Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 20923-20926 [E9-10496]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 6, 2009 / Notices
NTIA Administrator on spectrum policy
matters.
DATES: Applications must be
postmarked or electronically
transmitted on or before June 1, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Applications materials
should be sent to Joe Gattuso,
Designated Federal Officer, by email to
spectrumadvisory@ntia.doc.gov; by U.S.
mail or commercial delivery service to:
Office of Policy Analysis and
Development, National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration, 1401 Constitution
Avenue N.W., Room 4725, Washington,
DC 20230; or by facsimile transmission
to (202) 482–6173.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe
Gattuso at (202) 482–0977 or
jgattuso@ntia.doc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CSMAC was chartered in 2005 under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 and is
consistent with the National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. § 904(b).
The Department of Commerce renewed
the CSMAC’s charter on April 6, 2009.
The CSMAC advises the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information on a
broad range of issues regarding
spectrum policy. In particular, the
charter provides that the CSMAC will
provide advice and recommendations
on needed reforms to domestic
spectrum policies and management in
order to: license radio frequencies in a
way that maximizes their public benefit;
keep wireless networks as open to
innovation as possible; and make
wireless services available to all
Americans. The CSMAC functions
solely as an advisory body in
compliance with the FACA. Additional
information about the CSMAC and its
activities may be found at https://
www.ntia.doc.gov/advisory/spectrum.
Members of the CSMAC are experts in
radio spectrum policy and do not
represent any organization or interest.
They serve on the CSMAC in the
capacity of Special Government
Employee. Members will not receive
compensation or reimbursement for
travel or for per diem expenses.
There are currently 18 members of the
CSMAC, who were appointed by the
Secretary of Commerce for two-year
terms commencing on January 16, 2009.
The renewed charter, effective April 6,
2009, allows up to 25 members to serve
on the CSMAC.
The Secretary of Commerce may
appoint up to seven additional
individuals with expertise in those
sectors and interests in spectrum policy
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:36 May 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
issues relevant to the CSMAC.
Moreover, the charter requires that the
CSMAC be fairly balanced in terms of
the points of view represented by the
members and the functions to be
performed. For purposes of obtaining
balance, the Secretary will consider for
membership interested persons with
professional or personal qualifications
or experience that will contribute to the
CSMAC’s work. Such qualifications
should generally include, but may not
be limited to, expertise and experience
in academia, not-for-profit
organizations, public advocacy, and in
civil society.
Applicants should submit their
resume or curriculum vitae and a
statement that summarizes the
applicant’s qualifications and
experience. The statement should
identify any particular expertise or area
of interest relevant to the CSMAC’s
work. This will aid in the assessment of
whether the applicant’s qualifications
and experience will contribute to the
balance of points of view represented on
the committee.
Dated: May 1, 2009.
Kathy D. Smith,
Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–10467 Filed 5–5–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–60–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–533–821)
Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 30, 2008, the
U.S. Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register its preliminary results of the
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on
certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products (hot–rolled carbon steel) from
India for the period of review (POR)
January 1, 2007, through December 31,
2007. See Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review; 73 FR 79791
(December 30, 2008) (Preliminary
Results). We preliminarily found that
Essar Steel Ltd. (Essar) received
countervailable subsidies during the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20923
POR. We received comments on our
Preliminary Rresults from the
Government of India (GOI), petitioners,
and the respondent company, Essar.1
The final results are listed in the section
‘‘Final Results of Review’’ below.
We also preliminarily rescinded the
administrative review regarding Ispat
Industries Limited (Ispat), JSW Steel
Limited (JSW), and Tata Steel Limited
(Tata) due to the fact that they had no
shipments during the POR. We received
no comments on the partial rescission of
administrative review for Ispat, JSW,
and Tata and, therefore, we hereby
rescind the administrative review with
regard to these firms.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gayle Longest at (202) 482–3338, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 3, 2001, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
CVD order on certain hot–rolled carbon
steel flat products from India. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination
and Notice of Countervailing Duty
Order: Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products from India, 66 FR 60198
(December 3, 2001). On December 30,
2009, the Department published in the
Federal Register its Preliminary Results
of the administrative review of this
order for the period January 1, 2007,
through December 31, 2007. See
Preliminary Results, 73 FR 79791. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this
administrative review covers Essar, a
producer and exporter of subject
merchandise.
