[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43137-43139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-804; C-122-805]


New Steel Rail, Except Light Rail, From Canada; Notice of 
Termination of Changed Circumstances Administrative Reviews and 
Clarification of Scope Language

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Termination of Changed Circumstances Administrative 
Reviews and Clarification of Scope Language.

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

SUMMARY: On September 15, 1989, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published an antidumping duty order on new steel rail, 
except light rail, from Canada. The Department published a 
countervailing duty order on new steel rail, except light rail, from 
Canada on September 22, 1989. On June 11, 1996, the Department 
simultaneously initiated antidumping and countervailing duty changed 
circumstances administrative reviews of these orders and issued the 
preliminary results of these reviews with intent to revoke the orders 
in part. The Department is now terminating these reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Tom Futtner, Office of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Office 4, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

[[Page 43138]]

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-4114 and (202) 482-3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are as codified at 19 CFR 
Part 353 (1996).

Background

    On August 3, 1989, the Department published the final 
determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations (54 FR 31984) of new steel rail, except light rail, from 
Canada. Subject merchandise was described as rail weighing 60 pounds 
per yard or more. The Department published the antidumping duty order 
on new steel rail on September 15, 1989, (54 FR 38263). Following the 
publication of the antidumping duty order, the Department published the 
countervailing duty order and an amendment to the final affirmative 
countervailing duty determination on new steel rail, except light rail, 
from Canada on September 22, 1989, (54 FR 39032).
    On February 1, 1996, Gerdau MRM Steel, Inc. (Gerdau), a Canadian 
exporter of new steel rail, requested that the Department conduct 
changed circumstances administrative reviews to determine whether to 
partially revoke the antidumping and countervailing duty orders with 
regard to nominal 60 ASCE/ASTM A1-92 new steel rail. The application of 
these orders to imports of new steel rail other than 60 ASCE/ASTM A1-92 
is not affected by these requests.
    On March 29, 1996, petitioner, Bethlehem Steel Corp. (Bethlehem), 
advised the Department that it has no interest in maintaining the 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders on 60 ASCE/ASTM A1-92 new 
steel rail. In addition, Gerdau informed the Department that it had 
canvassed interested parties known to it to be actively involved in the 
production of 60 ASCE/ASTM A1-92 steel rail in the United States, and 
had not found any opposition to the revocation of the orders with 
regard to this steel rail size.
    The industry survey and affirmative statement of no interest by 
petitioner in the antidumping and countervailing duty cases constituted 
changed circumstances sufficient to warrant the initiation of the 
changed circumstances reviews pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act. On 
June 11, 1996, the Department simultaneously initiated the antidumping 
and countervailing duty changed circumstances administrative reviews 
and issued the preliminary results of these reviews with intent to 
revoke the orders in part. In these results, we invited interested 
parties to comment on the proposed partial revocations of the 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders with respect to nominal 60 
ASCE/ASTM A1-92 new steel rail from Canada.
    On June 18, 1996, Steel of West Virginia, Inc., (SWV), a domestic 
producer of steel rail, objected to the Department's intent to revoke 
the antidumping and countervailing duty orders with respect to the 
nominal 60 ASCE/ASTM steel rail size, noting that it had not been 
canvassed by respondent. Gerdau submitted a rebuttal brief on July 2, 
1996, urging the Department to reject SWV's objection. Gerdau argued 
that SWV did not produce 60 ASCE/ASTM A1-92 steel rail, and if it did, 
was an insignificant producer. On August 14, 1996, we sent a 
questionnaire to SWV asking the company to clarify the products it 
produced. On August 18, 1996, SWV responded with information indicating 
that it had the production capability and was producing nominal 60 
ASCE/ASTM A1-92 steel rail.
    Subsequent to the publication of the preliminary changed 
circumstances results, the Department determined that the scope 
language in the antidumping and countervailing duty orders required 
clarification with regard to new steel rail weighing 60 pounds per 
yard. Specifically, the product description in the original antidumping 
and countervailing duty petitions, the Federal Register notices 
initiating these two investigations, the preliminary determinations of 
the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission (ITC), 
and the questionnaires used by both the Commerce Department and the ITC 
all refer to new steel rail as product weighing more than 60 pounds per 
yard (emphasis added). In addition, the petition and the ITC reports 
identify the only remaining producers of subject rail as Bethlehem and 
CF&I Steel, Inc. (CF&I Steel), the petitioners in this case. 
Furthermore, the petitioners referred to West Virginia Steel 
Corporation and the ITC report referred to SWV as producers of ``light 
rail,'' or rail that weighs 60 pounds or less per yard. However, in the 
final Commerce Department determinations, the Department introduced 
metric quantities of the covered rail characterizing the subject 
merchandise as ``at least 30 kilograms per meter or 60 pounds per 
yard'' (emphasis added).
    In light of the above, we sent letters to interested parties on 
March 6, 1997, inviting comments on this language change. In addition, 
we notified parties that the Department had decided to extend the 
deadline for the final results of the changed circumstances reviews to 
consider any comments made by the parties on this potential issue.
    On March 20, 1997, Gerdau submitted comments which repeated its 
justification for partial revocations of the orders with respect to 60 
ASCE/ASTM A1-92 new steel rail. On March 27, 1997, Bethlehem submitted 
rebuttal comments arguing that the Department could not partially 
revoke the orders with respect to 60 pounds per yard steel rail 
because, based upon the evidence on the record, these rails were never 
intended to be covered by the orders. In addition, Bethlehem urged the 
Department to issue a scope determination that excluded nominal 60 
pounds per yard steel rail from the scope of the orders. SWV did not 
comment.
    Based upon a review of documents on the record of this proceeding 
and the industry analysis contained in the ITC's reports, the 
Department preliminarily concluded that the scope language of these 
orders should be clarified to define the excluded light steel rail as 
rail weighing 60 pounds per yard. (30 kilograms per meter) or less. We 
issued a preliminary clarification of scope language, giving interested 
parties an opportunity to submit both comments and rebuttal comments. 
See, Memorandum from Richard W. Moreland, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Import Administration, Group II, to Robert S. LaRussa, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration; Preliminary 
Clarification of Scope Language; November 7, 1997. We received one 
comment from Gerdau and addressed it in the final clarification of 
scope language on May 7, 1998. Also, in the same clarification, we 
issued revised scope language applicable to both the antidumping and 
countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders. See, Memorandum from Maria Harris 
Tildon, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Group 
II, to Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration; Final Clarification of Scope Language. The revised 
scope language is contained in the ``Scope of Review'' section of this 
notice below.
    While the scope language was clarified regarding 60 pounds per yard

