64700 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 

and draft recommendations from one or 

more of its subcommittees. NTIA will 

post a detailed agenda on its Web site, 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov, prior to the 

meeting. There also will be an 

opportunity for public comment at the 

meeting. 

Time and Date: The meeting will be 

held on November 8, 2010, from 10 a.m. 

to 1 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The 

times and the agenda topics are subject 

to change. The meeting may be webcast 

or made available via audio link. Please 

refer to NTIA’s Web site, http://www.

ntia.doc.gov, for the most up-to-date 

meeting agenda and access information. 

Place: The meeting will be held at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, 1401 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room 4830, Washington, 

DC. The meeting will be open to the 

public and press on a first-come, firstserved basis. Space is limited. The 

public meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Individuals 

requiring accommodations, such as sign 

language interpretation or other 

ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. 

Gattuso, at (202) 482–0977 or 

jgattuso@ntia.doc.gov, at least five (5) 

business days before the meeting. 

Status: Interested parties are invited 

to attend and to submit written 

comments to the Committee at any time 

before or after the meeting. Parties 

wishing to submit written comments for 

consideration by the Committee in 

advance of this meeting should send 

them to NTIA’s Washington, DC office 

at the above-listed address and such 

comments must be received by close of 

business on November 3, 2010, to 

provide sufficient time for review. 

Comments received after November 3, 

2010, will be distributed to the 

Committee, but may not be reviewed 

prior to the meeting. It would be helpful 

if paper submissions also include a 

compact disc (CD) in HTML, ASCII, 

Word or WordPerfect format (please 

specify version). CDs should be labeled 

with the name and organizational 

affiliation of the filer, and the name of 

the word processing program used to 

create the document. Alternatively, 

comments may be submitted 

electronically to 

spectrumadvisory@ntia.doc.gov. 

Comments provided via electronic mail 

also may be submitted in one or more 

of the formats specified above. 

Records: NTIA maintains records of 

all Committee proceedings. Committee 

records are available for public 

inspection at NTIA’s Washington, DC 

office at the address above. Documents 

including the Committee’s charter, 

membership list, agendas, minutes, and 

any reports are available on NTIA’s 

Committee Web page at http://www.

ntia.doc.gov/advisory/spectrum. 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Kathy D. Smith, 

Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26382 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Transportation and Related Equipment 

Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 

of Partially Closed Meeting 

The Transportation and Related 

Equipment Technical Advisory 

Committee will meet on November 4, 

2010, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. 

Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th 

Street between Constitution & 

Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., 

Washington, DC. The Committee 

advises the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Export Administration 

with respect to technical questions that 

affect the level of export controls 

applicable to transportation and related 

equipment or technology. 

Public Session 

1. Welcome and Introductions. 

2. Review Status of Working Groups. 

3. Proposals from the Public. 

Closed Session 

4. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions relating 

to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 

app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at 

Yspringer@bis.doc.gov no later than 

October 26, 2010. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available during the public session of 

the meeting. Reservations are not 

accepted. To the extent time permits, 

members of the public may present oral 

statements to the Committee. The public 

may submit written statements at any 

time before or after the meeting. 

However, to facilitate distribution of 

public presentation materials to 

Committee members, the Committee 

suggests that presenters forward the 

public presentation materials prior to 

the meeting to Ms. Springer via email. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on October 15, 

2010, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ (10)(d)), 

that the portion of the meeting dealing 

with matters the disclosure of portion of 

the meeting dealing with matters the 

disclosure of which would be likely to 

frustrate significantly implementation of 

an agency action as described in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt 

from the provisions relating to public 

meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 

§§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining 

portions of the meeting will be open to 

the public. 

For more information, call Yvette 

Springer at (202) 482–2813. 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26408 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–351–829] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled CarbonQuality Steel Products From Brazil: 

Preliminary Results of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbonquality steel products (HRS) from Brazil 

for the period January 1, 2008 through 

December 31, 2008. For information on 

the net subsidy for the company 

reviewed, see the ‘‘Preliminary Results 

of Administrative Review’’ section of 

this notice. Interested parties are invited 

to comment on the preliminary results 

of this administrative review. See the 

‘‘Disclosure and Public Comment’’ 

section of this notice, below. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Myrna Lobo, Justin Neuman or Milton 

Koch, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2371, 

(202) 482–0486 and (202) 482–2584, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 64701 

Background 

On September 17, 2004, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the CVD order on HRS from 

Brazil. See Agreement Suspending the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation on 

Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 

Steel From Brazil; Termination of 

Suspension Agreement and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Order, 69 FR 56040 

(September 17, 2004) (HRS Order). The 

order was issued five years after the 

completion of the countervailing duty 

investigation, and after the termination 

of the agreement that suspended the 

investigation. See Suspension of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation: 

Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled CarbonQuality Steel Products from Brazil, 64 

FR 38797 (July 19, 1999); see also Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products 

from Brazil, 64 FR 38742 (July 19, 1999) 

(HRS Final Determination). 