On January 21, 2009, we issued
supplemental questionnaires to Essar
and the GOI. We received responses
from Essar and the GOI on January 28,
2009.
In the Preliminary Results, we invited
interested parties to submit briefs or
request a hearing. On January 29, 2009,
we received comments from the GOI. In
addition, on February 6, 2009, we
received comments from Essar as well
as petitioners. On February 18, 2009, we
received rebuttal comments from Essar
and petitioners. We received a request
for a hearing from Essar and the GOI on
February 9, 2009. On March 27, 2009,
we held a public hearing in room 7870
of the Commerce Building. Parties can
1 Petitioners are the United States Steel
Corporation and Nucor Corporation (collectively,
petitioners).
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
20924
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 6, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
find a transcript of the hearing on file
in the central records unit (CRU), room
1117 of the main Department building.
Scope of Order
The merchandise subject to this order
is certain hot–rolled carbon–quality
steel products of a rectangular shape, of
a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither
clad, plated, nor coated with metal and
whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other non–
metallic substances, in coils (whether or
not in successively superimposed
layers), regardless of thickness, and in
straight lengths, of a thickness of less
than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring
at least 10 times the thickness.
Universal mill plate (i.e., flat–rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a
closed box pass, or a width exceeding
150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm,
and of a thickness of not less than 4
mm, not in coils and without patterns
in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0
mm is not included within the scope of
this order.
Specifically included in the scope of
this order are vacuum degassed, fully
stabilized (commonly referred to as
interstitial–free (IF) steels, high–strength
low–alloy (HSLA) steels, and the
substrate for motor lamination steels. IF
steels are recognized as low–carbon
steels with micro–alloying levels of
elements such as titanium or niobium
(also commonly referred to as
columbium), or both, added to stabilize
carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA
steels are recognized as steels with
micro–alloying levels of elements such
as chromium, copper, niobium,
vanadium, and molybdenum. The
substrate for motor lamination steels
contains micro–alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope
of this order, regardless of definitions in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTS), are products in
which: i) iron predominates, by weight,
over each of the other contained
elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none
of the elements listed below exceeds the
quantity, by weight, respectively
indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:36 May 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical
and chemical description provided
above are within the scope of this order
unless otherwise excluded. The
following products, by way of example,
are outside or specifically excluded
from the scope of this order.
• Alloy hot–rolled steel products in
which at least one of the chemical
elements exceeds those listed above
(including, e.g., ASTM specifications
A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and
higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the
HTS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
• Silico–manganese (as defined in the
HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a
silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS Abrasion–resistant steels (USS
AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise)
based on an alloy ASTM specification
(sample specifications: ASTM A506,
A507).
• Non–rectangular shapes, not in coils,
which are the result of having been
processed by cutting or stamping and
which have assumed the character of
articles or products classified outside
chapter 72 of the HTS.
The merchandise subject to this order
is currently classifiable in the HTS at
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00,
7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00,
7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60,
7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60,
7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15,
7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.53.00.00,
7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00,
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00,
7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00,
7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00,
7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and
7211.19.75.90. Certain hot–rolled flat–
rolled carbon–quality steel covered by
this order, including: vacuum–degassed
fully stabilized; high–strength low–
alloy; and the substrate for motor
lamination steel may also enter under
the following tariff numbers:
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00,
7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00,
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90,
7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30,
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00,
7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and
7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00,
7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and
7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
merchandise subject to this order is
dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR for which we are measuring
subsidies is from January 1, 2007,
through December 31, 2007.
