Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative Review, 59689-59690 [2010-24312]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Notices
subsequent 15-day period to December
13, 2010.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading
Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site,
which is accessible via https://
www.trade.gov/ftz. For further
information, contact Christopher Kemp
at Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov or (202)
482–0862.
Dated: September 23, 2010.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–24319 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–821]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From India: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony with Final
Results of Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of
Commerce’s (the Department’s) results
of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s
remand in United States Steel
Corporation, et al. v. United States et al.
and Essar Steel Limited v. United States
et al., Slip Op. 09–152, Remand Order
(December 30, 2009)(Essar). See Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
Court Remand, dated July 15, 2010
(found at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands);
and United States Steel Corporation, et
al. v. United States et al. and Essar Steel
Limited v. United States et al., Slip Op.
10–104 (September 13, 2010) (Essar).
Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Timken Co. v.
United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken), the Department is
notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony
with the Department’s final results of
the administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on certain
hot–rolled carbon steel flat products
(HRCS) from India covering the period
of review (POR) of January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006. See Certain
Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India: Final Results of
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Sep 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 40295 (July 14, 2008)
(Final Results), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (I&D
Memorandum).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202)
482–3338.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 14, 2008, the Department
published its final results in the
countervailing duty administrative
review of HRCS from India covering the
POR of January 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2006. See Final Results. In
the Final Results, the Department did
not include central sales taxes paid on
domestic purchases of iron ore lumps
and for high–grade iron ore fines
because we did not have information on
import duties and other taxes and fees
payable on imports of iron ore to be
included in the calculation of the
benchmark. See I&D Memorandum at
‘‘Sale of High–Grade Iron Ore for Less
Than Adequate Remuneration’’ section
and Comment 4. In Essar, the CIT
determined that the Department’s Final
Results were not supported by
substantial evidence on the record, and
it remanded to the Department the issue
of the deduction of Central Sales Tax
from the government price in order for
the Department to reevaluate the record
evidence supporting this decision.
Moreover, subsequent to the Final
Results, we discovered that the
transportation and delivery charges (i.e.,
all transportation and handling costs,
duties and fees) for iron ore lumps and
fines from Vizag port to Hazira port had
not been included in either the iron ore
lumps or fines calculations. Therefore,
the we asked the court for a voluntary
remand to adjust Essar’s delivered
purchase price for fines from NMDC to
include missing delivery charges. In
Essar, the CIT granted the Department’s
request for a voluntary remand to
correct the freight calculations for
Essar’s purchases of iron ore fines from
the National Mineral Development
Corporation (NMDC). Specifically, the
CIT ordered the Department to adjust
the government price for iron ore lumps
and fines used in the price comparison
to measure the adequacy of
remuneration (1) to correct freight
calculations for Essar’s purchases of
iron ore fines from the NMDC and (2) to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59689
account for slurry pipe transporation
cost to Vizag.
On July 15, 2010, the Department
issued its final results of
redetermination pursuant to Essar. The
remand redetermination explained that,
in accordance with the CIT’s
instructions, the Department has made
redeterminations with respect to the
calculation of the government price for
iron ore lumps and fines as well as
Essar’s purchases of lumps and fines for
the following three issues. First, we
adjusted our iron ore calculations to
measure the adequacy of remuneration
of sales of lumps and fines by the GOI
to Essar to include Central Sales Tax for
Essar’s purchase of iron ore lumps and
high–grade iron ore fines from the
NMDC and to include import duties
payable on iron ore with regard to the
corresponding benchmark prices.
Second, we corrected the government
price for iron ore lumps and fines to
address erroneous freight calculations
for Essar’s purchases of iron ore from
NMDC. Third, for fines purchases from
NMDC made on or after the date the
slurry pipeline became operational, we
have replaced the per metric ton (MT)
rail cost with the per MT slurry
transportation costs. The Department’s
redetermination resulted in changes to
the Final Results for Essar’s net subsidy
rate concerning the sale of iron ore for
less than adequate remuneration
program from 13.21 percent to 19.35
percent. Therefore, the Department’s
redetermination resulted in the total net
countervailable subsidy rate received by
Essar in the Final Results changing from
17.50 percent to 23.64 percent.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, the CAFC held that, pursuant to
section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), the
Department must publish a notice of a
court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’
with a Department determination and
must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.