On September 1, 2009, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 45179 (September 1, 2009). On 

September 30, 2009, the Department 

received a timely request from Usinas 

Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais 

(USIMINAS) and its subsidiary, 

Companhia Siderurgica Paulista 

(COSIPA), to conduct an administrative 

review of the countervailing duty order 

applicable to its exports to the United 

States for the period of January 1 

through December 31, 2008. USIMINAS 

and COSIPA (collectively, USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA) are related companies that 

produce and export subject 

merchandise. On October 26, 2009, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review of the CVD order on HRS from 

Brazil covering USIMINAS/COSIPA for 

the period January 1, 2008 through 

December 1, 2008. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 74 FR 54956 

(October 26, 2009). 

The Department issued questionnaires 

to the Government of Brazil (GOB) and 

USIMINAS/COSIPA on December 10, 

2009. USIMINAS/COSIPA submitted 

their joint questionnaire response on 

February 1, 2010. On February 4, 2010, 

the GOB submitted its questionnaire 

response. Subsequently, at the 

Department’s request, USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA submitted a revised copy of 

their original questionnaire response 

removing unrelated materials 

inadvertently included in the original 

response. 

On February 3, 2010, United States 

Steel Corporation (petitioner) submitted 

a timely request for the Department to 

conduct on-site verifications of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

USIMINAS/COSIPA and the GOB. On 

March 5, 2010, in response to a request 

from the petitioner, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

submission of new factual information 

to April 1, 2010. On April 1, 2010, 

petitioner submitted factual information 

for consideration in this administrative 

review. On June 7, 2010, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results of the countervailing 

duty administrative review until 

October 7, 2010. See Certain Hot-Rolled 

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products from Brazil: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 32160 (June 7, 2010). 

Included in this extension was the 

Department’s decision to toll all 

deadlines related to this proceeding by 

seven days due to the closure of the 

Federal Government from February 5 

through February 12, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm’’ (February 12, 2010). 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to the GOB and 

USIMINAS/COSIPA on June 25, 2010. 

On July 26 and 27, respectively, the 

GOB and USIMINAS/COSIPA submitted 

their supplemental responses. The 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to the GOB and 

USIMINAS/COSIPA on September 14, 

2010. On September 24 and 27, 

respectively, the GOB and USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA submitted their supplemental 

responses. On September 28, 

USIMINAS/COSIPA submitted 

additional supplemental information 

requested by the Department. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this review, the 

products covered are certain hot-rolled 

flat-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 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, of 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 these investigations. 

Specifically included in this scope 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 and/or niobium added to 

stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. 

HSLA steels are recognized as steels 

with micro-alloying levels of elements 

such as chromium, copper, niobium, 

titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. 

The substrate for motor lamination 

steels contains micro-alloying levels of 

elements such as silicon and aluminum. 

Steel products to be included in the 

scope of this investigation, regardless of 

HTSUS definitions, are products in 

which: (1) Iron predominates, by 

weight, over each of the other contained 

elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 

percent or less, by weight; and (3) none 

of the elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity, by weight, respectively 

indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

1.50 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 0.012 percent of 

boron, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, 

or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 

percent of titanium, 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 and/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, and A506). 

• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and 

higher. 

• Ball bearing steels, as defined in the 

HTSUS. 

• Tool steels, as defined in the 

HTSUS. 

• Silico-manganese (as defined in the 

HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with 

a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
64702 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 

• ASTM specifications A710 and 

A736. 

• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS 

AR 400, USS AR 500). 

• Hot-rolled steel coil which meets 

the following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

[In percent] 

C Mn 

(max) 

P 

(max) 

S 

(max) Si Cr Cu Ni (max) 

0.10–0.14 0.90 0.025 0.005 0.30–0.50 0.30–0.50 0.20–0.40 0.20 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; 

Thickness = 0.063–0.198 inches; 

Yield 

Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile 

Strength = 70,000–88,000 psi. 

• Hot-rolled steel coil which meets 

the following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

[In percent] 

C Mn P 

(max) 

S 

(max) Si Cr Cu (max) 

Ni 

(max) Mo 

0.10–0.16 0.70–0.90 0.025 0.006 0.30–0.50 0.30–0.50 0.25 0.20 0.21 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; 

Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; 

Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; 

Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. 

• Hot-rolled steel coil which meets 

the following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

[In percent] 

C Mn P 

(max) 

S 

(max) Si Cr Cu Ni (max) 

V (wt.) 

(max) 

Cb 

(max) 

0.10–0.14 1.30–1.80 0.025 0.005 0.30–0.50 0.50–0.70 0.20–0.40 0.20 0.10 0.08 

Width = 44.80 inches maximum; 

Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; 

Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; 

Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. 

• Hot-rolled steel coil which meets 

the following chemical, physical and 

mechanical specifications: 

[In percent] 

C 

(max) 

Mn 

(max) 

P 

(max) 

S 

(max) 

Si 

(max) 

Cr 

(max) 

Cu 

(max) 

Ni 

(max) 

Nb 

(min) Ca Al 

0.15 1.40 0.025 0.010 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.005 Treated 0.01–0.07 

Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 

0.181 inches maximum; Yield 

Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for 

thicknesses ≤ 0.148 inches and 65,000 

psi minimum for thicknesses > 0.148 

inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi 

minimum. 

• Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phasehardened, primarily with a ferriticmartensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 

percent up to and including 1.5 percent 

silicon by weight, further characterized 

by either (i) tensile strength between 

540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an 

elongation percentage ≥ 26 percent for 

thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii) 

a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2 

and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation 

percentage ≥ 25 percent for thicknesses 

of 2 mm and above. 

• Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, 

SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an 

inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per 

ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent 

surface quality and chemistry 

restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent 

maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent 

maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent 

maximum residuals including 0.15 

percent maximum chromium. 

• Grade ASTM A570–50 hot-rolled 

steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width 

of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM 

tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 

inch nominal), mill edge and skin 

passed, with a minimum copper content 

of 0.20%. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

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, 7208.40.60.60, 

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 

7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 

7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 

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, 

7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 

7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 64703 

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. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

covered by this order is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

review (POR), is January 1, 2008 

through December 31, 2008. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

Cross-Ownership 

The Department’s regulations state 

that cross-ownership exists between two 

or more corporations where one 

corporation can use or direct the 

individual assets of the other 

corporation(s) in essentially the same 

ways it can use its own assets. See 19 

CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). The regulation 

specifies that this standard will 

normally be met where there is a 

majority voting ownership interest 

between two corporations or through 

common ownership of two (or more) 

corporations. Id. The preamble to the 

Department’s regulations further 

clarifies the Department’s crossownership standard. See Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65347, 65401 

(November 25, 1998) (CVD Preamble). 

According to the CVD Preamble, 

relationships captured by the crossownership definition include those 

where the interests of two corporations 

have merged to such a degree that one 

corporation can use or direct the 

individual assets (including subsidy 

benefits) of the other corporation in 

essentially the same way it can use its 

own assets (including subsidy benefits). 

Id. The cross-ownership standard does 

not require one corporation to own 100 

percent of the other corporation. In 

certain circumstances, a large minority 

voting interest (for example, 40 percent) 

or a ‘‘golden share’’ may also result in 

cross-ownership. Id. at 65401. 

As such, the Department’s regulations 

make it clear that we must examine the 

facts presented in each case in order to 

determine whether cross-ownership 

exists. If we find that cross-ownership 

exists and if one or more of the 

relationships identified in 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6) exists, we treat all crossowned companies, to which at least one 

of those relationships applies, as one 

company, and calculate a single rate for 

any countervailable subsidies that we 

identify and measure, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6). 

Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(iv), if the Department 

determines that the suppliers of inputs 

primarily dedicated to the production of 

the downstream product are crossowned with the producers/exporters 

under investigation, then the 

Department will treat subsidies 

provided to the input producers as 

subsidies attributable to the production 

of the downstream product. 

In the original HRS investigation in 

1999, the Department determined that 

USIMINAS and COSIPA should be 

treated as a single company because of 

USIMINAS’ 49.79 percent ownership 

stake in COSIPA and the fact that both 

companies produced subject 

merchandise. See HRS Final 

Determination at 38744. This finding on 

the relationship between USIMINAS 

and COSIPA was reaffirmed in the 

Department’s countervailing duty 

investigation in 2002 of certain coldrolled carbon steel flat products (CRS) 

from Brazil, in which both USIMINAS 

and COSIPA were respondents. See 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From Brazil, 

67 FR 62128 (October 3, 2002) (CRS 

Final Determination) and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (CRS I&D Memorandum) 

at 4–5. Since the CRS investigation, 

COSIPA has become a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of USIMINAS, and remained 

so throughout the current POR. COSIPA 

produced the same steel products as its 

parent company; USIMINAS produced 

audited consolidated financial 

statements for 2008 that included 

COSIPA’s financial information; and 

COSIPA’s own audited financial 

statement for 2008 indicates that the 

majority of its Board of Directors also 

hold positions on USIMINAS’ Executive 

Board. Based on this information, the 

Department has determined that 

USIMINAS and COSIPA were crossowned during the POR in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). Further, 

since they both produce and export 

subject merchandise, we are treating 

them as a single entity, USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA. 

USIMINAS/COSIPA reported 

affiliations during the POR with three 

warehousing/processing/distributing 

companies involved in the production 

and sale of HRS, Fasal, S.A. (Fasal), 

Dufer, S.A. (Dufer), and Rio Negro 

Comercio e Industrial (Rio Negro), and 

two of its suppliers of iron ore 

consumed in the production of HRS, 

Minerac ̧a ̃o J. Mendes Ltda. (J. Mendes) 

and Companhia do Vale do Rio Doce 

(Vale). To the extent that the subsidies 

we are investigating are conferred on 

these companies, we must examine 

whether cross-ownership exists among 

and across producers, the inventory/ 

processing/distributor companies, and 

the iron ore producers/suppliers. 

USIMINAS/COSIPA submitted 

information indicating that at the 

beginning of 2008, COSIPA owned 51 

percent of Dufer. In October 2008, 

COSIPA purchased the remaining shares 

of Dufer, making the company a whollyowned subsidiary of COSIPA. 

USIMINAS/COSIPA also reported in its 

July 27, 2010 supplemental 

questionnaire response that ‘‘some 

members of Usiminas’ (Cospa’s) {sic} 

top management also sat on Dufer’s 

board of directors.’’ USIMINAS/COSIPA 

indicates that it was the sole supplier of 

all the steel products that Dufer sells or 

further processes. Based on this 

information, we preliminarily determine 

that Dufer and USIMINAS/COSIPA 

were cross-owned during the POR in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(vi). 