[[Page 43139]]

rail, it did not address rail sold according to nominal terms. 
Consequently, following clarification of the scope language and in 
accordance with 353.29(a) and (i)(1)(1996) of the Department's 
regulations, we conducted a scope inquiry to determine whether nominal 
60 pounds per yard new steel rail was within the scope of these orders 
(emphasis added). Upon issuing a preliminary scope determination and 
not receiving comments from interested parties, on June 19, 1998, the 
Department issued a final scope determination finding nominal 60 pounds 
per yard steel rail outside of the scope of these orders. See, New 
Steel Rail, Except Light Rail from Canada; Final Scope Determination on 
Steel Rail Model 60 ASCE/ASTM A1-92.

Scope of Review

    The product covered by the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders is new steel rail, whether of carbon, high carbon, alloy or 
other quality steel, and includes, but is not limited to, standard 
rails, all main line sections (of more than 30 kg. per meter or 60 
pounds per yard), heat-treated or head-hardened (premium) rails, 
transit rails, contact rail (or ``third rail'') and crane rails. Rails 
are used by the railroad industry, by rapid transit lines, by subways, 
in mines and in industrial applications. Specifically excluded from the 
antidumping and countervailing duty orders are light rail (rails which 
are 30 kg. per meter or 60 pounds per yard or less). Also excluded are 
relay rails which are used rails taken up from primary railroad track 
and relaid in a railroad yard or on a secondary track. The product 
covered by these antidumping and countervailing duty orders is 
currently provided for under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) subheadings: 7302.10.1020, 7302.10.40, 7302.10.5000 and 
8548.00.0000. Prior to January 1, 1989, such merchandise was 
classifiable under items 610.2010, 610.2025, 610.2100 and 688.4280 of 
the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA). The HTS 
and TSUSA numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. 
The written description of the scope of these orders remains 
dispositive.

Termination of Changed Circumstances Reviews

    Because nominal 60 pounds per yard steel rail is not within the 
scope of these orders, there are no grounds upon which to conduct 
changed circumstances reviews with respect to this size rail. 
Accordingly, the Department is now terminating these antidumping and 
countervailing duty changed circumstances reviews.
    The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to 
continue to suspend entries of subject merchandise at the appropriate 
cash deposit rate for all entries of new steel rail from Canada, except 
light rail.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protection orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d) and 355.34(d). Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This notice of termination of changed circumstances reviews is in 
accordance with sections 751(b) and (d) and 782(h) of the Act and 
sections 353.22(f), 353.25(d), 355.22(h), and 355.25(d) of the 
Department's regulations.

    Dated: August 3, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-21635 Filed 8-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P