The CIT’s decision in Essar on
September 13, 2010, constitutes a final
decision of that court that is not in
harmony with the Department’s Final
Results. This notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken. Accordingly,
the Department will continue the
suspension of liquidation of the subject
merchandise pending the expiration of
the period of appeal or, if appealed,
pending a final and conclusive court
decision. In the event the CIT’s ruling is
not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by
the CAFC, the Department will issue an
amended final results consistent with
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
59690
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Notices
these redeterminations and instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assess
countervailing duties on entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR
from Essar based on the revised
assessment rates calculated by the
Department.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 516A(e)(1) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Dated: September 22, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–24312 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 100604243–0430–02]
RIN 0648–XW88
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife;
Notice of 90-Day Finding on a Petition
To List Warsaw Grouper as Threatened
or Endangered Under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA)
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We (NMFS) announce a 90day finding on a petition to list warsaw
grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) as
threatened or endangered under the
ESA. We find that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and
related materials are available upon
request from the Chief, Protected
Resources Division, Southeast Regional
Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South,
St. Petersburg, FL 33701, or online from
the NMFS HQ Web site: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/
warsawgrouper.htm.
SUMMARY:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Barnette, NMFS Southeast
Region, 727–551–5794, or Marta
Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources, 301–713–1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 3, 2010, we received a
petition from the WildEarth Guardians
to list warsaw grouper (Epinephelus
nigritus) as threatened or endangered
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Sep 27, 2010
Jkt 220001
under the ESA. Copies of this petition
are available from us (see ADDRESSES,
above).
ESA Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions and Evaluation Framework
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973,
as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that within 90 days of
receipt of a petition to list a species as
threatened or endangered, the Secretary
of Commerce make a finding on whether
that petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted, and to promptly
publish such finding in the Federal
Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When
it is found that substantial scientific or
commercial information in a petition
indicates the petitioned action may be
warranted (a ‘‘positive 90-day finding’’),
we are required to promptly commence
a review of the status of the species
concerned during which we will
conduct a comprehensive review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information. In such cases, within 1
year of receipt of the petition, we shall
conclude the review with a finding as to
whether, in fact, the petitioned action is
warranted. Because the finding at the
12-month stage is based on a more
thorough review of the available
information, as compared to the narrow
scope of review at the 90-day stage, a
‘‘may be warranted’’ finding does not
prejudge the outcome of the status
review.
Under the ESA, a listing
determination may address a ‘‘species,’’
which is defined to also include
subspecies and, for any vertebrate
species, a distinct population segment
(DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species, subspecies,
or DPS is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and
‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6)
and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C.
1532(6) and (20)). The ESA requires us
to determine whether species are
threatened or endangered because of
any one or a combination of the
following five section 4(a)(1) factors: (1)
The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range; (2) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and (5) any
other natural or manmade factors
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
affecting the species’ existence (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued
jointly by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS; 50 CFR
424.14(b)) define ‘‘substantial
information’’ in the context of reviewing
a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species as the amount of information
that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted. In evaluating
whether substantial information is
contained in a petition, the Secretary
must consider whether the petition: (1)
Clearly indicates the administrative
measure recommended and gives the
scientific and any common name of the
species involved; (2) contains detailed
narrative justification for the
recommended measure, describing,
based on available information, past and
present numbers and distribution of the
species involved and any threats faced
by the species; (3) provides information
regarding the status of the species over
all or a significant portion of its range;
and (4) is accompanied by the
appropriate supporting documentation
in the form of bibliographic references,
reprints of pertinent publications,
copies of reports or letters from
authorities, and maps (50 CFR
424.14(b)(2)).