During the POR, USIMINAS owned 

65.69 percent of Rio Negro’s shares. 

Respondents also indicate in their July 

27, 2010 response that ‘‘(s)ome members 

of Usiminas’ top management also sit on 

Rio Negro’s board of directors.’’ 

USIMINAS/COSIPA indicates that it 

was the sole supplier of all steel that Rio 

Negro sells or processes. Based on this 

information, we preliminarily determine 

that Rio Negro and USIMINAS/COSIPA 

were cross-owned during the POR in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(vi). 

On February 1, 2008, USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA acquired all the shares of J. 

Mendes and its wholly-owned 

subsidiaries, Somisa Siderurgica Oeste 

de Minas Ltda. (Somisa) and Global 

Minerac ̧a ̃o Ltda. On July 1, 2008, the 

stockholders of USIMINAS/COSIPA 

approved the merger of J. Mendes and 

its two wholly-owned subsidiaries into 

USIMINAS; those companies were then 

extinguished. Based on information on 

the record, we preliminarily determine 

that J. Mendes was cross-owned with 

USIMINAS/COSIPA, from February 1, 

2008 through July 1, 2008, the date on 

which it was extinguished and absorbed 

by USIMINAS/COSIPA, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). Because 

USIMINAS/COSIPA also absorbed the 

subsidiaries Somisa and Global 

Minerac ̧a ̃o Ltda. when it merged with J. 

Mendes, and because Somisa had 

outstanding loans under the FINAME 

program under review (see ‘‘Analysis of 

Programs’’ section, below), any 

countervailable benefit that Somisa 

received from these loans during the 

POR will be attributed to USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
64704 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 

1A comparable commercial loan is a loan in the 

same currency, with a similar maturity, and interest 

rate structure (i.e., fixed vs. variable interest rate). 

See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 

65362. 

The Department also finds that Fasal 

is cross-owned with USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA, and that Vale is not crossowned with the companies under 

review. Since much of the analysis 

supporting our findings on crossownership regarding Fasal and Vale 

involves business proprietary 

information, this analysis is fully set 

forth in the Memorandum to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, from Justin M. Neuman, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst; Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

from Brazil, dated concurrently with 

this notice (Cross-Ownership 

Memorandum), a public version of 

which is on file in the Department’s 

Central Records Unit (CRU) in Room 

7046 of the main Department building. 

Based on information on the record, 

for purposes of these preliminarily 

results, we determine that crossownership exists, as defined by 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6), among and across the 

following companies involved in the 

production and sale of the subject 

merchandise: respondent HRS 

producers/exporters, USIMINAS and 

COSIPA; the inventory/processing/ 

distribution companies involved in the 

production and distribution of HRS, 

Fasal, Dufer, and Rio Negro; and the 

iron-ore supply company, J. Mendes. 

Allocation Period 

Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(i), we 

will presume the allocation period for 

non-recurring subsidies to be the 

average useful life (AUL) prescribed by 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for 

renewable physical assets of the 

industry under consideration (as listed 

in the IRS’s 1977 Class Life Asset 

Depreciation Range System, and as 

updated by the Department of the 

Treasury). This presumption will apply 

unless a party claims and establishes 

that these tables do not reasonably 

reflect the AUL of the renewable 

physical assets of the company or 

industry under investigation. 

Specifically, the party must establish 

that the difference between the AUL 

from the tables and the companyspecific AUL or country-wide AUL for 

the industry under investigation is 

significant, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.524(d)(2)(i) and (ii). For assets used 

to manufacture steel products such as 

HRS, the IRS tables prescribe an AUL of 

15 years. 

USIMINAS/COSIPA did not rebut the 

presumption that the IRS tables should 

be used. Therefore, we are using the 15- 

year AUL as reported in the IRS tables 

to allocate any non-recurring subsidies 

under investigation which were 

provided directly to the producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise. 

Benchmark Rate Information 

For programs requiring the 

application of a benchmark interest rate, 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(1) states a preference 

for using an interest rate that the 

company would have paid on a 

comparable commercial loan 1 on the 

market. Also, 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(i) 

stipulates that when selecting a 

comparable commercial loan that the 

recipient ‘‘could actually obtain on the 

market’’ the Department will normally 

rely on actual short-term and long-term 

loans obtained by the firm. However, 

when there are no comparable 

commercial loans, the Department ‘‘may 

use a national average interest rate for 

comparable commercial loans,’’ 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii) 

and (a)(2)(iv), if a program under review 

is a government-provided loan program, 

the preference would be to use a 

company-specific annual average of 

interest rates of comparable commercial 

loans during the year in which the 

government-provided loan was 

approved. For this review, the 

Department required benchmark rates to 

determine benefits received from 

FINAME loans provided by Banco 

Nacional de Desenvolvimento 

Economico e Social (BNDES), the 

Brazilian National Development Bank. 