Analysis of Comments
On January 29, 2009 the GOI filed
comments. On February 6, 2009, Essar
and petitioners filed comments. On
February 18, 2009, Essar and petitioners
filed rebuttal comments. All issues in
the respondents’ and petitioners’ case
and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review on Certain
Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India (Decision Memorandum),
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A listing of the issues that parties raised
and to which we have responded is
attached to this notice as Appendix I.
Parties can find a complete discussion
of the issues raised in this review and
the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum, which is on
file in the CRU of the main commerce
building. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memorandum
can be accessed directly on the World
Wide Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and the electronic
version of the Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
After reviewing comments from all
parties, we have made adjustments to
our calculations as explained in our
Decision Memorandum. Consistent with
the Preliminary Results, we find that
Essar received countervailable subsidies
during the POR.
Company
Essar Steel Ltd .............
Total Net
Countervailable
Subsidy Rate
76.88 percent ad
valorem
Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days
after the date of publication of these
final results of review to liquidate
shipments of subject merchandise by
Essar entered, or withdrawn form
warehouse, for consumption on or after
January 1, 2007, through December 31,
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 6, 2009 / Notices
2007, at the ad valorem rate listed
above. We will also instruct CBP to
collect cash deposits for the respondent
at the countervailing duty rate indicated
above on all shipments of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of these
final results of review.
For all non–reviewed companies, the
Department will instruct CBP to assess
countervailing duties at the cash deposit
rates in effect at the time of entry, for
entries between January 1, 2007, and
December 31, 2007. The cash deposit
rates for all companies not covered by
this review are not changed by the
results of this review.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended.
Dated: April 29, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I Issues in Decision
Memorandum
I. Partial Rescission of Review
II. Adverse Facts Available (AFA)
A. The GOI
B. Essar
1. SGOC’s Industrial Policy
2. EPCGS
III. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Benchmarks for Loans and Discount
Rates
B. Use of Uncreditworthy Benchmarks
for Essar
C. Allocation Period
IV. Analysis of Programs
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
A. Programs Administered by the
Government of India
1. Pre- and Post–Shipment Export
Financing
2. Export Promotion Capital Goods
Scheme (EPCGS)
3. Sale of High–Grade Iron Ore for
LTAR
4. SEZ Act
a. Duty free import/domestic
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:36 May 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
procurement of goods and services
for development, operation, and
maintenance of SEZ units program
b. Exemption from excise duties on
goods machinery and capital goods
brought from the Domestic Tariff
Area for use by an enterprise in the
SEZ
c. Exemption from the Central Sales
Tax (CST)
d. Exemption from the National
Service Tax
B. Programs Administered by the State
Government of Gujarat
1. SGOG Special Economic Zone Act
(SEZ Act)
a. Stamp duty and registration fees
for land transfers, loan agreements,
credit deeds, and mortgages
b. Sales tax, purchase tax, and other
taxes payable on sales and
transactions
c. Sales and other state taxes on
purchases of inputs (both goods and
services) for the SEZ or a Unit
within the SEZ
2. Wharfage Fees Paid Under the
SGOG’s Captive Port Facilities
Program
C. Programs Administered by the SGOC
SGOC Industrial Policy 2004–2009
a. A direct subsidy of 35 percent to
total capital cost for the project, up
to a maximum amount equivalent to
the amount of commercial tax/
central sales tax paid in a seven
year period
b. A direct subsidy of 40 percent
toward total interest paid for a
period of 5 years (up to Rs. lakh per
year) on loans and working capital
for upgrades in technology
c. Reimbursement of 50 percent of
expenses (up to Rs. 75,000)
incurred for quality certification
d. Reimbursement of 50 percent of
expenses (up to 5 lakh) for
obtaining patents
e. Total exemption from electricity
