[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18309-18310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-412-815]


Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the United Kingdom; Final 
Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Cut-to-
length carbon steel plate from the United Kingdom.

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

SUMMARY: On September 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty 
order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the United Kingdom 
(``UK'') (64 FR 47767) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of a notice of intent to 
participate and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of the 
domestic interested parties, as well as inadequate response from 
respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an 
expedited (120-day) sunset review. Based on our analysis of the 
comments received, we find that revocation of the countervailing duty 
order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a 
countervailable subsidy at the levels listed below in the section 
entitled Final Results of Review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1930 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references 
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 
the Department regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999). Guidance on 
methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's 
conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department Policy 
Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 
63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (Sunset Policy Bulletin).

Background

    On September 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the countervailing duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from 
the UK (64 FR 47767), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, (``the Act''). The Department received a notice of 
intent to participate on behalf of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation and 
U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation (``domestic interested 
parties''), within the applicable deadline (September 15, 1999) 
specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. 
Domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status under 
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. producers of a domestic like 
product.
    On September 20, 1999, we received a request for an extension to 
file rebuttal comments from domestic interested parties. \1\ Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department extended the deadline for all 
participants eligible to file rebuttal comments until October 15, 
1999.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See September 20, 1999, Request for an Extension to File 
Rebuttal Comments in the Sunset Reviews of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Steel Products from Belgium, 
France, Germany, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan and the United 
Kingdom: A-583-080, A-423-805, A-427-808, A-428-815, A-428-814, A-
428-816, A-580-815, A-580-816, S-201-809, A-469-803, A-412-814, C-
423-806, C-427-810, C-428-817 (CTL), C-428-817 (CR), C-580-818 
(CORE), C-201-810, C-469-804, C-412-815, from Barbara Ward, Dewey 
Balantine LLP, to Jeffrey A. May, Office of Policy.
    \2\ See September 30, 1999, Letter from Jeffrey A. May, 
Director, Office of Policy to Michael H. Stein, Dewey Ballantine 
LLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 29, 1999, we received a response from the European 
Union Delegation of the European Commission (``EC'') expressing its 
intent to participate in this review as the authority responsible for 
defending the interest of the Member States of the European Union 
(``EU'') (see September 29, 1999, Response of the EU at 2). On 
September 30, 1999, we received a response from the Government of the 
United Kingdom (``GOUK'') expressing its intent to participate in this 
review, as the government of a country in which subject merchandise is 
produced and exported, and a request for an extension of the deadline 
to submit its substantive response to the Department's notice of 
initiation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See September 30, 1999, Letter from Joseph P. Griffin, the 
British Embassy, to Scott Smith, Office of Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 1, 1999, we received a complete substantive response 
from domestic interested parties, within the 30-day deadline specified 
in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). They claim 
that one or more of these domestic interested parties have been 
involved in these proceedings since the original petition was filed and 
have participated in each subsequent segment of the case and any court 
litigation arising from any segment (see October 1, 1999, Substantive 
Response of domestic interested parties at 3). On October 5, 1999, we 
received a response from the GOUK.
    The Department did not receive a substantive response from any 
foreign producer/exporter, or the U.S. importer of the subject 
merchandise as defined under 771(9)(A) of the Act. Thus, pursuant to 
section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) of the Sunset Regulations, the Department 
determined the EC's and GOUK's responses to be inadequate for purposes 
of conducting a full sunset review. Consequently, on October 21, 1999, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218 (e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to 
conduct an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See October 20, 1999, Memorandum for Jeffrey A. May, Re: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden: Adequacy of 
Respondent Interested Party Response to the Notice of Initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). This review concerns a transition order within the meaning of 
section 751(c)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, on December 22, 1999, 
the Department determined that the sunset review of cut-to-length 
carbon steel plate from the UK is extraordinarily complicated and 
extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this 
review until not later than March 29, 2000, in accordance with section 
751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Expedited 
Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 71726 (December 22, 1999).

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

[[Page 18310]]

Scope of Review

    The scope of this order includes hot-rolled carbon steel universal 
mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a 
closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 
1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, 
not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, 
neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, 
varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and 
certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight 
lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor 
coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with 
plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in 
thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at 
least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') under item numbers: 7208.31.0000, 
7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 
7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 
7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 
7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.5000. Included in this order are flat-rolled 
products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is 
achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have 
been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been 
beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order is grade X-70 
plate. In addition, the Department issued a changed circumstances 
review with respect to this order (64 FR 46343, August 25, 1999). 
Changes made to the scope of the subject merchandise in this review 
covered cut-to-length carbon steel products consisting of plate 
products with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 
EM and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project 
specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. Id. These HTS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in substantive responses by parties to this 
sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
(``Decision Memo'') from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, 
Import Administration, to Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, dated March 29, 2000, which is hereby adopted by 
this notice. The issues discussed in the attached Decision Memo include 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidy and the net 
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum 
which is on file in B-099, the Central Records Unit, of the main 
Commerce building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/records/
frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are 
identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order would 
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a subsidy at the 
following net countervailable subsidy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net
                   Producer/exporter                     countervailable
                                                           subsidy (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glynwed Steels Limited.................................           0.73
``All Other'' British Producers/Exporters..............          12.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nature of the Subsidy

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states that, 
consistent with section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the Department will 
provide to the Commission information concerning the nature of the 
subsidy, and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. Although the programs at issue 
do not fall within Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement, some or all of 
them could be found to be inconsistent with Article 6.1. For example, 
the net countervailable subsidy may exceed five percent, as measured in 
accordance with Annex IV of the Subsidies Agreement. The Department, 
however, has no information with which to make such a calculation; nor 
do we believe it appropriate to attempt such a calculation in the 
course of a sunset review. Moreover, we note that, as of January 1, 
2000, Article 6.1 has cease to apply (see Article 31 of the Subsidies 
Agreement). As such, we are providing the Commission with program 
descriptions in our Decision Memo.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the 
Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or 
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 violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 29, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8690 Filed 4-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P