Section 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Section 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Very truly yours,
                                           Alfred A. Slifka
                                                          President

AAS/mdc

                                

                     Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc.    
                                          Katy, Texas 77450
                                                        May 1, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc. wishes to express our strong 
support for H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law 
by adding Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum 
products that are considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' 
and, therefore, able to qualify for the special petroleum drawback 
rules under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    With this change, many of our clients and others in the petroleum 
industry will be able to utilize drawback for its intended purpose, 
which is to promote exports. We believe this bill will enhance our 
global competitiveness within the MTBE industry.
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Bobby Waid
                                                          President

                                

Comments of Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association

    The Independent Fuel Terminal Operator Association 
(``IFTOA'') hereby submits these comments to the Subcommittee 
on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means in response 
to its ``Request for Written Comments on Additional 
Miscellaneous Trade and Tariff Legislation.''
    As explained below, IFTOA fully supports H.R. 3421, 3422 
and 3423. These bills would clarify certain language in Section 
313(p) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p)) that 
may be susceptible to misinterpretation by the U.S. Customs 
Service.

                            I. Introduction

    IFTOA is an association of independent companies which own 
or control oil terminals, located along the East Coast from 
Maine to Florida, capable of receiving ocean-going tankers. 
Members are primarily importers, exporters and marketers of 
home heating oil, gasoline, and residual fuel oils at the 
wholesale and retail levels. As a result of their import and 
export activities, they participate at times in the duty 
drawback program. Accordingly, Members will be significantly 
affected by the outcome of the recent debate between the 
petroleum industry and the U.S. Customs Service regarding the 
proper means of implementing ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' for 
refined petroleum products.
    In 1990 and 1993, Congress adopted amendments addressing 
``Substitution Duty Drawback'' consistent with the position of 
the petroleum industry: (1) the refunds are to be based on 
exported volumes that do not exceed the imported volumes; and 
(2) only a quantitative ``match-up'' of imported and exported 
material is required.
    In 1997, Customs indicated informally that the Agency 
interprets the 1993 amendment as requiring precise, molecule-
for-molecule tracking of imported finished petroleum products 
transferred to an exporter. Customs' interpretation would 
dramatically reduce drawback benefits to IFTOA Members.
    Since December 1997, IFTOA has been participating with an 
industry working group to persuade the Customs Service that the 
Agency's interpretation is contrary to the intent of the 
previous amendments. After several months of discussion between 
the group and Customs, it appears that Customs will not change 
its position. Therefore, the Association urges Congress to 
adopt a clarifying amendment to preserve the original intent of 
the 1990 and 1993 amendments.

                             II. Background

A. 1987 Ruling

    Section 1313(p) provides for duty drawback whenever there 
is an exportation of a petroleum product that is of the same 
``kind and quality'' as an imported petroleum product. In 1987, 
Customs issued Customs Service Decision 88-1 interpreting the 
then-existing petroleum drawback statute.\1\ That ruling 
permitted ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' if exported product 
withdrawn from a single commingled tank on a monthly basis did 
not exceed the quantity of the imports. However, petroleum 
products commingled in separate tanks in a common storage 
facility were required to be accounted for on a daily and per 
tank basis pursuant to an acceptable accounting method such as 
``First In-First Out.'' The petroleum industry found this 
requirement to be too burdensome and seldom used the procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 22 Cust. B. & Dec. No. 307 (June 29, 1987).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 1990 Trade Act

    In 1990, the petroleum industry urged Congress to amend the 
law to make clear that ``Substitution Duty Drawback'' could be 
used if (1) imported and exported goods of like kind and 
quality were substituted for one another (i.e., they are 
classified under the same 8-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
number); (2) the exported products did not quantitatively 
exceed the imported products; and (3) calculations for 
compliance purposes were made on a monthly basis.
    Pursuant to that request, Congress enacted Section 484A of 
the ``Customs and Trade Act of 1990.'' \2\ It embodied the 
industry position and was enacted after 18 months of 
negotiations among Congress, the industry and the U.S. Customs 
Service. However, Section 484A required that the product be 
commingled in a common facility; hence, industry members could 
not use the procedure for petroleum products stored at 
different facilities. Because petroleum products frequently are 
stored at a number of common storage facilities before reaching 
the point of export, the ``common facility'' requirement proved 
to be an obstacle, and the procedure fell into disuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ P.L. 101-382 (August 20, 1990).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. 1993 Statute

    Accordingly, in 1993 the petroleum industry again urged 
Congress to address the matter by adopting a clarifying 
provision. Section 632(a)(6) of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement Implementation Act was designed to simplify the 
``Substitution Duty Drawback'' procedure for petroleum.\3\ It 
was intended to require that an exporter only match the 
quantity of his export with the quantity of the import of 
material of the same kind and quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ P.L. 103-182 (December 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the final language was not as precise as the 
sponsors had intended, and it left open the potential for 
misinterpretation. It provided that a drawback claim may be 
made for petroleum products exported in the same or greater 
quantity as a ``qualified article'' if the exporter:
    (i) manufactured or produced the qualified article;
    (ii) purchased or exchanged the qualified article from a 
manufacturer or producer;
    (iii) imported the qualified article; or
    (iv) purchased or exchanged, directly or indirectly, an 
imported qualified article from an importer.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 19 U.S.C. section 1313(p)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ``qualified article,'' as defined in subparagraph 3(A), 
must be either manufactured or produced in the United States or 
imported duty-paid. The Customs Service points to the language 
``imported qualified article'' in subparagraph (iv), and the 
def-

inition of ``qualified article'' in subparagraph (3)(A)(ii), as 
the basis for the Agency's interpretation.

                      III. Multiple Substitutions 

A. Current Customs Interpretation

    As indicated, in subparagraph (A)(iv) of the 1993 
provision, unlike subparagraphs (i) through (iii), ``qualified 
article'' is described as an ``imported qualified article.'' 
The U.S. Customs Service has informally indicated that it may 
interpret this distinction as requiring that when the product 
is imported by a person other than the exporter, the product 
must be tracked and identifiable ``molecule for molecule.'' The 
exporter would then have the ability to substitute another 
product for exportation.
    Customs' interpretation would be inconsistent with the 
statutory intent of the 1993 law. The legislative history makes 
clear that the 1993 amendment was designed to provide greater 
flexibility to industry when claiming duty drawback and to 
reduce paperwork for the industry and administrative costs for 
the government. The intent of the 1993 law was to permit 
drawback on a quantitative basis, not to require direct 
identification. Thus, an amendment to the current language is 
needed to prevent an interpretation that would negate the very 
purpose of the measure.

B. Proposed Legislation

    IFTOA strongly supports H.R. 3422 and 3423 as an effective 
means of ensuring that multiple substitution of petroleum 
products remains permissible. The removal of the language ``an 
imported'' in Section 3131(p)(2(A)(iv), and the clarification 
in the definition of ``qualified article,'' will express more 
precisely the intent of the previous amendments.
    This amendment is important to IFTOA members. Under 
Customs' interpretation, duty drawback on finished imported 
product would be limited to very few situations, such as when 
the importer places the product in segregated tankage. However, 
finished petroleum product imported by IFTOA members frequently 
is commingled with other product either in storage or in 
pipelines before delivery to the exporter. Under these normal 
commercial conditions, it is not possible to track the 
molecules of the imported product.
    In addition, IFTOA Members frequently engage in multiple 
party transactions that will result in either commingling or 
substitution. For example, an IFTOA Member may import jet fuel 
and sell it to a major oil company that will in turn sell jet 
fuel to an airline for export on international flights. Because 
of the fungibility of jet fuel, it is impossible to determine 
whether the jet fuel imported by the IFTOA member is the same 
jet fuel, ``molecule for molecule,'' as the jet fuel sold by 
the major oil company and exported as fuel for the 
international flight. However, the transferred product is of 
the ``same kind and quality'' (i.e., the same 8-digit 
Harmonized Tariff System number) as the product imported, and 
meets the definition of a ``qualified article'' under the 
current statute.

                           IV. Retroactivity

    In addition, Section 632(b) of the North American Free 
Trade Agreement Implementation Act provides for retroactive 
application of the petroleum drawback provisions to all claims 
filed or liquidated on or after January 1, 1988 and 
unliquidated, under protest or in litigation as of December 8, 
1993. Customs has expressed the opinion that, not withstanding 
the current retroactive provision of the statute, all drawback 
claims are subject to the three-year limitation (i.e., a claim 
must be filed or amended within three years from the date of 
export).
    IFTOA supports the ``Effective Date'' provision in HR 3422 
that allows drawback claimants to file or amend drawback 
claims, during the first six months after the enactment of the 
proposed legislation, for exports made more than three years 
earlier. This provision would provide an equitable remedy for 
parties that did not previously file, or amend, a drawback 
claim due to the ambiguous language of the current drawback 
statute. The proposed amendment simply clarifies the intent of 
the 1990 and 1993 amendments.

             V. Addition of MTBE as a ``Qualified Article"

    Finally, IFTOA also supports HR 3421, which would add Methyl 
Tertiary-Butyl Ether (``MTBE'') to the list of ``qualified articles'' 
for which drawback may be claimed. MTBE is an oxygenate that has become 
essential to the petroleum industry in recent years in order to comply 
with environmental laws requiring the sale of oxygenated gasoline in 
some areas. Because of the wide usage of this additive by the industry, 
it is appropriate to add it to the other chemicals that are currently 
considered ``qualified articles'' for petroleum drawback purposes.

                             VI. Conclusion

    Accordingly, the Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association 
respectfully requests that Congress include a ``Substitution Duty 
Drawback'' amendment in any bill addressing miscellaneous corrections 
to trade legislation. Such an amendment should clarify that the 
petroleum drawback mechanism is as follows: (1) the volume of exported 
product qualifying for the drawback refund could not exceed the volume 
of ``qualified product'' that is imported into the country; (2) the 
petroleum industry would not have to trace the molecules of the 
imported product from the importer to the exporter; and (3) the 
imported or substituted product is of the same kind and quality as the 
exported product. This clarification would ensure a practical and 
commercially realistic means of applying the ``Substitution Duty 
Drawback'' provision.
    The Association appreciates the opportunity to provide these 
comments and would be pleased to provide any further assistance that 
the Subcommittee may need.
    Thank you very much.
      

                                

                              ITOCHU International Inc.    
                                  Houston, Texas 77057-3009
                                                     April 22, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    ITOCHU International Inc. wishes to express our strong support for 
H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam 
Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl 
Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                         Daniel K. Maruyama
                                         Manager, Gasoline Blending
      

                                

      National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of 
                                                America    
                                       Washington, DC 20036
                                                        May 2, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to the request for comments in connection with 
miscellaneous trade bills (TR-23), we express our strong support of 
H.R. 3421, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson. This bill contains 
a technical amendment to P.L. 103-182 (``Customs Modernization Act'') 
needed to clarify the treatment for drawback purposes of Methyl 
Tertiary Butyl Ether (``MTBE'').
    When the Harmonized Tariff list of ``commercially interchangeable'' 
petroleum products, entitled to use the special accounting drawback 
rules, was originally adopted, MTBE was not being widely used and its 
absence was of little consequence. In recent years, MTBE has become an 
important petroleum derivative used for fuel oxygenation and is the 
equivalent of the other products on the list. This bill will add the 
appropriate HTSUS subheading for MTBE to the list.
    We thank you for the opportunity to express our views and would 
appreciate the subcommittee's support of this bill.
            Sincerely,
                                       Peter H. Powell, Sr.
                                                          President
      

                                

                            Northville Industries Corp.    
                              Melville, New York 11747-0398
                                                     April 24, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Northville Industries Corp. wishes to express our strong support 
for H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative 
Sam Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding 
Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products 
that are considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, 
therefore, able to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules 
under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                    Elizabeth Ann McConaghy
                       Vice President and Assistant General Counsel
      

                                

                                            Phibro Inc.    
                                    Westport, CT 06880-6262
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Phibro Inc. wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3421 
(Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of 
Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl Tertiary-
butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                      Michael N. Castellano
                                      Vice President and Controller
      

                                

                  Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation    
                              San Antonio, Texas 78269-6000
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee of Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Ultramar Diamond Shamrock wishes to express our strong support of 
H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam 
Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding Methyl 
Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products that are 
considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, therefore, able 
to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules under 19 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Than you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorable on the legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                           Cheryl K. Trevor
                                     Director, Corporate Income Tax

CKT:cab
      

                                

                          Valero Refining Company-Texas    
                           Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9370
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3421

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    Valero Refining Company-Texas wishes to express our strong support 
for H.R. 3421 (Item number 71 on TR-23), introduced by Representative 
Sam Johnson of Texas. This bill updates the drawback law by adding 
Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether (MTBE) to the list of petroleum products 
that are considered to be ``commercially interchangeable'' and, 
therefore, able to qualify for the special petroleum drawback rules 
under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p).
    When the harmonized tariff numbers for the list of ``commercially 
interchangeable'' petroleum products were originally identified, MTBE 
was not widely used, making its absence from the list of little 
consequence. However, in recent years, MTBE has become an important 
petroleum derivative used as a fuel oxygenate. It is now equivalent to 
the other petroleum products eligible for the special drawback 
accounting rules of Sec. 1313(p). This legislation simply adds the 
appropriate harmonized tariff subheading for MTBE to the petroleum 
drawback statute.
    Without this small, but important, technical change, duty drawback 
for MTBE exports will continue to be restricted, even though there is 
no reason for treating it any differently than the other petroleum 
products listed in Sec. 1313(p).
    Thank you for your consideration of our views and we hope this 
Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at the earliest 
opportunity.
            Sincerely,
                                             George E. Kain
      Sr. Vice President & General Manager, Corpus Christi Refinery

                                

                                H.R. 3422

    To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to drawback 
for finished petroleum derivatives.

         see also American Petroleum Institute under H.R. 3421

  see also Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association under H.R. 
                                  3421

      

                                

                                 American Agip Co. Inc.    
                                         New York, NY 10103
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, American Agip Company Inc. wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                       Francesco Antonietti
                                                          President
      

                                

        American Association of Exporters and Importers    
                                         New York, NY 10036
                                                     April 29, 1998

The Honorable Phillip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Miscellaneous Trade Bills--Item 72 and 73

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    The American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI) is a 
national organization comprised of approximately 1000 company members 
engaged in the import, export and distribution of goods between the 
United States and throughout the world. The multitude of products sold 
by AAEI member companies covers a broad range, including textiles and 
apparel, chemicals, machinery, electronics, footwear, food products, 
automobiles, wine, specialty items and petroleum products. Over one 
hundred of our members are active participants on our Duty Drawback 
Committee.
    In response to the request for comments in connection with 
miscellaneous trade bills (TR-23) we express our strong support of H.R. 
3422 and H.R. 3423, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson. These 
bills contain technical amendments to P.L. 103-182 (``Customs 
Modernization Act'') needed to clarify the drawback provisions of the 
law.
    While the industry believed that the issue of tracking petroleum 
products for drawback purposes was resolved by Section 632 of P.L. 103-
182, the Customs Service has continued the practice of requiring 
``tracking of molecules.'' These bills will make it clear that it was 
Congress' intent to require that petroleum products be tracked on a 
quantitative basis for purposes of drawback, as of the effective date 
of the Section 632 provision.
    We thank you for the opportunity to express our views and would 
appreciate the Subcommittee's support of these bills.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Ed Van Ek
                                Vice Chair, AAEI Drawback Committee
      

                                

                  ARCO Chemical Company, Tax Department    
                    Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073-2387
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C.20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for Comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, ARCO Chemical Company wishes to express 
our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would Not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                          Louis S. Battista
                               Vice President & General Tax Officer

                                