duties for a period of 15 years from
the date of commencement of
commercial production
f. Exemption from stamp duty on
deeds executed for purchase or
lease of land and buildings and
deeds relating to loans and
advances to be taken by the
company for a period of three years
from the date of registration
g. Exemption from payment of
‘‘entry tax’’ for 7 years (excluding
minerals obtained from mining in
the state)
h. 50 percent reduction of the
service charges for acquisition of
private land by Chhattisgarh
Industrial Development Corporation
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20925
for use by the company
i. Allotment of land in industrial
areas at a discount up to 100
percent
D. Programs Found Not To Confer a
Countervailable Benefit During the POR
1.Own Your Own Wagon Scheme
2. Duty Free Replenishment
Certificate (DFRC) Scheme
E. Programs Determined Not To Be Used
1. GOI Programs
a. Advance License Program (ALP)
b. Duty Entitlement Passbook
Scheme (DEPS)
c. Export Processing Zones (EPZ)
and Export Oriented Unit (EOU)
d. Target Plus Scheme (TPS)
e. Income Tax Exemption Scheme
(Sections 10A, 10B, and 80 HHC)
f. Market Development Assistance
(MDA)
g. Status Certificate Program
h. Market Access Initiative
i. Loan Guarantees from the GOI
j. Steel Development Fund (SDF)
Loans
k. Exemption of Export Credit from
Interest Taxes
l. Captive Mining of Iron Ore
m. Captive Mining of Coal
n. Duty Free Import Authorization
Scheme (DFIA)
o. Wagon Investment Scheme (WIS)
p. Drawback on goods brought or
services provided from the
Domestic Tariff area into a SEZ, or
services provided in a SEZ by
service providers located outside
India
q. 100 percent exemption from
income taxes on export income
from the first 5 years of operation,
50 percent for the next 5 years, and
a further 50 percent exemption on
export income reinvested in India
for an additional 5 years
2. State Government of Andhra
Pradesh Programs Grants Under the
Industrial Investment Promotion
Policy of 2005–2010
a. 25 percent reimbursement of cost
of land in industrial estates and
industrial development areas
b. Reimbursement of power at the
rate of Rs. 0.75 ‘‘per unit’’ for the
period beginning April 1, 2005,
through March 31, 2006 and for the
four years thereafter to be
determined by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh (GOAP)
c. 50 percent subsidy for expenses
incurred for quality certification up
to RS. 100 lakhs
d. 25 percent subsidy on ‘‘cleaner
production measures’’ up to Rs. 5
lakhs
e. 50 percent subsidy on expenses
incurred in patent registration, up
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
20926
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 6, 2009 / Notices
to Rs. 5 lakhs
f. 100 percent reimbursement of
stamp duty and transfer duty paid
for the purchase of land and
buildings and the obtaining of
financial deeds and mortgages
g. A grant of 25 percent of the tax
paid to GAAP, which is applied as
a credit against the tax owed the
following year, for a period of five
years from the date of
commencement of production
h. Exemption from the GAAP Non–
agricultural Land Assessment
(NALA)
i. Provision of ‘‘infrastructure’’ for
industries located more than 10
kilometers from existing industrial
estates or industrial development
areas
j. Guaranteed ‘‘stable prices of
municipal water for 3 years for
industrial use’’ and reservation of
10% of water for industrial use for
existing and future projects
3. State Government of Gujarat
Programs
a. State Government of Gujarat
(SGOG) Provided Tax Incentives
(1). Sales Tax Exemptions of
Purchases of Goods During the POR
(2). Sales Tax Deferrals on
Purchases of Good from Prior Years
(As Well as Deferrals Granted
During the POR) which Were
Outstanding During the POR)
(3). Accounting Treatment of
Purchases
(4). Value Added Tax (VAT)
Program Established on April 1,
2006
b. Captive Port Facilities
Credit for the cost of the capital
(including interest) to construct the port
facilities, which is then applied as an
offset to the wharfage charges due
Gujarat on cargo shipped through the
captive jetty
4. State Government of Jharkhand
Programs
a. Grants and Tax Exemptions
under the State Industrial Policy of
2001
b. Subsidies for Mega Projects
under the JSIP of 2001
5. State Government of Maharashtra
Programs
a. Refunds of Octroi Under the PSI
of 1993, Maharashtra Industrial
Policy of 2001, and Maharashtra
Industrial Policy of 2006
b. Infrastructure Assistance for
Mega Projects
c. Land for Less than Adequate
Remuneration
d. Loan Guarantees Based on Octroi
Refunds by the SGM.