USIMINAS/COSIPA did not report 

having any comparable commercial 

loans meeting the above criteria 

outstanding during the POR. Therefore, 

to calculate the benefit to USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA from FINAME loans, for these 

preliminary results, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), the Department 

has used national average interest rates. 

In response to our initial 

questionnaire, the GOB provided 

information regarding national average 

interest rates in the form of the CDI rate 

and the SELIC rate; the CDI rate is the 

Interbank Deposit Rate and the SELIC 

rate is the rate at which the central bank 

provides overnight funds to banks. 

Neither represents an interest rate at 

which a commercial borrower could 

obtain financing on the market. 

Therefore for the purposes of these 

preliminary results, we will rely on 

information available from the Banco 

Central do Brasil, Brazil’s central bank. 

Specifically, for the fixed-rate loans in 

Brazilian reais, we have used use an 

annual average of the monthly rates 

identified as interest rates for working 

capital, for corporate entities for fixed 

operations. For the loans denominated 

in reais with the application of an 

indexation factor, we are using an 

annual average of the monthly rates 

identified as the consolidated rate for 

corporate entities. For these loans, 

because there are inconsistencies in the 

reported information about how the 

loan program operates and the loan 

information provided by USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA, and there are multiple 

components of the loans, including 

indexation, we believe it is appropriate 

to use the consolidated rates which 

represent a composite of the fixed, 

indexed, and floating interest rates 

available to corporate entities. For a 

more detailed discussion of our 

selection and use of the benchmark 

interest rates, see Memorandum to the 

File from The Team; Calculations for the 

Preliminary Results: Usinas 

Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais S.A. and 

Companhia Siderugica Paulista 

(USIMINAS/COSIPA), dated 

concurrently with this notice (HRS 

Calculation Memorandum). 

Analysis of Programs 

A. Program Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Countervailable 

National Bank for Economic and Social 

Development Loans (BNDES) Loan 

Program: FINAME 

In the CRS Final Determination, we 

determined that the FINAME loan 

program was countervailable as an 

import substitution program in 

accordance with section 771(5A)(C) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended (the 

Act). In a prior administrative review of 

the instant order, the Department 

decided that it was appropriate to 

examine programs discovered in that 

investigation that reasonably appeared 

to provide countervailable subsidies to 

USIMINAS/COSIPA, such as FINAME 

loans. See Memorandum to the File, 

from The Team; Additional Subsidy 

Programs to be Included in the 

Questionnaire for the Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Brazil (December 19, 2005), a 

public document available in the CRU. 

Although the prior administrative 

review was subsequently rescinded (see 

Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled CarbonQuality Steel Flat Products from Brazil: 

Notice of Rescission of Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 8278 

(February 16, 2006)), the decision to 

examine FINAME loans to producers of 

HRS stands. Therefore, we requested 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 64705 

complete information on all FINAME 

loans outstanding during the POR. 

The FINAME program was 

established by BNDES in the 1990s to 

finance purchases of Brazilian-produced 

equipment. Essentially, financing was 

only provided by BNDES for the 

purchase of Brazilian-made equipment 

and financing for imported equipment 

could only be provided if that 

equipment could not be obtained in 

Brazil. Financing was not provided for 

foreign-made equipment if the same 

equipment was produced in Brazil. 

FINAME loans are primarily made on an 

indirect basis through agent banks. 

The terms of FINAME loans vary 

depending on whether the financing is 

for imported or domestically-produced 

equipment. For domestically-produced 

equipment, FINAME finances up to 90 

percent of the purchase for a small 

business and up to 80 percent of the 

purchase for a large company. If the 

equipment is imported, or less than 60 

percent Brazilian content, the financing 

must be made from a basket of foreign 

currencies. For imported equipment, a 

maximum financing term of five years is 

applied, and financing is available for 

85 percent of the value of the equipment 

for small businesses and for 80 percent 

of the value for large businesses. During 

the POR, USIMINAS/COSIPA had 

outstanding FINAME loans granted for 

the purchase of Brazilian-made 

equipment. See ‘‘Benchmark Rate 

Information,’’ above. 

We are examining the specificity of 

the FINAME financing that USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA received. In the absence of new 

information or evidence of changed 

circumstances that would warrant a 

reconsideration of the countervailability 

of this program, we continue to find this 

program to be de jure specific as an 

import substitution program because it 

is only available to finance the purchase 

of domestically-produced equipment. 

See section 771(5A)(C) of the Act. We 

further find that there is a financial 

contribution, through the provision of 

loans, under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the 

Act. 

To the extent that the interest rates on 

these loans are lower than the 

benchmark rate, a benefit exists in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a). We 

calculated the benefit in accordance 

with sections 351.505(a)(5)(i) and 

351.505(a)(5)(ii) of the Department’s 

regulations, by comparing the actual 

interest paid on the outstanding 

FINAME loans during the POR, to the 

amount of interest that would have been 

paid on these loans using the 

comparable commercial benchmark 

rates noted in the ‘‘Benchmark Rate 

Information’’ section above. The 

FINAME loans received by USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA have unique interest rates and 

structures including monetary 

correction (indexation) of the loan 

principal. Because the structure of these 

loans is complex, and much of the 

information is business proprietary, the 

calculation methodology for these loans 

is discussed in more detail in the 

preliminary calculation memorandum. 