                                   Basis Clearing, Inc.    
                                         Westport, CT 06880
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Basis Clearing, Inc. wishes to express 
our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                              Wayne Kubicek
                                                           Director
      

                                

                                         BP Oil Company    
                                      Cleveland, Ohio 44114
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, BP Oil Company wishes to express our 
strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act). 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petro-

leum products as they travel through a complex series of pipelines and 
tanks, commingled with like product from other sources. This, of 
course, presents an impossible accounting task that in effect would 
prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled this issue once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. Otherwise, Customs benefits from its refusal 
to follow the intent of the 1993 statute, while U.S. exporters will be 
denied duty drawback claims for exports the law was intended to cover. 
To prevent this unjust result, we urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 
3422.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            Nancy M. Carter
                                             Vice President, Supply
      

                                

                                Cargill Energy Division    
                                  Minnetonka, MN 55343-9497
                                                        May 1, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    Cargill Energy, a division of Cargill, Incorporated, is pleased 
that your subcommittee is taking up H.R. 3422, legislation introduced 
by Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas to correct an interpretation problem that 
has arisen with respect to the accounting and attribution rules for 
duty drawback on petroleum products. Cargill Energy strongly supports 
enactment of this bill, which is referenced as number 72 in your March 
26, 1998, request for public comments on miscellaneous trade issues.
    Cargill Energy has international petroleum and petroleum product 
trading and distribution businesses. In the United States, Cargill is 
both an importer and exporter of petroleum products. Cargill Energy is 
a division of Cargill, Incorporated, which is an international 
marketer, processor and distributor of agricultural, food, financial 
and industrial products with some 79,000 employees in more than 1,000 
locations in 72 countries and with business activities in 100 more.
    H.R. 3422 would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clear up some 
apparent confusion that has arisen in the U.S. Customs Service in 
implementing the changes to duty drawback adopted in the 1993 Customs 
Modernization Act. Customs seems to be requiring that companies must 
once again trace the molecules of petroleum products in order to 
qualify exports for duty drawback treatment. The Customs Modernization 
Act, however, established a new quantitative accounting procedure for 
petroleum duty drawback claims, so that companies would no longer have 
to trace the actual molecules of the product as they travel through 
pipelines and are commingled with like product from other sources.
    H.R. 3422 would simply restate that a qualified article for 
drawback treatment includes product of the same kind or quality, or any 
combination thereof, as was originally imported. The qualified exported 
product cannot exceed the quantity originally imported. This technical 
correction to the 1993 Customs Modernization Act is entirely consistent 
with the original purpose of that act.
    It is also appropriate that the language in H.R. 3422 would be 
effective as of the date of enactment of the 1993 change. We do not 
believe that this would qualify as a retroactive change, as H.R. 3422 
merely restates what was intended to be the law all along. In the event 
that Congress rejects the application of this bill back to the 
enactment of the 1993 Customs Modernization Act, however, we would 
reluctantly support H.R. 3423, which is identical to H.R. 3422 except 
that H.R. 3423 would apply prospectively only.
    We respectfully urge the Subcommittee on Trade to report, and 
Congress to enact, H.R. 3422 as soon as possible.
            Sincerely yours,
                                            Gary W. Jarrett
     President, Cargill Energy, a division of Cargill, Incorporated
      

                                

                                   Chevron Products Company
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. wishes to express 
its strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Ken Zee
        Team Leader, Management Reporting and Regulatory Compliance
      

                                

                            CITGO Petroleum Corporation    
                                      Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
                                                        May 4, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane,

    CITGO Petroleum Corporation is a major refining, marketing and 
transportation company with 5,000 employees, 6 major manufacturing 
facilities, ownership of 54 marketing terminals and a product supplier 
to more than 14,000 branded gasoline stations.
    CITGO wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item 
number 72 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson relating 
to the accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act) settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 4322 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Mod Act that 
selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative basis 
for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at their earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
            Sincerely,
                                               Ezra C. Hunt
                     Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

cc. A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff

                                

                                             Conoco Inc    
                                  Ponca City, OK 74602-1267
                                                     April 29, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Conoco Inc. wishes to express our strong 
support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                          James A. McDonald
            Director, Excise Tax Division, UPNA--Leveraged Services
      

                                

                                   Dow Chemical Company    
                                     Lake Jackson, TX 77566

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, The Dow Chemical Company wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes on substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommitte to pass H. R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                           John D. Williams
                                            Import Services Manager
      

                                

                                             Ecofuel S.p.A.
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Ecofuel S.P.A. wishes to express our 
strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                             Andrea Valerio
                                                   Authorized Agent
      

                                

                                   Entec Polymers, Inc.    
                                         Maitland, FL 32751

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Entec Polymers, Inc. wishes to express 
our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act) settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules"-a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            James P. Ashton
                                                             C.F.O.
      

                                

                                 Equistar Chemicals, LP    
                                  Houston, Texas 77252-2583
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
additional miscellaneous trade and tariff legislation, Equistar 
Chemicals, LP would like to express our strong support for H.R. 3422 
(Item number 72 on TR-23) introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of 
Texas. This technical clarification relates to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    The Customs Modernization Act, passed in 1993, clearly provided a 
quantitative accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so that 
the tracking of the actual molecule of a product would not have to be 
followed through the various pipelines and tanks it may travel. This 
allows commingling of like product from various sources which is often 
in the best interest of our business. Without the use of the 
quantitative accounting procedure, companies such as ours would be 
forced to the ``tracking of molecules'' which is an almost impossible 
accounting procedure that would deny us from obtaining duty drawback on 
the export of many petroleum products.
    However, the interpretation by Customs on the implementation of 
this provision requires the tracking of molecules to satisfy drawback 
claims. Clearly this was not the intent of the Customs Modernization 
Act. The passage of H.R. 3422 clarifies the intent of the Act and 
allows selected petroleum products to be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    This technical clarification will take effect as if included in the 
1993 law. We support the Subcommittee's passage of H.R. 3422 at the 
earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                           LeRoy E. Pennock
                                       Manager, Accounting Services
      

                                

                                      Exxon Corporation    
                                     Washington, D.C. 20006
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Exxon Corporation wishes to express our 
strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act). 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. Otherwise, Customs benefits from its refusal 
to follow the intent of the 1993 statute, while U.S. exporters will be 
denied duty drawback claims for exports the law was intended to cover. 
To prevent this unjust result, we urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 
3422.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                J. J. Rouse
                                  Vice President, Washington Office
      

                                

                          Fina Oil and Chemical Company    
                                              Dallas, Texas
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Fina Oil and chemical Company wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Kevin Rupp
                                      Vice President and Controller
      

                                

                   George E. Warren Corporation--Energy    
                             Vero Beach, Florida 32960-5518
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, George E. Warren Corporation wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                         Jonathan W. Taylor
                                                          Treasurer
      

                                

    Georgia Gulf Corporation, PVC Division Headquarters    
                                  Plaquemine, LA 70765-0629
                                                     April 29, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Georgia Gulf wishes to express our 
support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            Janice L. Owens
                                              Customs Administrator

JLO:dcb
      

                                

                                 Global Petroleum Corp.    
                                     Waltham, MA 02254-9161

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Global Petroleum Corp. wishes to express 
our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Very truly yours,
                                           Alfred A. Slifka
                                                          President

AAS/mdc
      

                                

                     Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc.    
                                          Katy, Texas 77450
                                                        May 1, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc. 
wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on 
TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to 
the accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    The action that precipitated the passage and subsequent amendment 
to Sec. 1313(p) was Customs Service Decision 88-1. This decision 
required companies to track any product which was commingled with other 
products utilizing an approved account-

ing methodology (I.E. FIFO, LIFO, etc.) on a daily, tank by tank basis. 
The Congress passed Sec. 1313(p) in section 484A of the Trade Act of 
1990 (P.L. 101-382). This law allowed for quantitative accounting 
within a common storage facility, which eased the accounting burden on 
petroleum companies for a range of petroleum products. Subsequent to 
the passage of this law, Customs took the position that P.L. 101-382 
only allowed for the simplified accounting procedures once the product 
reached the common storage facility from where the export took place.
    As stated above, Congress amended Sec. 1313(p) in 1993 whereby the 
House Report states that: ``Section 632 allows accounting for crude 
petroleum and petroleum derivatives on a quantitative basis.'' 
Furthermore, within the same legislative intent language, the Congress 
issued its reason for change as follows: ``The Committee amendment to 
subsection (p) of 19 U.S.C. 1313 permits effective use of present law 
and substantially reduces paperwork for the industry and administrative 
costs for the Government.''
    However, Customs' apparent interpretation would once again require 
the ``tracking of molecules''--by requiring industry to apply the 
principles within C.S.D. 88-1 to Sec. 1313(p)(2)(A)(iv). This seems to 
contradict Congress' intent and goals set forth within the Customs 
Modernization Act. This is why H.R. 3422 is needed to clarify the 
original intent of the Customs Modernization Act that selected 
petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative basis for 
purposes of substitution drawback.
    If this legislation is passed, we believe that the overriding goal 
of drawback--promoting U.S. exports--will be met. Since the industry 
will have certainty that the law allows for drawback on petroleum 
products on a quantitative basis, the drawback will be included in 
calculating the economic viability of a possible export transaction.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Bobby Waid
                                                          President
      

                                

                          Houston Marine Services, Inc.    
                                       Houston, Texas 77007
                                                     April 27, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Houston Marine Services, Inc. wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting of attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act) settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with the like product from 
other sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracing of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            Geren L. Graham
                                                          President

GLG:kyp
      

                                

                              ITOCHU International Inc.    
                                             Houston Branch
                                                     April 22, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, ITOCHU International Inc. wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product though all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for you attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                         Daniel K. Maruyama
                                         Manager, Gasoline Blending
      

                                

                                    Matrix Marine Fuels    
                                  Houston, Texas 77213-6907
                                                     April 24, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Matrix Marine Fuels wishes to express 
our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Ron Disbro
                                           Executive Vice-President
      

                                

                                             MIECO Inc.    
                                  Long Beach, CA 90802-4828
                                                     April 22, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, MIECO Inc. wishes to express our strong 
support for H.R. 3422. (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by Sam 
Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and atribution rules for 
duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product with other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by customs on how to 
implement this provision. their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purpose of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Doug Jeter
                                        Senior Vice President / CFO
      

                                

     Mobil International Aviation and Marine Sales Inc.    
                               Fairfax, Virginia 22037-0001
                                                        May 1, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman-Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Comment in Support of Items 72 and 73 on TR-23

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Mobil International Aviation and Marine 
Sales wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 
72 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, 
relating to the accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on 
petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act). 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, it appears that 
additional clarification is necessary since Customs has taken a 
position that still requires molecule tracking rather than quantitative 
accounting for purposes of substitution drawback.
    This legislation would clarify what Congress directed be done back 
in 1993 and thus would take affect as if included in the 1993 law since 
otherwise U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback claims for 
exports the law was intended to cover. Therefore, we urge this 
Subcommittee pass H.R. 3422.
    Alternatively, we support enactment of H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on 
TR-23). H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to H.R. 3422. The only difference 
is that this bill would take effect upon the date or enactment, while 
the other legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in 
the original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would direct Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
This in no way diminishes our overall support for the provisions of 
H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative in the event the at H.R. 
3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your interest and attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                               Herb V. Rusk
                                           General Manager Aviation
      

                                

                                      Montell USA, Inc.    
                                  Wilmington, DE 19850-5439
                                                     April 29, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Montell USA, Inc. wishes to express our 
strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act) settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                         Bernard F. LeBlanc
                            Director, Transportation & Distribution

BFL:HR3422
      

                                

      National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of 
                                                America    
                                       Washington, DC 20036
                                                        May 2, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6354

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your request for comments in connection with 
miscellaneous trade bills (TR-23), we express our strong support of 
H.R. 3422 and 3423, introduced by Representative Sam Johnson. These 
bills contain technical amendments to P.L. 103-182 (``Customs 
Modernization Act'') needed to clarify the drawback provisions of the 
law.
    While the industry believed that the issue of tracking petroleum 
products for drawback purposes was resolved by section 632 of P.L. 103-
182, the Customs Service has continued the practice of requiring 
``tracking of molecules.'' These bills will make it clear that it was 
Congress' intent to require that petroleum products be tracked on a 
quantitative basis, for purposes of drawback, as of effective date of 
the section 632 provision.
    We would appreciate the subcommittee's support of these bills
            Sincerely,
                                       Peter H. Powell, Sr.
                                                          President
      

                                

                            Northville Industries Corp.    
                              Melville, New York 11747-0398
                                                     April 24, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 for comments on miscellaneous 
trade proposals, Northville Industries Corp. wishes to express our 
strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act) settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                    Elizabeth Ann McConaghy
                       Vice President and Assistant General Counsel
      

                                

                                            Phibro Inc.    
                                    Westport, CT 06880-6262
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Phibro Inc. wishes to express our strong 
support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                      Michael N. Castellano
                                      Vice President and Controller
      

                                

                                  Rohm and Haas Company    
                                Philadelphia, PA 19106-2399
                                                     April 24, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Rohm and Haas Company wishes to express 
our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                           John P. Mulroney
                              President and Chief Operating Officer
      

                                

                                      Shell Oil Company    
                                     Houston, TX 77252-2463
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998, request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Shell Oil Company wishes to express our 
strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. that law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            Stephen E. Ward
                                 Vice President, Government Affairs
      

                                

                  Statoil Marketing & Trading (US) Inc.    
                                         Stamford, CT 06905
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Statoil Marketing & Trading (US) Inc. 
wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on 
TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to 
the accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Jane Nagy
                              Vice President, Operations/Chartering
      

                                

                               Sterling Chemicals, Inc.    
                                  Houston, Texas 77002-4312
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposal, Sterling Chemicals, Inc. wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act) settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                   William J. Magnuson, Jr.
                                                        Tax Manager
      

                                

                  Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation    
                              San Antonio, Texas 78269-6000
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee of Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. The law provided a quantitative accounting 
procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have to track 
the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines and tanks 
that it may travel, commingled with like product from other sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                           Cheryl K. Trevor
                                     Director, Corporate Income Tax

CKT:cab
      

                                

                          Valero Refining Company-Texas    
                           Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9370
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Valero Refining Company-Texas wishes to 
express our strong support for H.R. 3422 (Item number 72 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization 
Act, passed in 1993 [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act] settled 
this issue once and for all. That law provided a quantitative 
accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so we would not have 
to track the actual molecules of the product through all the pipelines 
and tanks that it may travel, commingled with like product from other 
sources.
    However, there appears to be confusion by Customs on how to 
implement this provision. Their apparent interpretation would once 
again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a result clearly not 
intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is why H.R. 3422 is 
needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act 
that selected petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    The legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 
1993. As such, this technical clarification will take effect as if 
included in the 1993 law. We urge this Subcommittee to pass H.R. 3422 
at the earliest opportunity.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                             George E. Kain
      Sr. Vice President & General Manager, Corpus Christi Refinery
      

                                

                                       White & Case LLP    
                                Washington, D.C. 20005-3807
                                                        May 4, 1998