e. Investment Subsidy
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:36 May 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
V. Analysis of Comments
VII. Recommendation
Comment 1: Whether the Failure of the
Government of India (GOI) and the
Indian State Governments (ISGs) to
Respond to the Department’s Questions
Warrants Application of Adverse
Inferences with Respect to Subsidy
Programs Essar Claims It Did Not Use
Comment 2: Whether Essar Received
Benefits Under the Industrial Policy of
the State Government of Chhattisgarh
(SGOC)
Comment 3: Whether Essar Received
Benefits Under the Industrial Policy of
the State Government of Andhra
Pradesh (SGOAP)
Comment 4: Whether Essar Received
Benefits Under the Captive Port
Facilities Program of the State
Government of Gujarat (SGOG)
Comment 5: Whether Essar Received
Benefits Under the GOI’s Special
Economic Zone (Act of 2005 (SEZ Act)
Comment 6: Whether the Department
Inadvertently Failed to Include Certain
Export Promotion Capital Goods
Scheme (EPCGS) Licenses in the Benefit
Calculation for the Preliminary Results
Comment 7: Whether the Department
Should Adjust the EPCGS License
Application Fees Reported by Essar
Comment 8: Whether It Was
Appropriate to Apply Adverse
Inferences With Regard to Certain of
Essar’s EPCGS Licenses
Comment 9: Whether the Department
Erred In Calculating Benefits Conferred
Under the Pre–Shipment Export
Financing Program
Comment 10: Whether the National
Mineral Development Corporation
(NMDC) is a Government Authority
Capable of Providing a Financial
Contribution
Comment 11: Whether There is a Viable
In–Country Benchmark Price For Use in
the Benefit Calculation of the Provision
of High–Grade Iron Ore DR–CLO Lumps
(lumps) and Iron Ore Fines (Fines) for
Less Than Adequate Remuneration
(LTAR) Calculation, and If So, How It
Should Be Calculated
Comment 12: Whether the Department
Used Comparable Benchmark Prices For
Use in the Benefit Calculations of the
Provision of Lumps and Fines for LTAR
Program
Comment 13: Whether the Department’s
Inclusion of Freight Costs in the Fines
and Lumps Benchmarks Produced a
Distorted Result
Comment 14: Whether the Department
Should Make Certain Adjustments to
the Benchmark Used in the Benefit
Calculation of the Provision of lumps
and fines and for LTAR Program
VI. Total Net Subsidy Rate
[FR Doc. E9–10496 Filed 5–5–09; 8:45 am]
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XO21
Endangered Species; File No. 13543
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Issuance of permit.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, 217 Ft. Johnson Rd.,
Charleston, SC 29412, has been issued
a permit to take loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), green (Chelonia mydas),
Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii),
leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea),
olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) and
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea
turtles for purposes of scientific
research.
ADDRESSES: The permit and related
documents are available for review
upon written request or by appointment
in the following offices:
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 427–2521;
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th
Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701;
phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 824–
5309.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Opay or Amy Hapeman, (301)
713–2289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August
7, 2008, notice was published in the
Federal Register (73 FR 45967) that a
request for a scientific research permit
to take sea turtles had been submitted
by the above-named organization. The
requested permit has been issued under
the authority of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations
governing the taking, importing, and
exporting of endangered and threatened
species (50 CFR parts 222–226).
The proposed research will further
the understanding of the growth,
distribution, and life history of sea
turtles. The five-year permit will allow
researchers to annually handle,
measure, weigh, passive integrated
transponder tag, flipper tag, and
photograph up to 45 loggerhead, 6
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20923-20926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10496]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C-533-821)
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 30, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register its preliminary results
of the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled carbon steel)
from India for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2007, through
December 31, 2007. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 73 FR 79791 (December 30,
2008) (Preliminary Results). We preliminarily found that Essar Steel
Ltd. (Essar) received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We
received comments on our Preliminary Rresults from the Government of
India (GOI), petitioners, and the respondent company, Essar.\1\ The
final results are listed in the section ``Final Results of Review''
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are the United States Steel Corporation and
Nucor Corporation (collectively, petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also preliminarily rescinded the administrative review regarding
Ispat Industries Limited (Ispat), JSW Steel Limited (JSW), and Tata
Steel Limited (Tata) due to the fact that they had no shipments during
the POR. We received no comments on the partial rescission of
administrative review for Ispat, JSW, and Tata and, therefore, we
hereby rescind the administrative review with regard to these firms.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest at (202) 482-3338, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal
Register the CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
from India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India, 66 FR 60198 (December 3, 2001). On December 30,
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register its Preliminary
Results of the administrative review of this order for the period
January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007. See Preliminary Results, 73
FR 79791. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this administrative
review covers Essar, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise.
On January 21, 2009, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Essar
and the GOI. We received responses from Essar and the GOI on January
28, 2009.
In the Preliminary Results, we invited interested parties to submit
briefs or request a hearing. On January 29, 2009, we received comments
from the GOI. In addition, on February 6, 2009, we received comments
from Essar as well as petitioners. On February 18, 2009, we received
rebuttal comments from Essar and petitioners. We received a request for
a hearing from Essar and the GOI on February 9, 2009. On March 27,
2009, we held a public hearing in room 7870 of the Commerce Building.
Parties can
[[Page 20924]]
find a transcript of the hearing on file in the central records unit
(CRU), room 1117 of the main Department building.
Scope of Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled carbon-
quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch
or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or
not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic
substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed
layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a
thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10
times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products
rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, or a width exceeding 150
mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4
mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not
less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order.
Specifically included in the scope of this order are vacuum
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free
(IF) steels, high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate
for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low-carbon
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or
niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper,
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination
steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and
aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTS), are products in which: i) iron predominates, by weight, over
each of the other contained elements; ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
All products that meet the physical and chemical description
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or
specifically excluded from the scope of this order.
Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the
chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical
steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM
specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of
having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the
character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the
HTS.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00,
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60,
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60,
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30,
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90,
7208.40.60.30, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00,
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00,
7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and
7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel
covered by this order, including: vacuum-degassed fully stabilized;
high-strength low-alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel
may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00,
7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00,
7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60,
7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00,
7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter
under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00,
7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written
description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1,
2007, through December 31, 2007.
Analysis of Comments
On January 29, 2009 the GOI filed comments. On February 6, 2009,
Essar and petitioners filed comments. On February 18, 2009, Essar and
petitioners filed rebuttal comments. All issues in the respondents' and
petitioners' case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this
notice. A listing of the issues that parties raised and to which we
have responded is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can
find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on
file in the CRU of the main commerce building. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the
World Wide Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and the electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
After reviewing comments from all parties, we have made adjustments
to our calculations as explained in our Decision Memorandum. Consistent
with the Preliminary Results, we find that Essar received
countervailable subsidies during the POR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net
Company Countervailable
Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essar Steel Ltd..................................... 76.88 percent ad
valorem
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of
publication of these final results of review to liquidate shipments of
subject merchandise by Essar entered, or withdrawn form warehouse, for
consumption on or after January 1, 2007, through December 31,
[[Page 20925]]
2007, at the ad valorem rate listed above. We will also instruct CBP to
collect cash deposits for the respondent at the countervailing duty
rate indicated above on all shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication of these final results of review.
