[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18304-18305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-401-401]


Certain Carbon Steel Products From Sweden; 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: Certain 
carbon steel products from Sweden.

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

SUMMARY: On September 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty 
order on certain carbon steel products from Sweden (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 the 
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 carbon steel products from Sweden (64 
FR 47767), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department 
received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Bethlehem Steel 
Corporation, Inland Ispat Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National 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 24, 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 24, 1999, Request for an Extension to File 
Rebuttal Comments in the Sunset Reviews of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders: A-602-803; A-351-817; C-351-818, A-122-
822, A-122-823, A-405-802, A-588-826, A-421-804, A-455-802, A-485-
803, C-401-401, C-401-804, C-401-805, from Valerie S. Schindler, 
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, to Jeffrey A. May, Office 
of Policy.
    \2\ See September 30, 1999, Letter from Jeffrey A. May, 
Director, Office of Policy to Valerie S. Schindler, Skadden, Arps, 
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). Domestic 
interested parties claim that United States Steel Corporation 
(``USSC'') now USX, was the petitioner in the original investigation, 
and one or more of the domestic interested parties participated in all 
subsequent administrative reviews (see October 1, 1999, Substantive 
Response of domestic interested parties at 5).
    On September 29, 1999, and 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 (see 
September 29, 1999, Substantive Response of the EU at 3). On September 
30, 1999, we received a response from the Government of

[[Page 18305]]

Sweden (``GOS'') expressing its intent to participate in this review, 
as the government of a country in which subject merchandise is produced 
and exported. The GOS notes that it has in the past participated in 
this proceeding (see September 30, 1999, Substantive Response of GOS at 
2).
    The Department did not receive a substantive response from any 
foreign producer/exporter of the subject merchandise as defined under 
section 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 GOS's substantive responses to be inadequate 
for purposes of conducting a full review. Consequently, on October 21, 
1999, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218 (e)(1)(ii)(A), the Department 
determined to conduct an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this 
order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See October 20, 1999, Memorandum for Jeffrey A. May, Re: 
Certain Carbon Steel Products from Sweden: Adequacy of Respondent 
Interested Party Response to the Notice of Initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department did not receive rebuttal comments from any 
interested parties.
    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)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, on December 22, 1999, the 
Department determined that the sunset review of cold-rolled carbon 
steel products from Sweden 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Expedited 
Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 71726 (December 22, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Review

    The scope of this order covers carbon steel products from Sweden. 
These products include cold-rolled carbon steel, flat-rolled products, 
whether or not corrugated, or crimped; whether or not pickled, not cut, 
not pressed and not stamped to non-rectangular shape; not coated or 
plated with metal and not clad; over 12 inches in width and of any 
thickness; whether or not in coils. Such merchandise is classifiable 
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') item numbers: 
7209.11.0000, 7209.12.0000, 7209.13.0000, 7209.21.0000, 7209.22.0000, 
7209.23.0000, 7209.24.5000, 7209.31.0000, 7209.32.0000, 7209.33.0000, 
7209.34.0000, 7209.41.0000, 7209.43.0000, 7209.44.0000, 7209.90.0000, 
7211.30.5000, 7211.41.7000, and 7211.49.5000. The written description 
remains dispostive.

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, the net 
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail were the order revoked, and 
the nature of the subsidy. 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

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rate listed below for 
all Swedish producers/exporters, except for Surahammars Bruk AB, which 
was excluded from the order:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net
                                                         countervailable
                   Producer/exporter                         subsidy
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Producers/Exporters from Sweden....................           8.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Because some programs not 
falling within the definition of an export subsidy under Article 3.1(a) 
of the Subsidies Agreement, could be found to be inconsistent with 
Article 6 if the net countervailable subsidy exceeds five percent (as 
measured in accordance with Annex IV of the Subsidies Agreement), we 
are providing the Commission with program descriptions in our Decision 
Memo.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that as of January 1, 2000, Article 6.1 has ceased 
to apply (see Article 31 of the Subsidies Agreement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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 section 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 29, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8692 Filed 4-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P