See HRS Calculation Memorandum. We 

preliminarily determine that 

USIMINAS/COSIPA received benefits 

under the FINAME financing program 

during the POR. We summed the 

benefits from all loans to the crossowned companies, and divided this 

total by the combined total sales of 

USIMINAS/COSIPA during the POR. 

We thus determine the countervailable 

subsidy from FINAME loans to 

USIMINAS/COSIPA to be 0.02 percent 

ad valorem. 

B. Program Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Not Countervailable 

Presumed Tax Credit for the Program of 

Social Integration and the Social 

Contributions of Billings on Inputs Used 

in Exports (PIS/COFINS) 

In 1970, through Supplementary Law 

No. 7, the GOB established PIS. Under 

the law, companies make PIS 

contributions to a fund which is ‘‘a 

means of creating wealth for * * * 

employees.’’ In 1991, through 

Supplementary Law No. 70, the GOB 

established COFINS as a contribution 

for the financing of social insurance 

‘‘intended solely to defray the cost of 

health care and social security and 

assistance work.’’ At the time of the CRS 

investigation, the Department 

determined that PIS and COFINS taxes 

were assessed on all products purchased 

domestically but did not apply to the 

sale of products that are exported. See 

CRS I&D Memorandum at 15. Each 

company was responsible for making 

monthly payments of PIS and COFINS 

based on the total value of its domestic 

sales of goods and services. 

In 1996, through Law No. 9363, the 

GOB established the PIS/COFINS tax 

credit program to provide a rebate of 

PIS/COFINS contributions assessed on 

the purchase of raw materials, 

intermediate products, and packing 

materials used in the production of 

exports. The PIS and COFINS 

‘‘presumed’’ tax credit was established to 

prevent the cascading effect of these 

taxes which accrue at each point in the 

chain of production. Companies 

calculated PIS/COFINS credits on a 

monthly basis, and used the credit by 

making deductions from the Industrial 

Products Tax (IPI) due. 

The ‘‘presumed’’ tax credit rate for PIS 

and COFINS was 5.37 percent and 

applied to exporters in all industries. 

The Department determined in the CRS 

investigation that the GOB did not 

determine the value, quantity or type of 

inputs consumed in the production, by 

any particular producer, of subject 

merchandise, nor did the GOB take into 

account any yield factors; this tax credit 

rate was arbitrarily chosen for 

administrative convenience. To 

calculate its credit, a company divided 

its export revenues, accumulated 

through the prior month, by its total 

sales revenues for the same period. This 

export revenue ratio was then 

multiplied by the company’s total value 

of purchases as reflected in the 

supplier’s sale invoices for raw 

materials, semi-finished products, and 

packaging materials used in the 

production process. This amount was 

then multiplied by the tax credit rate of 

5.37 percent to yield the year-to-date 

accumulated tax credit. In order to 

calculate the credit for the current 

month, the credit used through the prior 

month was deducted from this 

accumulated tax credit. 

Consistent with the definition 

provided in 19 CFR 351.102(b), we 

treated PIS/COFINS taxes as indirect 

taxes. (See CRS I&D Memorandum at 

Comment 2). Further, because PIS/ 

COFINS was charged on inputs used to 

make cold-rolled steel, it was charged 

on goods at one stage of production that 

were used in a succeeding stage of 

production, thus falling within the 

definitions provided in 19 CFR 

351.102(b) of ‘‘cumulative indirect tax’’ 

and ‘‘prior-stage indirect tax.’’ See CRS 

I&D Memorandum at 16. 

In the CRS investigation, based on our 

determination that PIS and COFINS 

were prior-stage cumulative indirect 

taxes, we examined whether the GOB 

had a system or procedure in place, 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.518(a)(4)(i), to confirm which 

inputs and in what amounts were used 

in the production of subject 

merchandise. We determined that this 

system was established as a simplified 

and streamlined methodology to 

implement and administer the tax rebate 

for all companies in Brazil. The only 

limitation imposed on companies 

making rebate claims was that the 

claims be limited to those inputs 

defined under the PIS/COFINS rebate 

law, which was broader than the 

‘‘consumed in production’’ standard 

provided for in 19 CFR 351.518(a)(1). 

Companies reported their purchases of 

inputs based on the assumption that all 

goods purchased were consumed 

equally in exported and domestically 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
64706 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 

sold goods. Further confirmation was 

not conducted by the government. As 

such, we found that this system did not 

permit the GOB to confirm which inputs 

are being consumed in the production of 

exported goods and in what amounts. 

In addition, in the CRS investigation, 

we found that the system did not 

account for the fact that domestic and 

export sales may include imported 

inputs. Further, in determining the 

actual amounts of inputs consumed in 

final products, the GOB did not make 

due allowance for waste, thereby raising 

the concern that the claim amounts 

were overstated. Because we found that 

the GOB had not met the requirements 

under 19 CFR 351.518(a)(4)(i), we 

determined that the entire amount of the 

credit granted on PIS/COFINS payments 

conferred a benefit to the respondent 

companies. In the CRS Final 

Determination, we determined that, 

according to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the 

Act, the granting of tax credits 

constituted a financial contribution, and 

because the PIS/COFINS rebates were 

calculated based on a company’s export 

revenue, i.e., were available only to 

exporters, we found that this program 

was de jure specific as an export 

subsidy according to section 771(5A)(B) 

of the Act. 