For all non-reviewed companies, the Department will instruct CBP to
assess countervailing duties at the cash deposit rates in effect at the
time of entry, for entries between January 1, 2007, and December 31,
2007. The cash deposit rates for all companies not covered by this
review are not changed by the results of this review.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Dated: April 29, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I Issues in Decision Memorandum
I. Partial Rescission of Review
II. Adverse Facts Available (AFA)
A. The GOI
B. Essar
1. SGOC's Industrial Policy
2. EPCGS
III. Subsidies Valuation Information
A. Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rates
B. Use of Uncreditworthy Benchmarks for Essar
C. Allocation Period
IV. Analysis of Programs
A. Programs Administered by the Government of India
1. Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing
2. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)
3. Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for LTAR
4. SEZ Act
a. Duty free import/domestic procurement of goods and services for
development, operation, and maintenance of SEZ units program
b. Exemption from excise duties on goods machinery and capital
goods brought from the Domestic Tariff Area for use by an enterprise in
the SEZ
c. Exemption from the Central Sales Tax (CST)
d. Exemption from the National Service Tax
B. Programs Administered by the State Government of Gujarat
1. SGOG Special Economic Zone Act (SEZ Act)
a. Stamp duty and registration fees for land transfers, loan
agreements, credit deeds, and mortgages
b. Sales tax, purchase tax, and other taxes payable on sales and
transactions
c. Sales and other state taxes on purchases of inputs (both goods
and services) for the SEZ or a Unit within the SEZ
2. Wharfage Fees Paid Under the SGOG's Captive Port Facilities
Program
C. Programs Administered by the SGOC
SGOC Industrial Policy 2004-2009
a. A direct subsidy of 35 percent to total capital cost for the
project, up to a maximum amount equivalent to the amount of commercial
tax/central sales tax paid in a seven year period
b. A direct subsidy of 40 percent toward total interest paid for a
period of 5 years (up to Rs. lakh per year) on loans and working
capital for upgrades in technology
c. Reimbursement of 50 percent of expenses (up to Rs. 75,000)
incurred for quality certification
d. Reimbursement of 50 percent of expenses (up to 5 lakh) for
obtaining patents
e. Total exemption from electricity duties for a period of 15
years from the date of commencement of commercial production
f. Exemption from stamp duty on deeds executed for purchase or
lease of land and buildings and deeds relating to loans and advances to
be taken by the company for a period of three years from the date of
registration
g. Exemption from payment of ``entry tax'' for 7 years (excluding
minerals obtained from mining in the state)
h. 50 percent reduction of the service charges for acquisition of
private land by Chhattisgarh Industrial Development Corporation for use
by the company
i. Allotment of land in industrial areas at a discount up to 100
percent
D. Programs Found Not To Confer a Countervailable Benefit During the
POR
1.Own Your Own Wagon Scheme
2. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) Scheme
E. Programs Determined Not To Be Used
1. GOI Programs
a. Advance License Program (ALP)
b. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS)
c. Export Processing Zones (EPZ) and Export Oriented Unit (EOU)
d. Target Plus Scheme (TPS)
e. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Sections 10A, 10B, and 80 HHC)
f. Market Development Assistance (MDA)
g. Status Certificate Program
h. Market Access Initiative
i. Loan Guarantees from the GOI
j. Steel Development Fund (SDF) Loans
k. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes
l. Captive Mining of Iron Ore
m. Captive Mining of Coal
n. Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme (DFIA)
o. Wagon Investment Scheme (WIS)
p. Drawback on goods brought or services provided from the
Domestic Tariff area into a SEZ, or services provided in a SEZ by
service providers located outside India
q. 100 percent exemption from income taxes on export income from
the first 5 years of operation, 50 percent for the next 5 years, and a
further 50 percent exemption on export income reinvested in India for
an additional 5 years
2. State Government of Andhra Pradesh Programs Grants Under the
Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010
a. 25 percent reimbursement of cost of land in industrial estates
and industrial development areas
b. Reimbursement of power at the rate of Rs. 0.75 ``per unit'' for
the period beginning April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006 and for the
four years thereafter to be determined by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh (GOAP)
c. 50 percent subsidy for expenses incurred for quality
certification up to RS. 100 lakhs
d. 25 percent subsidy on ``cleaner production measures'' up to Rs.