BY HAND

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3422 and H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    This letter is filed on behalf of our client, The Williams 
Companies, and responds to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals. The Williams Companies (``Williams'') 
wishes to express its support for H.R. 3422 and H.R. 3423 (Item numbers 
72 and 73 on TR-23), which were introduced by Representative Sam 
Johnson of Texas and relate to the accounting and attribution rules for 
duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in the 1993 amendment to 19 
U.S.C. Sec. 1313(p). That amendment provided special accounting rules 
to allow the petroleum industry to account for selected petroleum 
products on a quantitative basis for purposes of filing duty drawback 
claims. Without that provision, in order to file certain drawback 
claims for product that is exported, Williams and other companies would 
have to track the actual molecules of petroleum products as they travel 
through a complex series of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like 
product from other sources. This, of course, presents an impossible 
accounting task that in effect would prevent the companies from 
obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum products.
    The 1993 amendment was to have settled the matter once and for all. 
However, the implementation of this provision by the Customs Service 
prevents the provision from achieving the intended purpose. Customs' 
current interpretation once again requires the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. Legislation is needed to clarify the original intent of the 
Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    H.R. 3422 and H.R. 3423 are identical except with respect to the 
effective date. H.R. 3422 would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change, while H.R. 3423 
would be effective on the enactment date. Since H.R. 3422 legislation 
would require Customs to do what Congress intended in 1993, we believe 
the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. Otherwise, 
U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports that the 
law intended to cover.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                          Linda E. Carlisle
                                  Counsel to The Williams Companies
      

                                

 H.R. 3423

    To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to drawback 
for finished petroleum derivatives.

  see also American Association of Exporters and Importers under H.R. 
                                  3422

         see also American Petroleum Institute under H.R. 3421

  see also Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Association under H.R. 
                                  3421

see also Mobil International Aviation and Marine Sales Inc. under H.R. 
                                  3422

 see also National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America 
                            under H.R. 3422

              see also Williams Companies under H.R. 3422

      

                                

                                American Agip Co., Inc.    
                                         New York, NY 10103
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, American Agip Co., Inc. wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from us from obtaining duty drawback for 
exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                       Francesco Antonietti
                                                          President
      

                                

                                   Basis Clearing, Inc.    
                                         Westport, CT 06880
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Basis Clearing, Inc. wishes to express 
our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                              Wayne Kubicek
                                                           Director
      

                                

                                   Chevron Products Company
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. wishes to express 
its strong support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We thought the Customs Modernization Act provision settled the 
matter once and for all. However, Customs apparent interpretation of 
this Act would once again require the ``tracking of molecules''--a 
result clearly not intended by Congress. That is why H.R. 3423 is 
needed to clarify the intent of the Act that selected petroleum 
products should be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
substitution drawback.
    The only difference between H.R. 3423 and another bill, H.R. 3422 
is that this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while 
the other would take effect as if included in the original 1993 
Modernization Act. While we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is 
far more appropriate, and would reflect the original intent of Congress 
in enacting the 1993 legislation, prospective application would be 
superior to no clarification at all.
    Thank you for your attention on this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Ken Zee
        Team Leader, Management Reporting and Regulatory Compliance
      

                                

                            CITGO Petroleum Corporation    
                                      Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
                                                        May 4, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane,

    CITGO Petroleum Corporation is a major refining, marketing and 
transportation company with 5,000 employees, 6 major manufacturing 
facilities, ownership of 54 marketing terminals and a product supplier 
to more than 14,000 branded gasoline stations.
    CITGO wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3423 (Item 
number 73 on TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson relating 
to the accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act). 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like ours would have to track the actual molecules 
of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series of 
pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other sources. 
This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that in effect 
would prevent us from us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Act that petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another proposed bill, H.R. 3422, 
which is also the subject of this comment process. The only difference 
is that this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while 
the other proposed bill, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in 
the original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law covers. To prevent this unjust result, we think the best 
approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 version. 
However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                               Ezra C. Hunt
                     Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

cc. A.L. Singleton, Chief of Staff
      

                                

                                             Conoco Inc    
                                  Ponca City, OK 74602-1267
                                                     April 29, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Conoco Inc. wishes to express our 
support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                          James A. McDonald
            Director, Excise Tax Division, UPNA--Leveraged Services
      

                                

                               The Dow Chemical Company    
                                     Lake Jackson, TX 77566

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, The Dow Chemical Company wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from us from obtaining duty drawback for 
exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes on substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H. R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H. R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                           John D. Williams
                                            Import Services Manager
      

                                

                                             Ecofuel S.p.A.
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Ecofuel S.p.A. wishes to express our 
support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from us from obtaining duty drawback for 
exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                             Andrea Valerio
                                                   Authorized Agent
      

                                

                                   Entec Polymers, Inc.    
                                         Maitland, FL 32751

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Entec Polymers, Inc. wishes to express 
our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum product from other sources. This, of course, 
presents an impossible accounting task that would prevent us from us 
from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            James P. Ashton
                                                             C.F.O.
      

                                

                                 Equistar Chemicals, LP    
                                  Houston, Texas 77252-2583
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
additional miscellaneous trade and tariff legislation, Equistar 
Chemicals, LP would like to express our strong support for H.R. 3423 
(Item number 73 on TR-23) introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of 
Texas. This technical clarification relates to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    The Customs Modernization Act, passed in 1993, clearly provided a 
quantitative accounting procedure for petroleum drawback claims so that 
the tracking of the actual molecule of a product would not have to be 
followed through the various pipelines and tanks it may travel. This 
allows commingling of like product from various sources which is often 
in the best interest of our business. Without the use of the 
quantitative accounting procedure, companies such as ours would be 
forced to the ``tracking of molecules'' which is an almost impossible 
accounting procedure that would deny us from obtaining duty drawback on 
the export of many petroleum products.
    However, the interpretation by Customs on the implementation of 
this provision requires the tracking of molecules to satisfy drawback 
claims. Clearly this was not the intent of the Customs Modernization 
Act. The passage of H.R. 3423 clarifies the intent of the Act and 
allows selected petroleum products to be tracked on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is virtually identical to H.R. 3422 that is also a part 
of this comment process. The only difference is that H.R. 3422 will 
take effect as if included in the original 1993 Customs Modernization 
Act, whereas H.R. 3423 would take effect as of the date of enactment. 
Since the intent of this legislation is to clarify the intent of the 
1993 Act, we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more 
appropriate. Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawbacks on 
exports that the 1993 Act intended to cover. However, H.R. 3423 is a 
viable alternative to H.R. 3422 in the event that H.R. 3422 does not 
gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for you attention to this important issue.
            Sincerely,
                                           LeRoy E. Pennock
                                       Manager, Accounting Services
      

                                

                          Fina Oil and Chemical Company    
                                              Dallas, Texas
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Fina Oil and Chemical Company wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided spe-

cial accounting rules to allow the petroleum industry to account for 
selected petroleum products on a quantitative basis for purposes of 
filing duty drawback claims. Without that provision, in order to file 
certain drawback claims for product that is exported, companies like 
our own would have to track the actual molecules of petroleum products 
as they travel through a complex series of pipelines and tanks, 
commingled with like product from other sources. This, of course, 
presents an impossible accounting task that in effect would prevent us 
from obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Kevin Rupp
                                      Vice President and Controller
      

                                

                   George E. Warren Corporation--Energy    
                             Vero Beach, Florida 32960-5518
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, George E. Warren Corporation wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original in-

tent of the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products 
should be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                         Jonathan W. Taylor
                                                          Treasurer
      

                                

    Georgia Gulf Corporation, PVC Division Headquarters    
                                  Plaquemine, LA 70765-0629
                                                     April 29, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Georgia Gulf wishes to express our 
support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us form obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422 would take effect as if included in the original 
1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this legislation would 
force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, we believe the 
effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. Otherwise, U.S. 
exporters will

be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports that the law intended to cover. 
To prevent this unjust result, we think the best approach is for the 
Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 version. However, this in no way 
diminishes our overall support for the provisions of this bill, H.R. 
3423, which remains a viable alternative in the event H.R. 3422 does 
not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            Janice L. Owens
                                              Customs Administrator
JLO:dcb
      

                                

                                 Global Petroleum Corp.    
                                     Waltham, MA 02254-9161

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Global Petroleum Corp. wishes to express 
our strong support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks commingled with like product from the sources. 
This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that in effect 
would prevent us from us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank your for your attention to this issue.
            Very truly yours,
                                           Alfred A. Slifka
                                                          President

AAS/mdc
      

                                

                     Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc.    
                                          Katy, Texas 77450
                                                        May 1, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Gulf Coast Drawback Services, Inc. 
wishes to express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), 
introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the 
accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law was Congress' second attempt to legislatively overturn the 
effects of Customs Service Decision 88-1 (``CSD 88-1). This decision 
created an accounting nightmare for the petroleum industry by causing 
companies to track the actual molecules of petroleum products as they 
travel through a complex series of pipelines and tanks, commingled with 
like product from other sources. This, of course, presents an 
impossible accounting task that in effect would prevent us from us from 
obtaining duty drawback for exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, Customs' 
interpretation of 1313(p)(2)(A)(iv) would require petroleum companies 
to utilize the principles within CSD 88-1 for this part. This position 
seems to contradict Congressional intent with the passage of the 
Customs Modernization Act. This is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify 
the original intent of the Customs Modernization Act that selected 
petroleum products should be tracked on a quantitative basis for 
purposes of substitution drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Bobby Waid
                                                          President
      

                                

                              ITOCHU International Inc.    
                                             Houston Branch
                                                     April 22, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, ITOCHU International Inc. wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act). 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for products that 
is exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel though a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                         Daniel K. Maruyama
                                         Manager, Gasoline Blending
      

                                

                                    Matrix Marine Fuels    
                                  Houston, Texas 77213-6907
                                                     April 24, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Matrix Marine Fuels wishes to express 
our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from us from obtaining duty drawback for 
exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Ron Disbro
                                           Executive Vice-President
      

                                

                            Northville Industries Corp.    
                              Melville, New York 11747-0398
                                                     April 24, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Northville Industries Corp. wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                    Elizabeth Ann McConaghy
                       Vice President and Assistant General Counsel
      

                                

                                            Phibro Inc.    
                                    Westport, CT 06880-6262
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Phibro Inc. wishes to express our 
support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act tat selected petroleum products should be 
tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                      Michael N. Castellano
                                      Vice President and Controller
      

                                

                                  Rohm and Haas Company    
                                Philadelphia, PA 19106-2399
                                                     April 24, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Rohm and Haas Company wishes to express 
our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from us from obtaining duty drawback for 
exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                           John P. Mulroney
                              President and Chief Operating Officer
      

                                

                                      Shell Oil Company    
                                     Houston, TX 77252-2463
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998, request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Shell Oil Company wishes to express our 
strong support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 72 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
that law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears to be 
confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their apparent 
interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of molecules''--
a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is 
why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                            Stephen E. Ward
                                 Vice President, Government Affairs
      

                                

                  Statoil Marketing & Trading (US) Inc.    
                                         Stamford, CT 06905
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998, request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Statoil Marketing & Trading (US) Inc. 
wishes to express our strong support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on 
TR-23), introduced by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to 
the accounting and attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum 
products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
that law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from obtaining duty drawback for exports of 
many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears to be 
confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their apparent 
interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of molecules''--
a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization Act. That is 
why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of the Customs 
Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should be tracked on 
a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Jane Nagy
                              Vice President, Operations/Chartering
      

                                

                               Sterling Chemicals, Inc.    
                                  Houston, Texas 77002-4312
The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Sterling Chemicals, Inc. wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act (included in the NAFTA Implementation Act). 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from us obtaining duty drawback for exports 
of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sough to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                   William J. Magnuson, Jr.
                                                        Tax Manager
      

                                

                  Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation    
                              San Antonio, Texas 78269-6000
                                                     April 30, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee of Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from us obtaining duty drawback for exports 
of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423 which remains a viable alternative 
in the even H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                           Cheryl K. Trevor
                                     Director, Corporate Income Tax

CKT:cab
      

                                

                          Valero Refining Company-Texas    
                           Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9370
                                                     April 23, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
House Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments in Support of H.R. 3423

    Dear Chairman Crane:

    In response to your March 26, 1998 request for comments on 
miscellaneous trade proposals, Valero Refining Company-Texas wishes to 
express our support for H.R. 3423 (Item number 73 on TR-23), introduced 
by Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, relating to the accounting and 
attribution rules for duty drawback on petroleum products.
    Congress addressed this issue in detail in 1993, as part of the 
Customs Modernization Act [included in the NAFTA Implementation Act]. 
That law provided special accounting rules to allow the petroleum 
industry to account for selected petroleum products on a quantitative 
basis for purposes of filing duty drawback claims. Without that 
provision, in order to file certain drawback claims for product that is 
exported, companies like our own would have to track the actual 
molecules of petroleum products as they travel through a complex series 
of pipelines and tanks, commingled with like product from other 
sources. This, of course, presents an impossible accounting task that 
in effect would prevent us from us from obtaining duty drawback for 
exports of many petroleum products.
    We and others in the industry thought the Customs Modernization Act 
provision settled the matter once and for all. However, there appears 
to be confusion by Customs on how to implement this provision. Their 
apparent interpretation would once again require the ``tracking of 
molecules''--a result clearly not intended by the Customs Modernization 
Act. That is why H.R. 3423 is needed to clarify the original intent of 
the Customs Modernization Act that selected petroleum products should 
be tracked on a quantitative basis for purposes of substitution 
drawback.
    H.R. 3423 is nearly identical to another bill, H.R. 3422, which is 
also the subject of this comment process. The only difference is that 
this bill would take effect upon the date of enactment, while the other 
legislation, H.R. 3422, would take effect as if included in the 
original 1993 law that sought to make this change. Since this 
legislation would force Customs to do what Congress directed in 1993, 
we believe the effective date of H.R. 3422 is far more appropriate. 
Otherwise, U.S. exporters will be denied duty drawback on U.S. exports 
that the law intended to cover. To prevent this unjust result, we think 
the best approach is for the Subcommittee to approve the H.R. 3422 
version. However, this in no way diminishes our overall support for the 
provisions of this bill, H.R. 3423, which remains a viable alternative 
in the event H.R. 3422 does not gain the Subcommittee's approval.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue.
            Sincerely,
                                             George E. Kain
      Sr. Vice President & General Manager, Corpus Christi Refinery

                                

                                H.R. 3424

    To provide for reductions in duty for the chemical 
Rimsulfuron Technical.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3425

    To provide for reductions in duty for carbamic acid (U-
9069).

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3426

    To provide for reductions in duty for the chemical DPX-
E9260.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3427

    To suspend temporarily the duty on the chemical DPX E6758.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3428

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain drug substance 
used as an HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3429

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain drug substance 
used in the formulation of HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3430

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain polyethylene 
base materials.

                                

Public Comments of K2 Corporation

H.R. 3430: Duty Suspension for Base Materials Used in the Manufacture 
of Skis

    K2 Corporation (``K2''), a U.S. manufacturer of skis and 
snowboards, supports legislation to suspend U.S. customs duty 
on imports of a key raw material used in the production of its 
skis, polyethylene base materials. K2 believes the duty 
suspension legislation is necessary to maintain K2's 
competitiveness in the U.S. and global marketplace.

   I. Background: K2 Is the Principal Employer on Vashon Island and 
          Performs Significant Manufacturing Operations There.

    K2 manufactures skis and snowboards on Vashon Island, 
Washington. K2 employs over 700 people at its Vashon facility, 
which makes it the principal employer on the island. K2's 
employees perform all significant manufacturing processes 
required to produce its skis and snowboards. All K2 snowboards 
and virtually all K2 and Olin-brand skis sold throughout the 
world are individually crafted by skilled K2 technicians on 
Vashon Island. K2 sources most key components of its skis and 
snowboards from Seattle-area companies.
    With respect to its skis, K2 technicians perform the 
following operations. First, steel edges are bent to the shape 
of one of several K2 ski designs. The steel edges are then 
attached to the other main components of the ski. These 
components include: (1) the ski core, which consists of several 
thin pieces of wood glued together, (2) layers of fiberglass 
mixed with resins, (3) polyethylene base material, and (4) the 
ski cap that encloses the core and fiberglass and binds 
together the base material and steel edges to form the ski. The 
base material and ski caps are made of polyethylene and contain 
graphics which are designed and applied by K2 technicians. 
Thereafter, the entire assembly is fitted into a press and 
heated to accelerate the curing process.