To make a 90-day finding on a
petition to list a species, we evaluate
whether the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating the subject
species may meet the ESA’s definition
of either an endangered or a threatened
species, and that such status may be the
result of one or a combination of the
factors listed under section 4(a)(1) of the
ESA. Thus, we first evaluate whether
the information presented in the
petition, along with the information
readily available in our files, indicates
that the species at issue faces extinction
risk that is cause for concern. Risk
classifications of the petitioned species
by other organizations or made under
other statutes may be informative, but
may not provide rationale for a positive
90-day finding; many times these
classifications are generalized for a
group of species, or only describe traits
of species that could increase their
vulnerability to extinction if they were
being adversely impacted. We evaluate
any information on specific
demographic factors pertinent to
evaluating extinction risk for the species
at issue (e.g., population abundance and
trends, productivity, spatial structure,
age structure, sex ratio, diversity,
current and historical range, habitat
integrity), and the potential contribution
of identified demographic risks to
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59689-59690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24312]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-821]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results of Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2010, the United States Court of
International Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the
Department's) results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT's remand
in United States Steel Corporation, et al. v. United States et al. and
Essar Steel Limited v. United States et al., Slip Op. 09-152, Remand
Order (December 30, 2009)(Essar). See Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand, dated July 15, 2010 (found at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands); and United States Steel Corporation, et al. v.
United States et al. and Essar Steel Limited v. United States et al.,
Slip Op. 10-104 (September 13, 2010) (Essar). Consistent with the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(Timken), the Department is notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final
results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order
on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (HRCS) from India
covering the period of review (POR) of January 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2006. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,
73 FR 40295 (July 14, 2008) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum (I&D Memorandum).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-3338.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 14, 2008, the Department published its final results in the
countervailing duty administrative review of HRCS from India covering
the POR of January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. See Final
Results. In the Final Results, the Department did not include central
sales taxes paid on domestic purchases of iron ore lumps and for high-
grade iron ore fines because we did not have information on import
duties and other taxes and fees payable on imports of iron ore to be
included in the calculation of the benchmark. See I&D Memorandum at
``Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate Remuneration''
section and Comment 4. In Essar, the CIT determined that the
Department's Final Results were not supported by substantial evidence
on the record, and it remanded to the Department the issue of the
deduction of Central Sales Tax from the government price in order for
the Department to reevaluate the record evidence supporting this
decision.
Moreover, subsequent to the Final Results, we discovered that the
transportation and delivery charges (i.e., all transportation and
handling costs, duties and fees) for iron ore lumps and fines from
Vizag port to Hazira port had not been included in either the iron ore
lumps or fines calculations. Therefore, the we asked the court for a
voluntary remand to adjust Essar's delivered purchase price for fines
from NMDC to include missing delivery charges. In Essar, the CIT
granted the Department's request for a voluntary remand to correct the
freight calculations for Essar's purchases of iron ore fines from the
National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC). Specifically, the CIT
ordered the Department to adjust the government price for iron ore
lumps and fines used in the price comparison to measure the adequacy of
remuneration (1) to correct freight calculations for Essar's purchases
of iron ore fines from the NMDC and (2) to account for slurry pipe
transporation cost to Vizag.
On July 15, 2010, the Department issued its final results of
redetermination pursuant to Essar. The remand redetermination explained
that, in accordance with the CIT's instructions, the Department has
made redeterminations with respect to the calculation of the government
price for iron ore lumps and fines as well as Essar's purchases of
lumps and fines for the following three issues. First, we adjusted our
iron ore calculations to measure the adequacy of remuneration of sales
of lumps and fines by the GOI to Essar to include Central Sales Tax for
Essar's purchase of iron ore lumps and high-grade iron ore fines from
the NMDC and to include import duties payable on iron ore with regard
to the corresponding benchmark prices. Second, we corrected the
government price for iron ore lumps and fines to address erroneous
freight calculations for Essar's purchases of iron ore from NMDC.
Third, for fines purchases from NMDC made on or after the date the
slurry pipeline became operational, we have replaced the per metric ton
(MT) rail cost with the per MT slurry transportation costs. The
Department's redetermination resulted in changes to the Final Results
for Essar's net subsidy rate concerning the sale of iron ore for less
than adequate remuneration program from 13.21 percent to 19.35 percent.
Therefore, the Department's redetermination resulted in the total net
countervailable subsidy rate received by Essar in the Final Results
changing from 17.50 percent to 23.64 percent.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, the CAFC held that,
pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is
not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The
CIT's decision in Essar on September 13, 2010, constitutes a final
decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's
Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will
continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise
pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending
a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the CIT's ruling is
not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will
issue an amended final results consistent with
[[Page 59690]]
these redeterminations and instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
to assess countervailing duties on entries of the subject merchandise
during the POR from Essar based on the revised assessment rates
calculated by the Department.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section
516A(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Dated: September 22, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-24312 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