5 lakhs
e. 50 percent subsidy on expenses incurred in patent registration,
up
[[Page 20926]]
to Rs. 5 lakhs
f. 100 percent reimbursement of stamp duty and transfer duty paid
for the purchase of land and buildings and the obtaining of financial
deeds and mortgages
g. A grant of 25 percent of the tax paid to GAAP, which is applied
as a credit against the tax owed the following year, for a period of
five years from the date of commencement of production
h. Exemption from the GAAP Non-agricultural Land Assessment (NALA)
i. Provision of ``infrastructure'' for industries located more
than 10 kilometers from existing industrial estates or industrial
development areas
j. Guaranteed ``stable prices of municipal water for 3 years for
industrial use'' and reservation of 10% of water for industrial use for
existing and future projects
3. State Government of Gujarat Programs
a. State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Provided Tax Incentives
(1). Sales Tax Exemptions of Purchases of Goods During the POR
(2). Sales Tax Deferrals on Purchases of Good from Prior Years (As
Well as Deferrals Granted During the POR) which Were Outstanding During
the POR)
(3). Accounting Treatment of Purchases
(4). Value Added Tax (VAT) Program Established on April 1, 2006
b. Captive Port Facilities
Credit for the cost of the capital (including interest) to
construct the port facilities, which is then applied as an offset to
the wharfage charges due Gujarat on cargo shipped through the captive
jetty
4. State Government of Jharkhand Programs
a. Grants and Tax Exemptions under the State Industrial Policy of
2001
b. Subsidies for Mega Projects under the JSIP of 2001
5. State Government of Maharashtra Programs
a. Refunds of Octroi Under the PSI of 1993, Maharashtra Industrial
Policy of 2001, and Maharashtra Industrial Policy of 2006
b. Infrastructure Assistance for Mega Projects
c. Land for Less than Adequate Remuneration
d. Loan Guarantees Based on Octroi Refunds by the SGM.
e. Investment Subsidy
V. Analysis of Comments
Comment 1: Whether the Failure of the Government of India (GOI) and the
Indian State Governments (ISGs) to Respond to the Department's
Questions Warrants Application of Adverse Inferences with Respect to
Subsidy Programs Essar Claims It Did Not Use
Comment 2: Whether Essar Received Benefits Under the Industrial Policy
of the State Government of Chhattisgarh (SGOC)
Comment 3: Whether Essar Received Benefits Under the Industrial Policy
of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh (SGOAP)
Comment 4: Whether Essar Received Benefits Under the Captive Port
Facilities Program of the State Government of Gujarat (SGOG)
Comment 5: Whether Essar Received Benefits Under the GOI's Special
Economic Zone (Act of 2005 (SEZ Act)
Comment 6: Whether the Department Inadvertently Failed to Include
Certain Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) Licenses in the
Benefit Calculation for the Preliminary Results
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Adjust the EPCGS License
Application Fees Reported by Essar
Comment 8: Whether It Was Appropriate to Apply Adverse Inferences With
Regard to Certain of Essar's EPCGS Licenses
Comment 9: Whether the Department Erred In Calculating Benefits
Conferred Under the Pre-Shipment Export Financing Program
Comment 10: Whether the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC)
is a Government Authority Capable of Providing a Financial Contribution
Comment 11: Whether There is a Viable In-Country Benchmark Price For
Use in the Benefit Calculation of the Provision of High-Grade Iron Ore
DR-CLO Lumps (lumps) and Iron Ore Fines (Fines) for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration (LTAR) Calculation, and If So, How It Should Be Calculated
Comment 12: Whether the Department Used Comparable Benchmark Prices For
Use in the Benefit Calculations of the Provision of Lumps and Fines for
LTAR Program
Comment 13: Whether the Department's Inclusion of Freight Costs in the
Fines and Lumps Benchmarks Produced a Distorted Result
Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Make Certain Adjustments to
the Benchmark Used in the Benefit Calculation of the Provision of lumps
and fines and for LTAR Program
VI. Total Net Subsidy Rate
VII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. E9-10496 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