  II. Reasons Why the Duty Suspension for Base Materials Used in the 
                     Manufacture of Skis Is Needed

A. There Is Currently No Supplier of Base Materials in the United 
States that Meets K2's Requirements.

    K2 currently imports all of its base materials used in the 
manufacture of skis. Sintered base material, known for its durability 
and gliding capability, is used the manufacture of skis. At the present 
time, and to the best of K2's knowledge, there is no U.S. supplier of 
sintered ski base material which meets K2's needs.

B. The Duty Suspension Would Increase K2's Competitiveness in the U.S. 
and Foreign Markets.

    K2 is the only major exporter of U.S.-made skis. K2's U.S. ski 
exports compete with foreign-made skis such as Rossignol, Elan, Salomon 
and Atomic. The international ski market is characterized by 
significant over capacity. It is estimated that the world capacity for 
the manufacture of skis is 11 million pairs, whereas only 4.5 million 
pairs were sold worldwide in 1995.
    As a result, price competition is severe.\1\ Additionally, European 
governments are known to provide direct or indirect financial 
incentives to their ski manufacturers. In contrast, K2 is required to 
pay significant amounts in U.S. customs duties on its importations of 
base materials for products that it cannot source domestically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ According to Ski Industries America (SIA), approximately 
850,000 pairs of skis were sold in the United States during the 1995-6 
season. Approximately 650,000 pairs of skis were imported during the 
same period.
    During the 1995-6 season, the major importers of skis to the U.S. 
were Rossignol (160,000 pairs, France), Elan (120,000 pairs, Austria), 
Salomon (100,000 pairs, France) and Atomic (80,000 pairs, Austria).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fierce level of competition in the ski industry has left K2 as 
the last remaining major U.S. ski manufacturer.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. ski manufacturers that have gone out of business in the 
last 10 years due to increased competition in the industry include: 
Century Tacoma, WA; Hexel Carson City, NV; The Ski Sun Valley, ID; Head 
Boulder, CO; Hart St. Paul, MN.

C. The Duty Suspension Would Secure Current Jobs and Encourage Growth 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
at K2's Vashon Facility.

    The duty suspension would generate approximately $65,000 dollars in 
duty savings annually. K2 would like to use the savings to secure 
current jobs at its Vashon facility and to continue to encourage 
development of innovative new products.

                  III. Conclusions and Recommendation

    In sum, K2 is currently unable to identify a United States 
supplier that would satisfy its requirements of base materials. 
Consequently, K2 supports legislation to amend the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States to suspend duty on 
imported base materials used in the manufacture of skis. Such 
duty suspension, which will account for significant customs 
duty savings per year, is vital to K2's continued economic 
competitiveness in an already tight market. Moreover, these 
savings will contribute significantly to K2's future growth and 
expansion in Vashon.
      

                                

                                H.R. 3431

    To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 
Benzenepropanal, 4-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-Methyl.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3432

    To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide that 5-year 
reviews of countervailing duty or antidumping duty orders would 
not be conducted in certain cases in which the merchandise 
subject to the orders was prohibited from being imported into 
the United States because of trade sanctions imposed against 
the country in which the merchandise originates.
      

                                

Statement of Karen Reinecke, President, California Pistachio Commission 
and Dr. Michael Woolf, President, Western Pistachio Association

    The California Pistachio Commission and the Western 
Pistachio Association represent almost 100 percent of the U.S. 
pistachio industry. On behalf of our grower members, we wish to 
provide the following comments on H.R. 3432, a bill introduced 
by Congressman Bill Thomas of California, which delays any 
five-year or sunset review of ``transition'' antidumping or 
countervailing duty orders or Suspension Agreements during the 
period of time a Presidential embargo is in effect against a 
country that is not a member of the World Trade Organization 
(WTO).
    We are providing comments on H.R. 3432 at this time because 
we note that Chairman Philip M. Crane has requested public 
comment on H.R. 2622, the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 1997. In light of the brief legislative 
schedule of the Congress this year, we respectfully request 
that the Subcommittee attach H.R. 3432 to this tariff 
legislation so that the scheduled January 1999 sunset review of 
the pistachio antidumping order against Iranian pistachios will 
be canceled and rescheduled only at such date as it is timely.
    H.R. 3432 is a very narrowly drafted bill. It will affect 
only those countries (1) where the United States has imposed a 
Presidential embargo under the International Emergency Economic 
Powers Act or other provisions of law, and (2) which are not 
members of the World Trade Organization.
    As a result of Section 751(c)(6) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
the U.S. Department of Commerce on October 9, 1997, published 
in the Federal Register a schedule for the five-year review of 
transition orders (those orders in effect at the time of 
implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act). A review 
of the orders listed indicates that the only transition order 
which would be affected by H.R. 3432 would be the antidumping 
order on pistachio nuts from Iran. That review is scheduled for 
January 1999.
    The antidumping duty on pistachios from Iran was imposed on 
July 17, 1986. Subsequent to that date (on October 29, 1987), 
President Ronald Reagan issued an embargo on all products from 
Iran. This embargo has remained in effect, unchanged, for over 
ten years.
    H.R. 3432 does not impact U.S. consumers and does not 
weaken the President's negotiating ability with the embargoed 
country--in fact it will strengthen the President's negotiating 
ability. The U.S. pistachio industry supports H.R. 3432 because 
our growers believe it offers a reasonable solution to an 
unreasonable situation.
    First, neither the law nor the federal regulations 
implementing the law deal with antidumping (AD) or 
countervailing duty (CVD) orders or Suspension Agreement 
reviews in situations involving a Presidential embargo. Thus, 
in the absence of H.R. 3432 a sunset review must take place on 
the pistachio AD order. The pistachio industry believes there 
is no purpose in utilizing the time of governmental officials 
and the private sector in a review that will result in no 
change in the trade patterns between the U.S. and the foreign 
country, in this case Iran.
    In other words, our industry does not understand the 
rationale for our government on the one hand to offer a foreign 
country the possibility of revocation of an order when our 
government on the other hand would still refuse to trade with 
the foreign country because it has imposed an embargo on trade. 
There are 323 other transition orders which must be reviewed in 
the next three years (July 1998-July 2001). It seems reasonable 
for the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) and the 
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) to focus on these orders 
which could make a difference in U.S. trade in the future.
    Second, in the absence of this legislation, the U.S. 
pistachio industry will have to spend considerable sums of 
money to present its case to USITC and DOC during the January 
1999 sunset review which could be followed by a full review 
later. The industry will have to respond to questions which are 
not applicable in embargo situations, such as the effect of 
revocation of the order on U.S. trade, and when requested 
information cannot be supplied try to explain why it is unable 
to provide the information in alternative forms.
    Third, while it is not anticipated (because of the embargo) 
that the government of Iran or representatives of the Iranian 
pistachio growers would respond in the pistachio AD five-year 
review, this could be the case. In such an event, how could the 
information provided by the Iranian interests be verified? In 
this regard, the industry notes that one of the reasons the DOC 
International Trade Administration in 1992 issued a Rescission 
of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review on 
roasted in-shell pistachios from Iran was because, 
``...verification is not likely to be possible, due to the 
nature of the present relationship between the United States 
and Iran.'' That statement was made on March 23, 1992, and the 
same relationship still exists.
    Last fall a number of our pistachio growers contacted a 
pistachio grower organization in Iran regarding a possible 
visit there with pistachio growers and industry officials. 
While an invitation was issued to our growers, the government 
of Iran unfortunately refused to grant the necessary visas to 
visit the country. It is interesting to note, however, that an 
international conference our growers held later in the year in 
Rome was attended by several representatives of the Iranian 
pistachio industry. Thus, information about our industry is 
readily available from our private sector and from our 
government (the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the 
California Department of Food and Agriculture), but it is 
impossible to obtain and verify data from the pistachio 
industry and the government of Iran.
    Lastly, as mentioned above, the embargo against Iran has 
been in effect for over ten years, and it is uncertain at this 
time when the embargo might be lifted. It would appear to be 
premature to consider at this time any economic information 
which could be gathered concerning the domestic in
    dustry or the foreign industry, since such information 
might be significantly different at the time the embargo is 
lifted.
    In conclusion, the pistachio industry believes that an 
exception should be made regarding five-year and sunset reviews 
where there is an embargo in effect and the country is not a 
member of the WTO. Only when the foreign country has agreed to 
abide by fair trading practices, should five-year and sunset 
reviews be scheduled in order to ascertain the current effects 
on U.S. trade. This can be accomplished only through passage of 
H.R. 3432.
    On behalf of our domestic pistachio growers, we thank you 
for this opportunity to provide comment, and respectfully 
request that your Subcommittee approve H.R. 3432 this year so 
that resources, both government and private, will not have to 
be expended in the January 1999 sunset review of the pistachio 
AD order against Iran.
      

                                

Statement on H.R. 3432 by the Honorable Bill Thomas

    I urge passage of H.R. 3432 as soon as possible to prevent 
an overly broad U.S. law from wasting taxpayer funds on 
unnecessary ``sunset reviews'' of an anti-dumping orders on 
Iranian pistachios.
    The bill narrowly amends current law so that the Department 
of Commerce and International Trade Commission can end plans to 
review cases involving exports from countries which have not 
signed the World Trade Organization agreement and from which 
exports to the U.S. are embargoed. Absent this provision, 
taxpayer funds will be spent reviewing an old dumping case 
involving Iranian pistachios under the World Trade Organization 
``sunset'' requirements.
    The ``sunset'' law as written will force Commerce and the 
International Trade Commission to investigate imports even 
though no trade between the U.S. and the second country is 
likely. The suspension of trade with Iran is a prime example of 
the situation H.R. 3432 will correct. As required by law, 
Commerce has already announced plans to review dumping duties 
imposed in the 1980s on Iranian pistachio nuts. There has been 
an embargo on U.S. trade with Iran for over ten years. As a 
result, there are no current data on Iranian imports or their 
potential effect on U.S. Commerce. The U.S. industry has not 
been able to obtain current data on the Iranian industry and it 
would be extremely difficult for the U.S. government or U.S. 
industry to verify any information that might be received 
concerning the state of the Iranian trade. Similar 
circumstances led the United States to eschew a similar review 
of a countervailing duty order on Iranian nuts in 1992. 
Notwithstanding the difficulty of investigating under such 
conditions, the law today compels Commerce and the 
International Trade Commission to review all antidumping 
orders.
    While U.S. law does not require sunset reviews of 
countervailing duty orders pertaining to countries that have 
not signed the subsidies agreement, the opposite is true in 
dumping cases. As written, the law forces review of dumping 
orders even where the nations involved have not themselves 
signed the World Trade Organization agreement. Iran and other 
nations that have ignored the WTO should not be allowed to 
benefit from the World Trade Organization agreement until they 
have agreed to be bound by it.
    As a result, current law will force Commerce and the 
International Trade Commission to waste resources reviewing a 
case involving a product that cannot be brought into this 
country regardless of the review's outcome. These same agencies 
already face massive burdens because the World Trade 
Organization ``sunset'' reviews on over 300 other products must 
be conducted during the next three years. It would be far more 
useful to concentrate resources where trade can be affected by 
the outcome of a review.
    Failing to enact H.R. 3452 this year will not only waste 
taxpayers' funds, it will waste the U.S. industry's funds as 
well. U.S. industry will have to prepare as though a complete 
review were possible by gathering data on its conditions, 
hiring representation and performing other tasks needed to 
prepare its defense. It seems absurd to require U.S. industry 
and the taxpayers to pay for a review on a product that cannot 
be imported as long as the embargo is in effect. This is an 
absurdity H.R. 3452 will permit us to avoid.

                                

                                H.R. 3446

    To provide for the elimination of duty on Ziram.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3452

    To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow the sale of 
certain gasoline, alternative motor fuels, and motor oil at 
duty-free sales enterprises.
      

                                

                       City of Detroit Executive Office    
                                    Detroit, Michigan 48226
                                                      April 3, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways and Means Committee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Congressman Crane:

    I am aware of legislation introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to 
allow the sale of duty-free gasoline. I have serious concerns about the 
adverse impact of such activity on the City of Detroit and the State of 
Michigan.
    The most obvious and immediate problem would be the lost revenues 
for our streets and highways if such artificial pricing encourages 
drivers to refuel at duty-free stations. Such a poor public policy 
would permit truckers and motorists who use our road system to avoid 
contributing to the maintenance and upgrading of our roads and 
highways. This would require cuts in other parts of an already severely 
constrained State budget to make up for these lost revenues. 
Furthermore, I believe this bill would put many service stations near 
border crossings out of business.
    Of course, the establishment of duty-free stations on the American 
side of the border would also probably lead to similar facilities on 
the Canadian side, further exacerbating the problem. These and other 
related issues of importance make the proposal to implement duty-free 
gas both ill-advised and insupportable.
    With warm personal regards.
            Sincerely,
                                           Dennis W. Archer
                                                              Mayor

cc: Congressman Bill Archer
Congressman Charles Rangel
Congressman Bob Matsui
Congressman Dave Camp

      

                                

                         Metro Detroit Service Stations    
                                   Dearborn, Michigan 48126
                                                     April 28, 1998

The Honorable Phillip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways and Means Committee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Comments on H.R. 3452

    Dear Congressman Crane:

    Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the above 
referenced matter, further to your announcement on March 26, 1998.
    As a preface to my comments, it is worth noting that my association 
was not consulted before H.R. 3452 was introduced. Since the impact of 
duty-free gasoline would be felt hardest by my members, I find this 
omission disturbing and therefore I very much appreciate this 
opportunity.
    My association represents over 700 retail gasoline stations in 
Michigan and we are vehemently opposed to H.R. 3452. The proposed 
amendment which would allow the sale of duty-free gasoline is baffling 
because it is injurious to at least the State of Michigan, local 
gasoline retailers in Southeastern Michigan and would provide a federal 
government subsidy to encourage people to travel to Canada to spend 
their money.

  Duty-Free Gasoline is Contrary to the Intent of the U.S. Duty-Free 
                                Program

    The duty-free program is intended for people leaving the country 
and not returning for at least 48 hours. The goods that are purchased 
are readily identifiable in one's car. Duty-free gasoline is not 
readily identifiable and there is no way of discerning how much fuel is 
``duty-free.'' In addition, gasoline is not like other duty-free 
products--it is the essential commodity for automobiles and trucks 
(i.e., the largest variable cost of operating a vehicle) and needs to 
be purchased frequently.
    Therefore, as one would expect, granting an entity the opportunity 
to sell gasoline at a 20 cent per gallon discount in the automotive 
capital region of the United States--Southeastern Michigan--would 
undoubtedly significantly influence local purchasing behavior. In 
addition this sale of duty-free gas would occur at the North America's 
busiest border crossing--Detroit/Windsor and North America's fourth 
busiest border crossing--Port Huron/Sarni. There is no way local 
gasoline retailers in the Metro Detroit/Port Huron region could compete 
that scenario. After purchasing duty-free gasoline Americans would be 
on their way to Canada and with a 45% benefit on the currency exchange, 
they will be shopping and spending money in Canada.

    Unfair Competition to the Detriment of Local Gasoline Retailers

    There is no question that duty-free gasoline sales will be an 
economic windfall to private shareholders at each border crossing 
facility participating in the duty-free gasoline program. However, what 
happens to the local gasoline retailers?
    Is it the policy of the U.S. federal government to confer special 
tax privileges and exemptions to some gas station operators and not 
others? Our association believes that everyone should compete in fair 
marketplace, not a marketplace that is skewed a benefit a few, at the 
expense of the many.

                     Proliferation and Retaliation

    There is no analysis as to what the impacts of bill H.R. 3452 are 
on the State and Federal Government treasuries if the Province of 
Ontario and the Canadian federal government retaliate to this 
initiative by allowing a duty-free gas facility on their side of the 
border. It would seem very likely that this should be well thought out 
because one can anticipate that if the American side of the Ambassador 
Bridge is selling duty-free gasoline then the Canadian side would want 
to sell duty-free gas as well. Therefore, everyone in Southeastern 
Michigan and Southwestern Ontario region would have the ability to 
purchase gasoline tax-free defeating any alleged ``benefits'' of 
attempting to have it in the first place.

           Users of Our Road System Will Not be Paying For It

    The cars and trucks filling up with gas at the our border crossing 
between Michigan and Ontario would not be contributing one penny to our 
road system and treasuries. Our association finds this proposition 
extremely unsettling and contrary to the policy of having users 
contribute to the road system. Our membership cannot understand why the 
federal government would pass a law to redirect millions of public 
dollars that are set aside for our road system to a few private 
shareholders at the expense of hard working Michiganders.
    Where will the lost money be made up from? The lost money will have 
to made up from either spending cuts or tax increases. Perhaps the 
member of Congress who introduced H.R. 3452 can explain how the lost 
money as a direct result of H.R. 3452, will be recouped.

The Sale of Duty-Free Gasoline Was Rejected by the Government of Canada 
 in March 1998 and The City of Windsor Refused to Support the Proposal 
                            in January 1997.

    In March of 1998, the government of Canada rejected an application 
by the owners of the Ambassador Bridge (Detroit International Bridge 
Company), known in Canada as the Canadian Transit Company to sell duty-
free gasoline in Canada. The Canadian Government recognized the 
inherent flaws in this proposal.
    It is also worth noting that the City of Windsor refused to support 
the sale of duty-free gasoline in their community even though the 
proponents (CTC) claimed that their city would ``gain'' 24 net new jobs 
and that those sales would be at the expense of the Americans.

      The Benefits of Duty-Free Gas Depends on the Target Audience

    It is interesting to note that the CTC alleged to Canadian 
officials that the ``benefits'' of this proposal would be at the 
expense of the Americans. Now it appears the ``benefits'' of the same 
proposal will now be the Americans, at the expense of the Canadians. 
One can only suspect that the ``benefits'' of this proposal are a 
function of the target audience.
    In conclusion, for the above reasons listed, my association is 
vehemently opposed to H.R. 3452.
            Sincerely,
                                                Allie Berry
                                                          President

cc: Senator Spencer Abraham
Congressman Bill Archer
Congressman Dave Camp
Congressman Bob Matsui
Paul Tait, Executive Director, Southeast Michigan Council of 
Governments
      

                                

Statement of the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America 
and the National Association of Convenience Stores Regarding H.R. 3452

    In response to an invitation for comments regarding a 
number of proposed amendments to the United States' Tariff 
Schedules, the National Association of Convenience Stores 
(``NACS'') and the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of 
America (``SIGMA'') respectfully urge the Committee on Ways and 
Means of the United States House of Representatives (``the 
Committee'') to reject H.R. 3452.

                    Identification of SIGMA and NACS

    SIGMA is a national trade association comprised of 
approximately 260 independent marketers and chain retailers of 
motor fuel. SIGMA's members operate in all 50 of the States 
through approximately 17,000 retail motor fuel outlets and 
their sales constitute between 15 and 20 percent of the 
domestic market for motor gasoline.
    NACS is comprised of approximately 2,350 retail members who 
operate approximately 65,000 convenience stores in the United 
States. NACS' members market approximately 45 percent of the 
motor fuel sold in the domestic market.

            NACS and SIGMA Oppose the Enactment of H.R. 3452

    The retail market for motor fuels is one of the most 
competitive markets in the United States' economy. The 
pervasive adoption of high-volume retail marketing has resulted 
in retail prices for motor fuel being at an all-time low in 
real terms. Consumers' price sensitivity to retail motor fuel 
prices requires members of SIGMA and NACS to remain competitive 
or lose significant market share to their competitors.
    The highly price-competitive nature of the retail motor 
fuels market has resulted in SIGMA being one of the most out-
spoken advocates of strict enforcement of the federal excise 
taxes on motor fuels. Simply stated, no independent marketer 
can compete with an entity which is not collecting and 
remitting the taxes imposed on motor fuels. The price advantage 
enjoyed by an entity not burdened by excise taxes is 
insurmountable. As a consequence, SIGMA and NACS oppose any 
proposal which would offer one set of competitors in the retail 
market an opportunity to avoid excise taxes and thereby obtain 
an inequitable and insurmountable competitive advantage.
    Consumers will go to substantial lengths to avail 
themselves of a super-competitive price, resulting from a 
difference in excise taxes on gasoline or other petroleum 
products. Retail outlets which are located in a ``tax 
advantaged'' jurisdiction regularly render their competitors 
who are ``just across the border'' economically nonviable. 
Creating an opportunity to offer motor fuel and other petroleum 
products to consumers on a tax-exempt basis, as is proposed in 
H.R.3452, would spawn retail outlets along the northern and 
southern borders at which consumers will regularly obtain fuel 
without paying the mandated taxes.
    NACS and SIGMA do not doubt the good intentions of H.R. 
3452's sponsor. However, as a practical matter there simply 
would be no way to avoid significant tax evasion and 
competitive injury if this bill were enacted. Virtually no 
amount of resources would be adequate to assure that only those 
consumers who actually are leaving the country and will consume 
the fuel in question outside of the borders of the United 
States are allowed to take advantage of the benefit proposed in 
the bill.
    As the sad experience of the last decade has demonstrated, 
evasion of motor fuel excise taxes is a highly lucrative 
venture which not only denies the federal and state governments 
the revenues to which they are entitled, but also devastates 
the economic viability of legitimate businesses. The Committee 
has overcome substantial opposition to its efforts to 
restructure the federal excise taxes on motor fuels to assure 
their collection and enforcement. SIGMA and NACS respectfully 
urge the Committee to avoid the enactment of H.R. 3452 which 
could only be counterproductive to those efforts.
    NACS and SIGMA appreciate this opportunity to express their 
views on this matter. If any member of the Committee or its 
staff have any questions regarding these comments, please 
contact R. Timothy Columbus at (202) 342-8555.
      

                                

      SEMCOG, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments    
                                    Detroit, Michigan 48226
                                                     April 24, 1998

The Honorable Philip M. Crane
Chairman
Subcommittee on Trade
House Ways and Means Committee
1104 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Congressman Crane:

    Thank you for the opportunity, announced on March 26, 1998, to 
comment on various technical amendments that have been proposed to 
facilitate the implementation of trade legislation. One of the bills 
listed in your subcommittee's advisory is H.R. 3452, which would allow 
the sale of duty-free gasoline. SEMCOG \1\ has serious concerns about 
the adverse impact of such activity on southeastern Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ SEMCOG, the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments, is a 
voluntary association of local governments covering seven counties and 
4.7 million people, and whose membership includes approximately 140 
local units of governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, this proposal is fiscally irresponsible. It will encourage 
drivers to refuel at duty-free shops, leading to fewer dollars going 
into the federal highway trust fund. At a time when our nation is 
poised to spend more money on our nation's highways, reductions in 
trust fund revenues seem inappropriate. In effect, H.R. 3452 would 
allow truckers and motorists who use our roads to avoid contributing to 
the maintenance of our transportation infrastructure. This would 
require cuts in other parts of already constrained federal and state 
budgets to make up for these lost revenues.
    We also are concerned that enactment of H.R. 3452 would lead to the 
closing of many services stations near border crossings. Because 
current law requires that all duty-free border stores deliver their 
merchandise ``at or beyond the [territorial] exit point [19 U.S.C. 
1555(b)],'' only service stations located right on the border would be 
able to benefit from this legislation. Clearly, service stations 
operating near, but not on the border, will be at a competitive 
disadvantage.
    Finally, enactment of H.R. 3452 will likely lead to similar 
facilities on the Canadian side of the border. Last year, the Canadian 
Transit Company tried to establish a duty-free gasoline station on the 
Canadian Plaza of the Ambassador Bridge (which connects Windsor, 
Ontario and Detroit, Michigan). In response to concerns ex-

pressed by our organization, the City of Detroit and others, the Mayor 
of Windsor indicated that he would block such an effort. I do not 
believe that we can expect such restraint from Canadian officials 
should H.R. 3452 become law.
    In closing, it is hard to understand how any Americans, other than 
a handful of service station owners located on borders, would benefit 
from H.R. 3452. Federal and state budgets would be further stretched to 
make up for declining highway trust fund revenues (or critical 
infrastructure needs would go unmet). Service station owners in border 
towns would be hard hit, perhaps doubly so if Canadian officials decide 
to sell duty-free gasoline on the Canadian side. For these and other 
reasons, I believe that H.R. 3452 is misguided and inappropriate.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 
issue.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Paul Tait
                                                 Executive Director

cc: Congressman Bill Archer
Congressman Charles Rangel
Congressman Bob Matsui
Congressman Dave Camp

                                

                                H.R. 3465

    To provide an exemption from certain import prohibitions.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3477

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain drug substance 
used in the formulation of HIV Antiviral Drug.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3480

    To reduce temporarily the duty on ethylene/
tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE).

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3483

    To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain 
entries.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3486

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used 
in the textile industry and in water treatment.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3487

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used 
in the paper industry.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3488

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used 
in water treatment.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3489

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used 
in water treatment and beauty care products.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3490

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used 
in photography products.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3491

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used 
in peroxide stabilizer and compounding.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3492

    To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used 
in the textile industry.

                         No comments submitted.

                                

                                H.R. 3501

    To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to change the special rate of duty on purified 
terephthalic acid imported from Mexico.
      

                                

Statement of AlliedSignal Inc. on H.R. 3501, A Bill to Amend the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to Change the Special 
Rate of Duty on Purified Terephthalic Acid Imported from Mexico

    AlliedSignal appreciates the opportunity to comment on H.R. 
3501, legislation introduced on March 18, 1998 by 
Representative Bill Thomas of California. H.R. 3501 proposes to 
amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to 
repeal the special duty rate on purified terephthalic acid 
(PTA) and its salts imported from Mexico. We respectfully urge 
approval of this measure. Its passage would have a positive 
impact on the global competitiveness of the U.S. PTA-consuming 
polyester industry specifically, and on the U.S. economy 
generally.
    AlliedSignal manufactures advanced technology products for 
the aerospace, automotive and other markets. Some of our main 
aerospace products are jet propulsion engines, commercial 
avionics such as the enhanced ground proximity warning 
collision-avoidance system, and small-scale power systems. Our 
automotive product names include Fram filters, 
Autolite sparkplugs, Prestone car care 
products, and Garrett turbochargers for passenger 
cars, light trucks and earth-moving equipment. We also are a 
leading producer of nylon and industrial fibers, specialty 
chemicals, and advanced materials for the electronics and 
electric power distribution sectors.
    AlliedSignal has some 70,500 employees worldwide, 
approximately 50,000 of whom are in the United States. The 
company's principal U.S. manufacturing operations are located 
in Arizona, California, Missouri, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, New 
Jersey, Kansas and South Carolina.
    PTA is classified under subheading 2917.36.00 of the 1998 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. It is dutiable 
at a rate of 8.9% ad valorem plus 1.8 cents per kilogram of 
weight. This raw material is used by AlliedSignal Polymers 
plants in North Carolina and Virginia in the production of 
industrial polyester fiber for tire cord and other industrial 
applications such as seat belts, air bags, ropes and cordage. 
Other U.S. polyester producers use PTA as a basic raw material 
input in their production of ``PET'' (polyethylene 
terephthalate) resins, which are used in products like bottles 
for mineral water and carbonated soft drinks, and containers 
for microwave dinners, among others.
    The existing high U.S. tariff on PTA, and the fact that the 
sole U.S. merchant supplier of this material is intensively 
exploiting the tariff protection, put U.S. customers in the 
position (as is the case in today's market dynamics) of paying 
significantly higher prices for PTA than our global competitors 
pay. This places us at a serious competitive disadvantage 
compared to foreign polyester producers exporting into the 
United States.
    The sole U.S. merchant supplier of PTA, in large part by 
establishing substantively identical contractual relationships 
for 100% supply of PTA with each of its captive U.S. customers, 
appears on the surface to be acting responsibly. However, those 
same contracts have essentially provided that supplier with a 
guarantee of profitability irrespective of the derivative 
marketplace. Regrettably, AlliedSignal and the other PTA 
customers, highly vulnerable to the pricing behavior of a sole-
source domestic supplier protected from import competition, 
enjoy no such guarantee. This situation clearly undermines such 
customers' U.S. and global competitiveness.
    PTA-consuming polyester producers who are not integrated 
back to PTA production (i.e. those who must rely on merchant 
purchases) have to respond to global market dynamics of supply 
and demand. If we try to pass the high cost of PTA input on to 
our customers, they'll simply buy polyester from Asia, where 
polyester producers have access to PTA valued at lower cost, or 
somewhere else. Not being able to purchase PTA based on those 
same dynamics, due to the trade-distorting effect of the PTA 
tariff, puts the non-integrated U.S. PET manufacturer at a 
significant competitive disadvantage.
    U.S. PET producers are bearing the full burden of our U.S. 
supplier's tariff-protected high prices and profits, while our 
foreign PET competitors are not shackled by such disadvantage. 
In fact, cutting finished product (PET) prices to try to defend 
U.S. market share while the price of our key raw material (PTA) 
is kept artificially high by a tariff, jeopardizes our ability 
to even cover production costs. This is simply unsustainable. 
Should this situation persist for any length of time, and 
restricting access to imported PTA supply options lends 
directly to this situation persisting, the U.S. PET industry 
and the U.S. economy likely would be adversely impacted.
    Additionally, should the sole U.S. PTA supplier experience 
any event which restricts its ability to meet customer demand 
for PTA, again such customers are placed at a serious 
disadvantage. During 1997 such an event did in fact occur and 
our business was adversely impacted. Having viable alternative 
supply options could have possibly prevented or at least 
mitigated this counter-productive event. Such options are only 
``viable'' if they are priced competitively, a scenario 
precluded by the high U.S. tariff maintained on PTA.
    Further undermining our competitive position as a polyester 
producer and underscoring the need for PTA tariff elimination 
is the harmful current tariff inversion or ``anomaly'' in which 
the U.S. tariff on the raw material PTA is far higher than the 
U.S. tariff on the finished polyester products made from PTA. 
So while foreign polyester producers already benefit from 
paying much lower prices on the key raw material, they also 
reap a competitive advantage from this tariff anomaly.
    In the spirit of NAFTA and in keeping with the U.S.'s 
strong leadership role in seeking removal worldwide of trade-
distorting tariff anomalies, immediate duty elimination will 
remove the damaging pricing disparity for U.S. PET and allow 
American polyester producers and workers to compete.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this 
important matter.
      

                                

Statement by Amoco Corporation in opposition to S. 1702 and H.R. 3501 
Legislation to Eliminate the Duty in Imports from Mexico of Purified 
Terephthalic Acid

                         Statement of Position

    The Amoco Corporation strongly opposes any legislation that 
would eliminate, suspend or reduce the duties on imports of 
purified terephthalic acid (PTA) from Mexico. Passage of the 
legislation would be extremely detrimental to Amoco's 
production facilities in Alabama and South Carolina, and to the 
communities surrounding those facilities. It would also be 
detrimental to the facilities of Eastman Chemical, which is 
also opposed, in Arkansas and Tennessee, as well as those of 
producers of PTA feedstock in Alabama and Texas.
    Legislation that would immediately eliminate the import 
duty on PTA from Mexico has been introduced in both the House 
and the Senate. The Senate bill is S. 1702, introduced by 
Senator John Rockefeller (D-West Virginia). Representative Bill 
Thomas (R-California) introduced the House counterpart, H.R. 
3501. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, which 
Amoco supported, PTA is currently imported from Mexico under 
Harmonized Tariff System heading 2917.3600 at a specific rate 
of 8.9 % ad valorem and 1.8 cents/kilogram. The NAFTA agreement 
provided for the elimination of the U.S. duty on PTA over a 
ten-year period; as a result, the duty will be gradually phased 
out to zero in 2003. Although the pending legislation would 
eliminate the duty only on imports from Mexico, this is 
tantamount to eliminating the duty on all imports. In 1997, 
Mexico accounted for more than 96% of all imports of PTA.
    This legislation was introduced while the Administration 
was considering a petition by the Shell Oil Company, a 
supporter of S. 1702 and H.R. 3501, to accelerate the 
elimination of tariffs on PTA imported from Mexico. Amoco, 
along with the Eastman Chemical Company and a strong 
Congressional delegation, opposed Shell's petition, which was 
filed with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative under 
the NAFTA provisions authorizing negotiation of the elimination 
of tariffs earlier than originally negotiated under the 
Agreement. (Attached are letters and statements of opposition 
to the elimination of the PTA tariff from Amoco, Eastman, and 
members of Congress.) The results of that negotiation were 
announced on April 29. The U.S. government did not agree to the 
requests of Shell and the Mexican government to accelerate the 
elimination of tariffs on PTA.

                               Background

    Amoco is the world's largest producer of PTA. The company 
has been producing PTA in the United States since the 1980s in 
two production facilities in Wando, South Carolina and three 
facilities in Decatur, Alabama. Amoco and Eastman Chemical 
together account for more than 90 percent of United States 
production of PTA that is not considered captive production 
(i.e., is not used internally by the producing company for the 
manufacture of other products). PTA is a primary feedstock for 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is a polyester resin 
used in the production of polyester fiber, polyester film, 
polyester-based container resins, decorative coatings and many 
other products.
    Amoco recently made a $370 million investment in PTA 
production in Wando, South Carolina with the goal of serving 
the future U.S. demand that is forecast for the product. That 
plant began operation in May of 1997 with 500,000 metric tons 
of capacity. It is among the world's largest and most advanced 
plants. This investment was made with the full confidence that 
the specific tariff on imports of PTA from Mexico would not be 
eliminated before the scheduled 2003 date. Production from the 
plant is not now required to meet U.S. industry demands, and 
full utilization of the facility is not expected to occur for 
at least three years.

                  PTA--Pricing and Production Capacity

    In introducing the legislation in the Senate, Senator 
Rockefeller argued that it was necessary for two primary 
reasons: there is an inadequate supply of PTA available in the 
United States, and the price for U.S. produced PTA is not 
dictated by market demands, but is the ``highest in the 
world.'' As a result, he argues, the U.S. polyester industry, 
including Shell Chemical's polyester resin production facility 
in West Virginia, is at a competitive disadvantage. Amoco 
strongly disagrees with these three contentions.
    First, there is not a shortage of PTA in the United States. 
On the contrary, there is an excess of PTA production capacity 
in the United States and Canada of 834,000 metric tons or 23 
percent of U.S. and Canadian demand. Amoco estimates that 
Mexico has excess production capacity of 400,000 tons. In large 
part this is the result of a Petrotemex facility with a 
production capacity of 350,000 metric tons that was brought on 
line September 1997.
    Second, in setting their prices, Amoco and Mexican 
producers are both driven mainly by changes in the prices of 
raw material, primarily Paraxylene. Due to the Asian financial 
crisis, prices for PTA and related products have been extremely 
volatile, and the duty on Mexican PTA imports has played an 
important part in keeping Amoco competitive. Over the past five 
years, U.S. prices for PTA have averaged $35 per metric ton 
below prices for Asian producers. Today U.S. prices are higher 
than those in Asia primarily because the price for Paraxylene 
is higher in the United States. The regional price difference 
alone represents $60 per ton of the PTA price difference.
    Finally, indications are that the PET product industry is 
thriving, and the demand for PTA is expected to grow; most 
producers are very competitive. In the current pricing 
environment, U.S. and Canadian PET container resin capacity has 
grown 67% since 1995, or an average of 18.6 % per year. U.S. 
and Canadian PET container resin demand has grown 52% since 
1995, or an average of 15% per year. Eastman Chemical, Wellman, 
Nan Ya and Hoechst Celanese have successfully started new PET 
resin production capacity and have sold PET resin to consumers 
in the United States and abroad. The fastest growth has been 
experienced by Wellman and Nan Ya, both of whom purchase PTA 
from Amoco at identical price terms to Shell. This indicates 
that the competitiveness of PET resin producers reflects many 
other factors than the price of PTA.

                   Arguments Against the Legislation

    Given the above factors, Amoco opposes the S. 1702 and H.R. 
3501 for the following reasons:
     Elimination of the tariff amounts to changing 
rules negotiated with our NAFTA partners in the middle of the 
game. S. 1702 and H.R. 3501 would amount to a statutory 
acceleration of the elimination of a NAFTA tariff. Under the 
NAFTA, which was negotiated with Congressional oversight, 
tariff acceleration was designed to be the result of 
negotiation and to be used only where there was no domestic 
industry objection. Amoco and Eastman Chemical both opposed the 
petition to accelerate the elimination of the tariff on PTA.
     This legislation would set a dangerous precedent 
denying the business community that predictable tariff 
environment that is necessary to make sound business decisions. 
Amoco, like all other corporations, made its new investment 
under the assumption of a predictable tariff environment. Amoco 
appreciates that Congress is supportive of the overall duty 
suspension process, but feels it should only be used where 
there is no U.S. companies will be injured.
     The legislation would not create a level playing 
field, as argued by supporters. For a level playing field to be 
created there are a number of factors in addition to tariffs 
that play a part. The Mexican market for U.S. exports of PTA is 
virtually closed, due to the long-range (5 to 10 years) 
contracts that the one Mexican PTA producer currently has with 
most PTA consumers in that country. There is excess production 
capacity in Mexico and elimination of the tariff would provide 
the Mexican producer with an opportunity to more easily unload 
in the United States the PTA for which there is no Mexican 
demand.
     The legislation is not necessary to enhance the 
competitiveness of the PET resin industry. There is not an 
inadequate supply of PTA in the U.S. market, and current and 
anticipated growth of companies in the PET resin industry 
indicates they clearly are competitive.
     Amoco's U.S. production facilities would be 
severely jeopardized at PTA plants in Decatur, Alabama and 
Wando, South Carolina. Elimination of the tariff would result 
in an immediate substantial increase of lower priced imports of 
Mexican PTA. As is the case with all tariffs, the tariff on 
Mexican PTA plays an important part in the continued 
competitiveness of Amoco's PTA in U.S. markets. The same 
factors will impact Eastman Chemical's facilities in Arkansas 
and Tennessee.
     In addition, the domestic market for Amoco's 
suppliers of Paraxylene in Decatur and Texas City, Texas, would 
shrink, and their production would also be jeopardized.
     The effects of the anticipated decrease in demand 
at these facilities would be widespread: 
    --The jobs of at least 150 to 200 employees would be at 
stake
    --The loss of production capacity, sales and employment 
would reduce federal and state tax revenues
    --Upstream and downstream U.S. companies, such as chemical 
suppliers to local power utilities and railroads, would be 
injured
    --Communities surrounding these facilities would have a 
strong, negative indirect impact
     S. 1702 and H.R. 3501 do not meet four basic 
ground rules for miscellaneous tariff bills. The House Ways and 
Means and Senate Finance Committees and the Administration 
judge bills for inclusion in comprehensive packages with the 
following conditions:
    --The revenue impact is not de minimus. If imports stay at 
the same level they were in 1997 (approximately $7.3 million, 
12.6 million kg), the estimated annual revenue loss from duties 
would be more than $900,000. Even with the adjustment for the 
loss of a tax deduction, the revenue loss would be far greater 
than $500,000.
    --The legislation is controversial. Amoco is strongly 
opposed.
    --The legislation would permanently eliminate the duty. The 
Administration is opposed to legislation that permanently 
eliminates any duty, preferring the suspension of duties so 
that the still existing Most Favored Nation tariff can be used 
as leverage in tariff negotiations.
    --The legislation does not eliminate the duty on an MFN 
basis. The Administration has traditionally opposed any 
miscellaneous tariff legislation that would benefit only one 
trading partner.

                           Concluding Remarks

    In conclusion, Amoco restates its opposition to the 
enactment of S. 1702, H.R. 3501 and any other legislation that 
would result in the elimination, suspension or reduction of 
duties on imports of PTA from Mexico. The legislation 
effectively amends NAFTA and denies Amoco and other PTA 
producers the predictable tariff environment necessary for 
sound business decisions. The repercussions for Amoco,and 
Eastman,, as well as their employees, suppliers and surrounding 
communities would be severe. In addition, the legislation does 
not meet the criteria for inclusion in miscellaneous tariff 
packages.
    Amoco appreciates the opportunity to share its views and 
requests that the Administration, the Senate Finance Committee 
and the House Ways and Means Committee oppose any legislative 
proposals to this effect and take action in support of that 
position.

If you have any further questions and/or comments, please 
contact Bradford T. Mortimer, Business Manager, Amoco Chemicals 
at 630-434-6199 or Leonard B. Williams, Senior Government 
Relations Representative at 202-857-5308.
      

                                

[BY PERMISSION OF THE CHAIRMAN]

Statement by Petrotemex, S.A. de C.V. on H.R. 2622, Miscellaneous Trade 
and Technical Corrections Act of 1997

    Petrotemex is writing in support of H.R. 3501, which would 
amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to 
change the special rate of duty on purified terephthalic acid 
(PTA) imported from Mexico. Specifically it would amend 
subheading 2917.36.00 of the HTS by striking ``1.8c/kg + 8.9 
percent (MX)'' in the special rates of duty subcolumn and 
inserting ``MX'' in the parenthetical after ``J.'' H.R. 3501 is 
included in H.R. 2622.
    Petrotemex S.A. de C.V. is a Mexican firm located in 
Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. It is the only Mexican producer 
of the petrochemical terephthalic acid. The most common form of 
terephathalic acid sold in the U.S. market is PTA. Although the 
acronym PTA technically refers only to the purified form of 
terephthalic acid, it is used throughout these comments as a 
general acronym of terephthalic acid.
    PTA is used mostly in the manufacture of polyester, fibers, 
or polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The U.S. tariff on PTA is 
unusually high. The most-favored-nation (MFN) rate of duty is 
2.2 cents per kilogram plus 13.3 percent ad valorem, while the 
NAFTA duty for Mexico is currently 1.8 cents per kilogram plus 
8.9 percent ad valorem. The United States is currently 
scheduled to eliminate its NAFTA tariff on HTS 2917.36.00 in 
2003. The tariff rate is free for imports from Canada, and for 
imports qualifying for preferential treatment under the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the U.S.-Israel Free 
Trade Agreement, the Andean Trade Preferences Act, or the U.S. 
Generalized System of Preferences for least-developed 
beneficiary countries.
    Under the current U.S. tariff structure, Petrotemex is 
effectively shut out of the U.S. market. This limits its 
production, exports, and employment, and also creates hardships 
for a wide range of U.S. economic interests, including PTA 
consumers (who are restricted in their choice of suppliers) and 
the U.S. companies that supply Petrotemex with raw materials 
for its PTA production.
    There are four U.S. producers of PTA, only one of which--
Amoco--supplies the merchant market. Three companies (Eastman, 
Hoechst, and DuPont) consume their entire production of PTA 
internally. It is believed that Hoechst and DuPont supplement 
their internal production with purchases from Amoco, and that 
Eastman may do so as well. Amoco is the world's largest 
producer of PTA and is the sole American producer selling in 
the merchant market.
    U.S. consumers of PTA are companies that produce polyester 
staple fiber, polyester filament, or PET. These include Shell, 
Wellman Fibers, Hoechst, Eastman, ICI Americas/DuPont, Allied 
Signal, Nan-Ya, Toloram, Sunkyong Chemical, Toray, Reemay, 
Unifi, UCB, and Cookson.
    Because of the high tariff on PTA, which effectively blocks 
imports from penetrating the U.S. market, U.S. consumers of PTA 
are forced to purchase the vast majority of their PTA from 
Amoco, which can exercise monopoly-like control of the U.S. 
market and dictate the terms of its supply contracts with U.S. 
consumers. This significantly hinders the competitiveness of 
U.S. producers of polyester, fibers, and PET, and limits their 
effectiveness in the U.S. and global markets. Yet the high 
tariff is unnecessary protection for Amoco, whose position in 
the U.S. market would not be affected by Petrotemex's limited 
exports to the United States.
    Petrotemex expects its exports to the United States to 
increase as the NAFTA tariff is staged down under the current 
NAFTA schedule. However, its exports would be considerably 
higher if the NAFTA tariff were eliminated immediately. This 
higher volume would in no way threaten Amoco's dominance of the 
U.S. market because these levels are far too low to have any 
impact on Amoco's operations. Nevertheless, the immediate 
elimination of the NAFTA tariff would allow Petrotemex to 
create some measure of competition in the U.S. market, 
providing U.S. consumers of PTA with an alternative to Amoco.
    In its testimony to the International Trade Commission in 
December 1997, Amoco stated that Petrotemex's ability to export 
to non-U.S. markets would be significantly constrained in the 
immediate future and implied that, with the elimination of the 
U.S. NAFTA tariff, Petrotemex would seek to redirect its 
exports to the U.S. market. This ignores Petrotemex's long 
history of exporting to non-U.S. markets and its strong 
customer relationships in foreign markets, and also distorts 
Petrotemex's future plans.
    Petrotemex has been exporting PTA since 1979 and has 
developed a strong customer base worldwide. Its exports are 
sent primarily to Europe, the Far East, and other Latin 
American countries--not to the United States. If the U.S. NAFTA 
duty on PTA is eliminated, we anticipate that the percentage of 
Petrotemex's sales in the United States would increase, but 
only modestly.
    The immediate elimination of the United States's NAFTA 
tariff on PTA would allow U.S. consumers of PTA to benefit from 
alternate suppliers, a situation that would enhance their 
competitiveness in U.S. and foreign markets. In all 
probability, this would enable them to create more U.S. jobs 
and generate additional U.S. exports.
    The immediate elimination of the U.S. NAFTA tariff would 
also allow Petrotemex to increase its production and exports to 
the United States by a modest amount without in any way 
threatening U.S. producers of PTA. In addition to creating new, 
high-wage jobs in Mexico--some in Petrotemex and others in 
Mexican suppliers and service companies--this would also 
benefit the many U.S. companies supplying Petrotemex with 
materials for its production of PTA. Elimination of Mexico's 
NAFTA tariff on PTA would also enhance U.S. producers' ability 
to compete in the growing Mexican market.
    In summary, the elimination of the U.S. and Mexican NAFTA 
tariffs on PTA would further the process of North American 
economic integration that is a major objective of NAFTA. At the 
same time, the immediate elimination of Mexico's NAFTA tariff 
would create opportunities for U.S. producers of PTA and would 
likely increase U.S. exports to Mexico.
    For these reasons, Petrotemex strongly urges passage of 
H.R. 2622 with H.R. 3501 included in it.
    Submitted on behalf of Petrotemex S.A. de C.V. by Thomas J. 
Scanlon, President, Benchmarks, Inc.
      

                                

Statement of Shell Oil Company on H.R. 3501, a Bill to Amend the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to Change the Special 
Rate of Duty on Purified Terephthalic Acid Imported from Mexico

    In response to the House Ways and Means Trade 
Subcommittee's request dated April 26, 1998, for written 
comments on miscellaneous trade and tariff legislation, Shell 
Oil Company (``Shell'') appreciates the opportunity to comment 
on H.R. 3501 (Item number 96 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Bill Thomas of California. H.R. 3501 would amend 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTS ``) 
to reduce to zero the special rate of duty on PTA imported from 
Mexico. Shell respectfully urges approval of this measure 
because its passage would have a positive impact on the U.S. 
polyester industry, encouraging growth in each trading 
partners' polyester industry and promoting freer trade between 
the U.S. and Mexico.
    Shell is a purchaser/consumer of PTA and uses PTA in the 
manufacture of polyethylene terephthalate (``PET'') resin. 
Shell has a single production facility in Point Pleasant, West 
Virginia, with annual PTA needs of nearly 600 MM/lbs. Shell 
employs approximately 550 personnel at the facility. Shell 
would benefit significantly from the elimination of the tariff 
on PTA.

               I. Background and the Need for Legislation

    The special duty rate, or the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (``NAFTA'') tariff, allows the sole U.S. merchant 
market PTA producer to maintain a price for PTA in the U.S. 
that is significantly higher than world market prices.\1\ The 
duty rate is currently 8.9 percent ad valorem, plus $.018 per 
kilogram, and will be phased out by the year 2003. PTA is the 
preferred raw material for polyester production, comprising 
nearly two-thirds the cost of polyester. As a result of the 
duty, the U.S. polyester industry is placed at a severe 
economic disadvantage in the U.S. and foreign markets compared 
to foreign polyester producers manufacturing polyester using 
significantly lower cost PTA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (``GATT'') also 
imposes a tariff on PTA imports into the U.S. The GATT tariff which is 
higher than the NAFTA tariff on PTA, will not be affected by H.R. 3501, 
and will never reach zero, unlike the NAFTA tariff. Therefore, the 
probability remains that the GATT tariff will always cause the price 
paid for U.S. PTA to be inflated by a marginal amount relative to world 
market prices, even upon elimination of the NAFTA tariff.
    \2\ The price disparity between U.S. and foreign PTA, specifically 
Asian PTA, is as much as $200 per metric ton, or approximately 30% 
higher in the U.S. than in foreign markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PTA is used in the manufacture of polyester products, such 
as polyester fibers (e.g. apparel and industrial uses), PET 
resins (e.g. packaging resins), and films (e.g. photographic, 
x-ray, Mylar, etc.). The cost of PTA as a feedstock is a 
primary determinate of the price of polyester since PTA is 
nearly two-thirds of the total cost of polyester production. 
Thus, the NAFTA tariff places U.S. PTA consumers, and therefore 
U.S. polyester manufacturers,\3\ at a distinct competitive 
disadvantage compared to foreign manufacturers of similar or 
like products who pay the real, and significantly lower, world 
market price for PTA. Furthermore, PET imports made with lower 
priced PTA enter the U.S. under a low or zero tariff, creating 
a ``tariff inversion'' that jeopardizes all U.S. PET production 
and therefore PTA consumption as well. Elimination of the 
special duty rate would remove this trade-distorting tariff 
anomaly and create a more competitive market for PTA in the 
U.S. The results would be lower input costs and increased 
revenue for U.S. PTA consumers, fostering U.S. competitiveness 
in the world market and benefiting the U.S. economy through new 
jobs and reinvestment by the U.S. polyester industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ For purposes of this comment, polyester manufacturers are PTA 
consumers producing polyester fibers or PET resin using PTA as a 
feedstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The elimination, or reduction to zero, of the special rate 
of duty on PTA imports from Mexico is broadly supported by the 
relevant U.S. industry. In fact, U.S. polyester producers who 
consume over 90 percent of the single U.S. merchant market PTA 
manufacturer's U.S. production support tariff elimination for 
PTA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Merchant market PTA buyers supporting PTA tariff elimination 
include: Wellman, Inc. (Fayetteville, NC, Charlotte, NC, Darlington, 
SC, Pearl River, MS); UCB Chemical (North Augusta, SC, Atlanta, GA); 
Hoescht Celanese; Toray (North Kingstown, RI); Allied Signal (Moncure, 
NC, Churchill, VA); Toloram Polymers (Charlotte, NC); NanYa Plastics 
(Lake City, SC); Continental PET (Florence, KY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        II. Overview of Benefits to the U.S. Polyester Industry

    Reducing the special rate of duty to zero for PTA imported 
from Mexico will : (1) remove the price disparity for PTA 
between the U.S. and world markets, bringing U.S. PTA prices in 
line with world market PTA prices; (2) lead to the 
diversification of PTA supply in the United States, granting 
U.S. PTA consumers a choice of supply; (3) remove a penalty 
from U.S. PTA consumers who must compete with foreign PET and 
polyester fibers producers by reducing the cost of PTA as a 
feedstock; and (4) eliminate the tariff inversion between PTA 
and the finished product PET resin. With the growing North 
American market for polyester products, the sole U.S. PTA 
producer could easily compete to maintain its current level of 
U.S. PTA sales. Tariff elimination would greatly benefit U.S. 
PTA consumers and downstream users of products manufactured 
using PTA by creating a more competitive market for PTA and PET 
resin in the U.S., and provide long-term benefits to PTA 
producers.\5\ Tariff elimination would provide Shell (and other 
PTA consumers) with access to more supply options for the 
purchase of PTA, eliminating the monopoly pricing that 
currently impedes new investment in the U.S. by the company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ A secondary economic benefit of tariff elimination accrues to 
U.S. paraxylene (``PXE'' or ``PX'') producers. PXE is a feedstock used 
in the production of PTA. It is expected that an increase in PTA 
production in Mexico will spur U.S. exports of PXE to Mexico. 
Therefore, as PTA imports from Mexico increase, the Mexican PTA 
producer will require greater amounts of PXE for PTA production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         III. The Need for Competitive PTA Pricing in the U.S.

    The NAFTA tariff permits the single merchant market U.S. 
PTA supplier to sell PTA at a high price with the knowledge 
that an affordable alternative supply of PTA in the U.S. is not 
available.\6\ Because of the tariff, U.S. PTA consumers find it 
prohibitively expensive to import PTA to meet their consumption 
needs. Although packaging, transportation, unloading and 
storage costs are factors in importing PTA, the prices paid for 
each are market driven and are paid by every purchaser of PTA. 
However, U.S. PTA consumers alone are forced to absorb the cost 
of the tariff. The tariff is truly an artificial price inflator 
that precludes U.S. PTA consumers from purchasing PTA from 
alternative sources. The result is a closed and noncompetitive 
U.S. market for PTA that is not significantly affected by 
supply and demand changes in the global PTA market. Therefore, 
competitive pricing for PTA in the U.S. market does not exist. 
In a free market system such as Europe, Shell and other 
polyester producers can negotiate favorable supply agreements 
with PTA producers. As long as the NAFTA tariff exists, PTA 
consumers will continue to be dis-

advantaged with regard to the price paid for U.S. PTA relative 
to world market prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Three captive PTA producers exist in the U.S., however they 
consume internally 100 percent of the PTA they produce for polyester 
production. These captive producers do not participate in the U.S. 
merchant market for the sale of PTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      IV. The Need for Access to an Alternative PTA Supply Source

    Maintaining the tariff cannot be justified because it 
confines U.S. PTA consumers to a single supply source, 
threatening them with short supply crises or arbitrary 
allocation. The tariff on PTA dramatically increases the price 
of PTA imports to a level that prohibits import for consumption 
in the U.S. merchant market. Current U.S. PTA merchant market 
production capacity does not demonstrate the ability to keep 
pace with U.S. PTA consumer merchant market demand. Because it 
takes nearly four years to construct a new PTA facility, it is 
impossible for the single merchant market producer or even 
captive PTA producers to meet the immediate future U.S. 
merchant market PTA consumer needs. U.S. PTA consumers will be 
forced to turn to imports to meet consumption needs, or 
artificially restrict production and expansion. If passed, H.R. 
3501 would immediately eliminate the NAFTA tariff and provide 
access to more than one supply source of PTA, thus removing the 
probability of harm from supply interruption or shortfalls in 
U.S. PTA production. Alternative sources of PTA would be 
available at competitive prices, and PTA supply would be 
determined by market forces and driven by the consumer, not the 
producer as in this case.

  V. Removing the Disadvantage to U.S. Polyester Producers Competing 
                            Against Imports

    The cost of PTA as a feedstock in the U.S. versus foreign 
markets is higher on average by the amount of the tariff or 
more than the amount of the tariff. As long as the tariff 
remains in place, U.S. PTA consumers will not be on equal 
footing when competing against polyester products manufactured 
using PTA and imported into the U.S. The tariff on PTA 
increases the threat of polyester imports further displacing 
U.S. polyester products in the domestic market which enter 
under a low or zero tariff. This ``tariff inversion'' exposes 
all U.S. polyester and PET production (and therefore PTA 
consumption) to elimination from competition, especially as PET 
resin and polyester fiber imports continue to increase from 
Canada and Mexico.
    The trend of robust growth in the U.S. and North American 
polyester markets is expected to continue. However, if the U.S. 
PET resin and polyester fiber markets remain supply driven as a 
result of the tariff, U.S. PTA consumers will not be able to 
expand polyester production capacity to meet forecasted 
polyester demand. Because the tariff makes PTA imports 
economically prohibitive, and it takes three to four years to 
build new PTA production capacity, any attempt at expansion by 
U.S. PTA consumers will be constrained by the single U.S. 
merchant market supplier's limited U.S. PTA production capacity 
during the time period in which the tariff is scheduled to be 
phased out. U.S. PTA consumers instead may decrease production 
capacity and forego sales of polyester products in the U.S. 
market. Indeed, foreign imports of polyester will displace U.S. 
market share to meet U.S. consumer needs. More importantly, 
U.S. jobs and revenue would be lost to foreign competition. In 
turn, overall expansion of the U.S. polyester industry would be 
limited. Immediate tariff elimination benefits all U.S. PTA 
consumers and the U.S. PTA producer because it would reduce the 
cost of PTA, thus encouraging growth in U.S. polyester 
production which in turn would result in an increase in PTA 
consumption.

                             VI. Conclusion

    Passage of H.R. 3501 would reduce to zero the NAFTA PTA 
tariff: (1) leading to the diversification of U.S. PTA supply 
and removal of the higher price charged for PTA in the U.S. 
compared to world markets; (2) allowing U.S. PTA consumers to 
be more competitive in both domestic and foreign markets with 
foreign manufacturers of (``PET'') resin and polyester fibers; 
and (3) fostering growth in U.S. employment and new investment 
in PTA, polyester fibers, and PET resin markets. Immediate 
tariff elimination will allow the U.S. PTA industry, producers 
and consumers alike, to be proactive with respect to entering 
into and competing in the global marketplace.
    Shell strongly supports free trade, and the elimination of 
the tariff on PTA is consistent with the goals and objectives 
of the NAFTA, which the United States Government entered into 
to enhance growth and economic opportunities for U.S. business 
and labor. Reducing the NAFTA PTA tariff to zero would provide 
a launching pad for the U.S. polyester industry to enter the 
global market, and for U.S. PTA consumers to have equal access 
to market opportunities (i.e., competitive pricing for PTA) 
that exist outside of the closed market maintained by the 
tariff. As this Con-

gress, and the Administration, continue to press forward and 
integrate the U.S. market with markets in Latin and South 
America through free trade agreements such as the Free Trade 
Area of the Americas (``FTAA''), U.S. industry's ability to 
compete on a level playing field in the global marketplace must 
be adequately addressed. The viability of U.S. industries, 
including fibers, textiles and packaging, depends upon the 
ability to compete with the rest of the world.
    We appreciate your consideration of our comments and we 
hope the Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at 
the earliest opportunity.
            Respectfully submitted,
                                            Stephen E. Ward
                                  Vice President Government Affairs

cc: Leo Webb, U.S. International Trade Commission
      

                                

Statement of the Honorable Bill Thomas on H.R. 3501

    H.R. 3501 proposes the immediate elimination of U.S. 
tariffs on purified terephthalic acid (PTA) from Mexico. While 
the U.S. will remove its tariff on Mexican PTA in 2003, the 
immediate elimination of this tariff is important to the 
preservation of over 6,300 American jobs.
    PTA is a feedstock used in the manufacture of polyester 
products. PTA represents at least 86% of the cost of polyester 
resin. U.S. law presently imposes duties of 11% to 12% on the 
product--an 8.9% ad valorem duty plus a specific duty of 1.8 
cents per kilogram. As tariffs on PTA keep U.S. prices for the 
feedstock above world prices, U.S. manufacturers of polyester 
products are placed at a competitive disadvantage with respect 
to Asian goods of 5 cents per pound. In contrast, the U.S. 
places only low or no tariffs on imported polyester products.
    The tariff inversion thus leaves U.S. producers of 
polyester goods and the thousands of workers they employ 
vulnerable to foreign competition. At least one U.S. 
manufacturer of polyester goods believes it could be forced to 
stop manufacutring in the U.S. prior to 2003 unless feedstock 
tariffs are reduced. To avoid the resulting loss of jobs, the 
tariff on Mexican PTA should be eliminated now to give American 
polyester resin producers a competitive source of feedstock.
      

                                

Statement of Wellman, Inc. on H.R. 3501, A Bill to Amend the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States to Change the Special Rate of Duty 
on Purified Terephthalic Acid Imported from Mexico

    In response to the House Ways and Means Trade 
Subcommittee's request dated April 26, 1998, for written 
comments on miscellaneous trade and tariff legislation, 
Wellman, Inc. (``Wellman'') appreciates the opportunity to 
comment on H.R. 3501 (Item number 96 on TR-23), introduced by 
Representative Bill Thomas of California. H.R. 3501 would amend 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTS'') 
to reduce to zero the special rate of duty on PTA imported from 
Mexico. Wellman respectfully urges approval of this measure 
because it would have a positive impact on the U.S. polyester 
industry, encouraging growth in each trading partners' 
polyester industry and promoting freer trade between the U.S. 
and Mexico.
    Wellman has U.S. facilities Darlington, S.C. (Palmetto 
Plant), and Fayetteville, N.C., that use PTA in the 
manufacturing of polyester fibers and PET resin. Wellman 
employs over 1,100 workers for its polyester production. The 
company is currently in the process of constructing a new 
facility in Pearl River, Mississippi, for the production of 
polyester fibers and PET resin, which will increase employment 
by at least 250 workers. Once the facility goes on-line in the 
fourth quarter of 1998, Wellman will be the largest purchaser 
of PTA in the U.S. market. The company in 1996 had total net 
sales of products manufactured using PTA in the amount of 
$610.0 million. Wellman would benefit significantly from the 
elimination of the tariff on PTA.

               I. Background and the Need for Legislation

    To the detriment of U.S. polyester producers, the special 
duty rate (i.e., the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(``NAFTA'') tariff) allows the sole U.S. merchant market PTA 
producer to maintain a price for PTA in the U.S. that is 
significantly higher than world market prices.\1\ The duty rate 
is currently 8.9 percent ad valorem, plus $.018 per kilogram, 
and will be phased out by the year 2003. PTA is the preferred 
raw material for polyester production, comprising nearly two-
thirds the cost of polyester. PTA is used in the manufacturer 
of polyester products, such as polyester fibers (e.g. apparel 
and industrial uses), PET resins (e.g. packaging resins), and 
films (e.g. photographic, x-ray, Mylar, etc.). The cost of PTA 
as a feedstock is a primary determinant of the price of 
polyester since PTA is nearly two-thirds of the total cost of 
polyester production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (``GATT'') also 
imposes a tariff on PTA imports into the U.S. The GATT which tariff is 
higher than the NAFTA tariff on PTA, will not be affected by H.R. 3501, 
and will never reach zero, unlike the NAFTA tariff. Therefore, the 
probability remains that the GATT tariff will always cause the price 
paid for U.S. PTA to be inflated by a marginal amount relative to world 
market prices, even upon elimination of the NAFTA tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The duty on PTA imports from Mexico places U.S. polyester 
producers, or PTA consumers, at a severe competitive 
disadvantage compared to foreign polyester producers.\2\ 
Passage of H.R. 3501 and repeal of the duty will bring U.S. PTA 
prices in line with world market prices, and lead to the 
diversification of U.S. PTA supply which will allow for 
continued growth in the U.S. polyester industry. Presently, the 
sole merchant market U.S. producer, Amoco, keeps its U.S. PTA 
price marginally below the price of Mexican PTA if imported 
under the current NAFTA tariff structure. The tariff, 
therefore, works to prohibit the importation of PTA from 
Mexico, resulting in a non-competitive U.S. market for the 
pricing of PTA. As long as the tariff exists, PTA consumers 
will continue to be disadvantaged with regard to the price paid 
for U.S. PTA relative to world market prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The price disparity between U.S. and foreign PTA, specifically 
Asian PTA, is as much as $200, or 30 percent, per metric ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The elimination (i.e., reduction to zero) of the special 
rate of duty on PTA imports from Mexico is broadly supported by 
the relevant U.S. industry. In fact, U.S. polyester producers 
who consume over 90 percent of the single U.S. merchant market 
PTA manufacturer's U.S. production support tariff elimination 
for PTA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Merchant market PTA buyers supporting PTA tariff elimination 
include: Shell Oil Company (Point Pleasant, WV); UCB Chemical (North 
Augusta, SC, Atlanta, GA); Hoescht Celanese; Toray (North Kingstown, 
RI); Allied Signal (Moncure, NC, Churchill, VA); Toloram Polymers 
(Charlotte, NC); NanYa Plastics (Lake City, SC); Continental PET 
(Florence, KY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        II. Overview of Benefits to the U.S. Polyester Industry

    Reducing the special rate of duty to zero for PTA imported 
from Mexico will: (1) eliminate the price disparity for PTA 
between the U.S. and world markets; (2) remove the threat of a 
short supply situation for PTA by providing Wellman (and other 
PTA consumers) with access to more supply options for the 
purchase of PTA; (3) eliminate the monopoly market that 
currently impedes new investment in the U.S. by domestic 
polyester producers; and (4) eliminate the tariff inversion 
between PTA and the finished product PET resin. Passage of H.R. 
3501 would greatly benefit U.S. PTA consumers and downstream 
users of products manufactured using PTA by creating a more 
competitive market for PTA and polyester products in the U.S., 
and providing long-term benefits to polyester producers.\4\ 
Wellman believes that the single U.S. PTA merchant market 
producer's only potential losses would stem from the advantage 
it currently realizes from anti-competitive pricing policies. 
Such losses, however, are insignificant compared to the adverse 
impact upon U.S. polyester producers and workers if the tariff 
is maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ A secondary economic benefit of tariff elimination accrues to 
U.S. paraxylene (``PXE'' or ``PX'') producers. PXE is a feedstock used 
in the production of PTA. It is expected that an increase in PTA 
production in Mexico will spur U.S. exports of PXE to Mexico. 
Therefore, as PTA imports from Mexico increase, the Mexican PTA 
producer will require greater amounts of PXE for PTA production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 III. The Duty Threatens the U.S. Polyester Industry with Short Supply 
                               Situations

    Supported by the duty on Mexican PTA imports, a single 
supply source for U.S. PTA does not guarantee adequate PTA 
supply now or in the future, and threatens U.S. PTA consumers 
with short supply situations. By 1999, it is forecasted that 
U.S. merchant capacity to consume PTA will exceed Amoco's PTA 
production capacity, and Amoco will be unable to meet that 
merchant market demand.
    Supported by the tariff, Amoco is exposing its U.S. 
customer base to potential short supply problems that can cap 
both the ability to meet current U.S. polyester demand, and 
growth in the U.S. polyester market. Amoco has had difficulty 
provid-

ing a stable supply of PTA to U.S. PTA consumers placing them 
in unhealthy economic situations, exacerbated by the tariff 
making imports economically prohibitive. For example, in 1996 
Amoco invoked the Force Majeure clause in its contracts with 
U.S. customers due to a plant equipment problem causing Amoco 
to limit the amount of PTA supplied to its U.S. customers. At 
the same time, Amoco over-committed U.S. exports of PTA, which 
caused U.S. PTA consumers to make unorthodox scheduling changes 
in their PTA consumption. U.S. PTA consumers could not acquire 
the PTA needed to supplement this shortfall due to the tariff 
making PTA imports unaffordable. Furthermore, because it takes 
nearly three years to construct a new PTA facility, it is 
unlikely that Amoco or even captive PTA producers--if they 
desire--could meet the immediate future U.S. merchant market 
polyester producers' needs. U.S. PTA consumers could be forced 
to turn to imports to meet consumption needs, or more likely 
would reduce capacity utilization during the next five years 
(i.e., the time period in which the tariff is scheduled to be 
phased out).
    U.S. polyester producers do have a security of supply 
problem and imported PTA is required to meet total U.S. PTA 
demand. Supply should not be determined by the producer as in 
this case, but should be driven by the consumer. U.S. PTA 
consumers cannot continue to operate, and certainly cannot 
compete in the global market, under a single supply source 
condition. In an open market without the tariff, U.S. PTA 
consumers would have access to other sources of PTA and would 
not be placed in the precarious situation of no supply or short 
supply of PTA.

        IV. The Duty Sustains a ``Monopolistic'' Market for PTA

    The tariff should not be maintained because it 
unjustifiably confines Wellman, and other U.S. PTA consumers, 
to Amoco as the single U.S. PTA supplier. In order to 
understand the monopolistic situation in today's U.S. PTA 
market, and how the monopoly is held in place by the NAFTA 
tariff, both the history of PTA production and the technology 
barriers that exist for potential new entrants must be 
understood. PTA technology was commercially introduced in the 
1960's by Amoco as a lower cost alternative to di-methyl 
terephthalate (``DMT'') for producing polyester. While under 
patent protection, Amoco licensed this technology to a very few 
select companies.\5\ As a result, the PTA technology is very 
closely held today. Of those select parties to whom Amoco did 
grant a license, Amoco customarily required the other party to 
provide Amoco with some controlling interest in that company. 
In fact, Amoco is a minority shareholder of Petrotemex, a 
position Amoco has enjoyed since it licensed the technology to 
Petrotemex in the late 1980's that allowed Petrotemex to build 
its initial Mexican PTA production facility. Wellman believes 
that these controlling interests in other PTA manufacturers 
allowed Amoco to restrict the expansion of PTA in the U.S. 
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ To Wellman's knowledge, Amoco held a seventeen year patent on 
PTA technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the technology and licensing barrier, Amoco 
also has the ability to control the PTA market through: its 
backward integration into PTA's primary feedstock, paraxylene; 
its low cost position for the production of PTA; and its long-
term customer contracts. If another company chose to enter the 
merchant PTA market, Amoco could temporarily lower prices in 
its PTA business and eliminate any return on investment the new 
entrant might have enjoyed. Amoco, on the other hand, would 
still receive adequate returns via its paraxylene position and 
the fact that its low cost of production allows Amoco to earn 
returns that are much higher than the rest of the polyester 
product chain. Furthermore, a potential merchant seller of PTA 
in the U.S. would have to time any expansion in the market so 
as to have the opportunity to sell product to Amoco's customers 
when they are renewing their contract with Amoco. A new entrant 
that starts a facility in the middle of one of Amoco's five 
year contracts would be unable to compete due to the fact that 
the primary customers would be under a long-term contract and 
obligated to buy PTA only from Amoco. With at least a three 
year time frame to construct a new PTA facility, such timing 
certainly constrains new market entrants.\6\ Downstream 
polyester producers, those who are backwards integrated for 
PTA, do not sell PTA to the U.S. merchant market because they 
currently achieve more than acceptable returns, due to the 
umbrella which the Amoco fixed formula provides, and are 
advantaged over their competitors--Amoco's customers. Tariff 
elimination is necessary to provide competitive pricing and 
additional sources of PTA for the U.S. market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ It would be very difficult for any company to explain to its 
shareholders that they had invested over $300 million dollars and three 
years of construction to receive an inadequate return due to a single 
company's short-term pricing tactics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  V. The Duty Disadvantages U.S. Polyester Producers, Limiting Future 
                                 Growth

    By reducing the special duty rate on Mexican PTA imports to 
zero, U.S. PTA consumers will be able to compete with foreign 
polyester fiber and PET resin producers exporting the final 
product to the U.S., and could experience increased growth and 
reinvestment within the industry. As long as the tariff remains 
in place, the cost of PTA as a feedstock in the U.S. versus 
foreign markets will remain higher on average by the amount of 
the tariff or more than the amount of the tariff due to lack of 
competition in U.S. PTA market. Furthermore, U.S. PTA consumers 
will not be on equal footing when competing against imports of 
similar or like products manufactured using PTA. Lower PTA 
prices, cheaper labor costs, and currency devaluation, even 
when combined with transportation costs, provide foreign 
polyester producers a significant cost advantage with respect 
to pricing of the final polyester product. PET resin and 
polyester fiber imports continue to increase from Canada, 
Mexico and other countries. Yet, PET resin and polyester fiber 
imports have very little or no duty and are relatively 
inexpensive to ship due their bulk form, while PTA has a very 
high tariff and a significant freight cost due to its powder 
form. This situation creates a tariff inversion, favoring the 
importation of PET resin and polyester fibers as final products 
over the U.S. production of those products using PTA. Passage 
of H.R. 3501 will remove the tariff inversion and allow U.S. 
polyester producers to compete on a level playing field with 
foreign polyester producers.
    PET resin market growth has been strong, as much as 22 
percent in 1997, as has the growth of the polyester fibers 
market. If the PET market grows due to technology advances and 
market development of PET for beer and wine applications, and 
the polyester fiber market continues to grow as it has under 
the NAFTA, equipment utilization in the polyester industry will 
be very high and there will not be enough PTA to meet demand. 
Amoco's eight percent growth forecast in these markets is too 
conservative. However, the special duty rate on Mexican PTA 
will remain in place for the next five years. At this important 
juncture in market growth and demand for polyester products, 
additional supply sources and competitive pricing for PTA are 
crucial to the viability of the U.S. polyester industry.

                             VI. Conclusion

    Passage of H.R. 3501 would reduce to zero the NAFTA PTA 
tariff: (1) leading to the diversification of U.S. PTA supply 
and removal of the higher price charged for PTA in the U.S. 
compared to world markets; (2) allowing U.S. PTA consumers to 
be more competitive in both domestic and foreign markets with 
foreign manufacturers of (``PET'') resin and polyester fibers; 
and (3) fostering growth in U.S. employment and new investment 
in PTA, polyester fibers, and PET resin markets. Tariff 
elimination will allow the U.S. PTA industry, producers and 
consumers alike, to be proactive with respect to entering into 
and competing in the global marketplace.
    Wellman strongly supports free trade, and the elimination 
of the tariff on PTA is consistent with the goals and 
objectives of the NAFTA. Reducing the NAFTA PTA tariff to zero 
would provide a launching pad for the U.S. polyester industry 
to enter the global market, and for U.S. PTA consumers to have 
equal access to market opportunities (i.e., competitive pricing 
for PTA) that exist outside of the closed market maintained by 
the tariff. As this Congress continues to press forward and 
integrate the U.S. market with foreign markets through free 
trade agreements such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas 
(``FTAA''), barriers to trade must be eliminated in order that 
U.S. industry can to compete on a level playing field with 
foreign industry in the global marketplace. The viability of 
U.S. industries, including fibers, textiles and packaging, 
depends upon the ability to compete with the rest of the world.
    We appreciate your consideration of our comments and we 
hope the Subcommittee will act favorably on this legislation at 
the earliest opportunity.
            Respectfully submitted,
          Mr. Marc C. Hebert, Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P.
                                          Counsel for Wellman, Inc.

cc: Mr. Leo Webb, U.S. International Trade Commission

                                

                                H.R. 3507

    To suspend until December 31, 2001, the duty on certain 
electrical transformers for use in the manufacture of audio 
systems.
      

                                

    International Business-Government Counsellors, Inc.    
                                Washington, D.C. 20006-2702
                                                        May 4, 1998

A.L. Singleton
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Advisory No. TR-23: Comments in Support of H.R. 3507, H.R. 3508 and 
        H.R. 3509

    Dear Mr. Singleton:

    I am writing this letter on behalf of the Bose Corporation to 
express their strong support for H.R. 3507, H.R. 3508 and H.R. 3509 and 
to urge the Committee to include these bills in any miscellaneous 
tariff package it is considering. These comments are submitted in 
response to the Subcommittee on Trade's Advisory No. 23, dated March 
26, 1998.
    Bose manufactures loudspeakers and other audio products at its 
primary production facility in Columbia, South Carolina, which employs 
1,000 local residents. The plant has only been in operation for two 
years, but has doubled in size and Bose is very optimistic about its 
future. Bose also has U.S. manufacturing facilities in Michigan and 
Massachusetts.
    The three bills Bose supports were introduced by Representative 
Floyd Spence:
     H.R. 3507, which would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 
of the HTS by inserting a new heading for certain electrical 
transformers having a power handling capacity less than 1 kVA for use 
in the manufacture of audio systems (provided for in Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule subheading 8504.31.40) as duty free through December 31, 2001.
     H.R. 3508, which would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 
of the HTS by inserting a new heading for loudspeakers not mounted in 
their enclosures (provided for in subheading 8518.29.80) as duty free 
through December 31, 2001.
     H.R. 3509, which would amend subchapter II of chapter 99 
of the HTS by inserting a new heading for parts used in the manufacture 
of loudspeakers (provided for in subheading 8518.90.80) as duty free 
through December 31, 2001.
    Companion legislation has been introduced by Senator Strom Thurmond 
in the Senate: S. 1852, S. 1853, and S. 1854.
    The products covered by the legislation are ones which Bose must of 
necessity import from overseas. As a corporation, Bose makes every 
effort to purchase parts in the United States, but that is frequently 
not possible. Enactment of the duty suspension would help make the 
products of Bose and other loudspeaker manufacturers more competitive 
in the United States and in foreign markets. Separately, Bose is 
working to have these products incorporated in the Information 
Technology Agreement II, now being negotiated in the World Trade 
Organization.
    I thank you very much for this opportunity to submit Bose' views 
and look forward to working with the Committee. If the Ways and Means 
staff or members have any questions regarding the legislation, please 
feel free to contact either myself or Donald F. Cameron, Manager, 
Corporate Logistics, Bose Corporation, Framingham, MA, (508) 879-7330.
    Best Regards,
            Sincerely,
                                            Janet L. Hunter
                                                     Vice President

                                

                                H.R. 3508

    To suspend until December 31, 2001, the duty on 
loudspeakers not mounted in their enclosures.

                  see Bose Corporation under H.R. 3507

                                

                                H.R. 3509

    To suspend until December 31, 2001, the duty on parts for 
use in the manufacture of loudspeakers.

                  see Bose Corporation under H.R. 3507

                                  