In the current review of HRS, in 

response to the initial questionnaire, the 

GOB has reported widespread changes 

to the administration of PIS/COFINS 

since the CRS investigation. In order to 

eliminate the distortions caused by the 

cumulative regime of PIS/COFINS and 

to promote tax neutrality, the GOB 

introduced Law No. 10.637 of December 

30, 2002, and Law No. 10.833 of 

December 29, 2003, for PIS and 

COFINS, respectively. These laws 

revised the PIS/COFINS programs such 

that they now operate as a value-added 

tax (VAT) system. For the reasons 

discussed above, as in the CRS 

investigation we preliminarily 

determine that the PIS/COFINS taxes 

meet the definitions of an ‘‘indirect tax’’ 

and a ‘‘prior-stage indirect tax’’ within 

the meaning of 19 CFR 351.102(b). 

According to the revisions in the 

legislation, PIS and COFINS taxes are 

now collected at 1.65 percent and 7.6 

percent, respectively, when companies 

sell goods in the domestic market. 

Companies also pay PIS and COFINS at 

the rates of 1.65 percent and 7.6 percent, 

respectively, when domestically 

purchasing goods for resale, goods and 

services used as inputs in the 

production or manufacture of goods for 

sale, storage of merchandise related to 

sales, freight expenses related to sales, 

etc. Goods that are exported do not 

generate any tax liability under the noncumulative PIS/COFINS regime. 

To calculate the difference between 

the taxes paid by a company on its 

purchases and the taxes collected by a 

company on its sales under the noncumulative PIS/COFINS system, the 

total value of the company’s exports is 

subtracted from the company’s overall 

revenue before applying the combined 

PIS/COFINS tax rate of 9.25 percent to 

determine the amount of PIS/COFINS 

taxes due to the government. Eligible 

purchases of inputs, goods for resale, 

etc., that were subject to PIS/COFINS 

taxation are summed and multiplied by 

the same 9.25 percent rate to determine 

the total amount of PIS/COFINS taxes 

already paid by the company on its 

purchases. When a company has paid 

more in PIS/COFINS taxes on its 

purchases than it collects on its sales, 

the company is due the difference. 

When a company collects more in PIS/ 

COFINS on its sales than it pays on its 

purchases, the company remits the 

difference to the government. Brazilian 

companies prepare monthly documents 

that reconcile the amount of PIS/ 

COFINS taxes they paid on their 

purchases and the amount of PIS/ 

COFINS taxes they collected on the 

company’s total sales in each month. 

These documents are filed with the 

Brazilian Federal income tax authority. 

In the CRS investigation, we found 

that PIS/COFINS operated as a 

cumulative, indirect tax for which 

excessive remission was received by 

respondents within the meaning of 19 

CFR 351.518(a)(2). However, because 

information provided by the GOB 

indicates widespread changes in the 

administration of PIS/COFINS since the 

Department last examined this program 

in the CRS investigation, we have 

reexamined this program. For the 

purposes of this review, we 

preliminarily determine that the PIS/ 

COFINS program has been transformed 

via Laws No. 10.637 and 10.833 and 

now operates like a standard VAT 

system. Based on the information on the 

record, the PIS/COFINS program no 

longer operates as a cumulative indirect 

tax within the meaning of 19 CFR 

102(b). Therefore, an analysis of the 

program under 19 CFR 351.518 is no 

longer appropriate. Because of the 

program’s transformation into a 

standard VAT program, we have 

reexamined whether any remittance or 

rebate received under this program is 

excessive within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.517. See CVD Preamble at 65383. 

Under 19 CFR 351.517, which addresses 

the exemption or remission upon export 

of indirect taxes, a benefit exists to the 

extent that the amount remitted or 

exempted exceeds the amount levied 

with respect to the production and 

distribution of like products when sold 

for domestic consumption. The record 

demonstrates that the changes to the 

program have eliminated the tax credits 

granted upon export. The only credit is 

itself based on the actual amount of PIS/ 

COFINS taxes already paid by a 

company on its purchases, and there are 

no credits granted upon export. Thus, 

there is no benefit as defined under the 

provisions of 19 CFR 351.517(a), which 

define a benefit as the amount by which 

the credit upon export exceeds the taxes 

levied on the production and 

distribution of like products sold for 

domestic consumption. Therefore, for 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

we find that there is no benefit within 

the meaning of 19 CFR 351.517(a). 

Furthermore, we find that the laws 

transforming these PIS/COFINS tax 

credits into a VAT-like system did not 

provide any ‘‘grandfathering’’ provisions 

and therefore we find that there are no 

benefits available under the old PIS/ 

COFINS structure. As such, we 

preliminarily determine that the PIS/ 

COFINS program is not countervailable 

within the meaning of section 771(5) of 

the Act. 

C. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Be Not Used 

We preliminarily determine that 

USIMINAS/COSIPA did not apply for or 

receive benefits during the POR under 

the programs listed below: 

1. Equity Infusions 

In the investigation of HRS, we found 

that the GOB had granted subsidies in 

the form of equity infusions to 

USIMINAS from 1983 through 1988, 

and to COSIPA from 1983 through 1989, 

and in 1991. The countervailable 

benefits from those equity infusions 

were fully allocated prior to the POR. 

USIMINAS/COSIPA has not received 

any other equity infusions that provide 

countervailable benefits in the POR. 

2. GOB Debt-to-Equity Conversions 

In the investigation of HRS, we found 

that the GOB had granted subsidies in 

the form of debt-to-equity conversions 

to COSIPA in 1992 and 1993 in 

preparation for COSIPA’s privatization. 

The countervailable benefits from those 

debt-to-equity conversions were fully 

allocated prior to the POR. USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA has not received any other 

debt-to-equity conversions that provide 

countervailable benefits in the POR. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 20, 2010 / Notices 64707 

3. National Bank for Economic and 

Social Development Loans (BNDES) 

Loan Programs 

a. BNDES EXIM 

b. BNDES Participacoes S.A. 

(BNDESPAR) 

4. Provincial Government Program: 

PRO–INDUSTRIA 

5. Programa de Financiamento as 

Exportacoes (PROEX) 

6. Program to Induce Industrial 

Modernization of the State of Minas 

Gerais (PROIM) 

D. Program For Which More Information 

Is Required 

BNDES FINEM Loan Program 

In the CRS Final Determination, we 

found the FINEM loan program not 

countervailable based on information 

provided by the GOB that showed that 

FINEM loans were not specific: there 

was no indication of de jure specificity 

under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. 

Further, the financing was provided to 

a wide variety of industries ranging 

from paper to electricity to farming 

products, and the breakdown of FINEM 

financing by industry indicated that the 

steel industry was neither a 

predominant user nor disproportionate 

recipient of FINEM financing, and the 

program was not de facto specific under 

section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. 

In the original questionnaire, the 

companies reported FINAME loans and 

other BNDES loans. See USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA’s February 1, 2010 

questionnaire response at 17. In our 

supplemental questionnaires, we sought 

clarification of the BNDES programs 

under which the loans reported by 

USIMINAS/COSIPA had been provided. 

The GOB identified certain BNDES 

loans as FINEM loans for the financing 

of investment projects. See the GOB’s 

July 26, 2010 supplemental response at 

1. These loans had been granted to 

USIMINAS/COSIPA after the POI. Our 

decision in the CRS Final Determination 

that FINEM loans were de facto not 

specific was based on our analysis of the 

distribution of loans granted 

contemporaneously with USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA’s FINEM loans outstanding 

during the POI. Because the FINEM 

loans outstanding during the POR are 

new loans granted to USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA since the POI, it is appropriate 

to examine whether this program is de 

facto specific for the purposes of this 

review. In the second supplemental 

questionnaire, we asked the GOB to 

provide information regarding this 

program, in particular, the distribution 

of loans by industry for the years in 

which USIMINAS/COSIPA’s loans were 

approved and the prior three years. The 

GOB responded to this questionnaire on 

September 24, 2010, but did not provide 

detailed information. Given that the 

FINEM loan issue arose late in the 

proceeding, and the Department has not 

had sufficient time to gather and assess 

the information provided by the GOB, 

the Department will continue to 

examine the information provided by 

the GOB and will request additional 

information in order to complete our 

analysis of whether this program 

provides a countervailable subsidy to 

USIMINAS/COSIPA for the final results. 

Preliminary Results of Administrative 

Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we have calculated a 

combined subsidy rate for USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA for the POR. We preliminarily 

determine the total countervailable 

subsidy to be 0.02 percent ad valorem 

for USIMINAS/COSIPA, which is a de 

minimis rate. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

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 the final 

results of this review. If the final results 

remain the same as these preliminary 

results, the Department will instruct 

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

countervailing duties all shipments of 

subject merchandise produced by 

USIMINAS/COSIPA, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption from January 1, 2008 

through December 31, 2008. The 

Department will also instruct CBP to 

collect cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties at a rate of 0.00 

percent on shipments of the subject 

merchandise produced by USIMINAS/ 

COSIPA, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

collect cash deposits for non-reviewed 

companies at the most recent companyspecific or country-wide rate applicable 

to the company. Accordingly, the cash 

deposit rates that will be applied to 

companies covered by this order, but 

not examined in this review, are those 

established in the most recently 

completed administrative proceeding 

for each company. These rates shall 

apply to all non-reviewed companies 

until a review of a company assigned 

these rates is requested. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this segment 

of the proceeding within five days of the 

public announcement of this notice. See 

19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309, interested parties may submit 

written comments in response to these 

preliminary results. Unless the time 

period is extended by the Department, 

case briefs are to be submitted within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to arguments raised in 

case briefs, are to be submitted no later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issues; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities cited. Further, we 

request that parties submitting written 

comments provide the Department with 

a diskette containing an electronic copy 

of the public version of such comments. 

Case and rebuttal briefs must be served 

on interested parties, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 

Interested parties may also request a 

hearing pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

See id. Requests should contain: (1) The 

party’s name, address and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. 

Unless extended, the Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. These preliminary results are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: October 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26403 Filed 10–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES