[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 135 (Monday, July 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40295-40299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15966]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-821]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 9, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary results
of the administrative review of the countervailing duty (``CVD'') order
on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (``hot-rolled carbon
steel'') from India for the period of review (``POR'') January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review; 73 FR 1578 (January 9, 2008) (``Preliminary
Results''). We preliminarily found that Essar Steel Ltd. (``Essar''),
Ispat Industries Ltd. (``Ispat''), JSW Steel Ltd. (``JSW'') and Tata
Steel Ltd. (``Tata'') received countervailable subsidies during the
POR. We received comments on our preliminary results from petitioners
and all of the respondent companies, Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata. The
final results are listed in the section ``Final Results of Review''
below.
DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 1008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff at (202) 482-1009, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal
Register the CVD order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
from India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India, 66 FR 60198 (December 3, 2001). On January 9,
2008, the Department published in the Federal Register its preliminary
results of the administrative review of this order for the period
January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. See Preliminary Results, 73
FR 1578. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this administrative
review covers Essar,
[[Page 40296]]
Ispat, JSW, and Tata, producers and exporters of subject merchandise.
On March 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register an
extension of its final results of the instant administrative review.
See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of
Extension of Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 12078 (March 6, 2008).
On January 17, 2008, February 26, 2008, March 4, 2008, and March
24, 2008, we issued supplemental questionnaires to Essar and we
received responses on February 14, 2008, March 4, 2008, March 18, 2008
and March 31, 2008, respectively. On January 17, 2008, we also issued a
supplemental questionnaire to the Government of India (``GOI'') and we
received the response on February 14, 2008.
On January 18, 2008 and March 3, 2008, we issued supplemental
questionnaires to Ispat, and we received responses on February 15, 2008
and March 21, 2008, respectively. On January 18, 2008, we also issued a
supplemental questionnaire to the GOI and we received the response on
February 8, 2008.
On January 11, 2008, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Tata
and we received a response on January 18, 2008. On January 11, 2008 we
also issued a supplemental questionnaire to the GOI and received a
response on February 20, 2008.
On March 6, 2008 through March 12, 2008, the Department conducted a
verification of Tata. The Department issued its verification reports on
April 17, 2008. A public version of this document is on file in the
Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room 1117 of the main Commerce
building.
In the Preliminary Results, we invited interested parties to submit
briefs or request a hearing. On April 24, 2008, we received comments
from Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata. In addition, we received comments
from United States Steel Corporation and Nucor Corporation, the
petitioners. On May 1, 2008, we received rebuttal comments from Essar,
Ispat, Tata and petitioners. We received a request for a hearing from
Essar and JSW on February 8, 2008 and April 22, 2008, respectively. On
June 2, 2008, we held a public hearing in room 4205 of the Commerce
Building. Parties can find a transcript of the hearing on file in the
CRU of the main Commerce building.
Scope of Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-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 of 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, or 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 this order.
Specifically included in the scope of this order 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
or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to
stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper,
niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination
steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and
aluminum.
Steel products included in the scope of this order, regardless of
definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTS''), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight,
over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below
exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 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
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, 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 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, A506).
SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of
the HTS.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in
the HTS 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, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00,
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, and
7211.19.75.90. 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, 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. Subject merchandise may also enter
under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00,
7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written
description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.
[[Page 40297]]
Period of Review
The POR for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1,
2006, through December 31, 2006.
Analysis of Comments
On April 24, 2008 Essar, Ispat, JSW, Tata and petitioners filed
comments. On May 1, 2008, Essar, Ispat, Tata and petitioners filed
rebuttal comments. All issues in the respondents and petitioners case
and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review
on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India (``Decision
Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A listing of the
issues that parties raised and to which we have responded is attached
to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of
the issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the CRU of the main
commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and the electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
After reviewing comments from all parties, we have made adjustments
to our calculations as explained in our Decision Memorandum. Consistent
with the Preliminary Results, we find that Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata
received countervailable subsidies during the POR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total net countervailable
Company subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essar Steel Ltd........................... 17.50 percent ad valorem.
Ispat Industries Ltd...................... 15.27 percent ad valorem.
JSW Steel Ltd............................. 484.41 percent ad valorem.
Tata Steel Ltd............................ 27.22 percent ad valorem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 these final results of review to liquidate shipments of
subject merchandise by Essar, Ispat, JSW, and Tata entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006, at the ad valorem rates listed above. We
will also instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for each respondent at
the countervailing duty rate indicated above on all shipments of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results
of review.
For all non-reviewed companies, the Department has instructed CBP
to assess countervailing duties at the cash deposit rates in effect at
the time of entry, for entries between January 1, 2006, and December
31, 2006. The cash deposit rates for all companies not covered by this
review are not changed by the results of this review.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 7, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Issues in Decision Memorandum
Adverse Facts Available (AFA)
I. The Government of India (GOI)
II. JSW
Subsidies Valuation Information
I. Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rates.
A. Short-Term Loan Benchmark.
B. Long-Term Benchmarks and Discount Rates.
II. Use of Uncreditworthy Benchmarks for Essar.
III. Allocation Period.
Analysis of Programs
I. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable:
A. GOI Programs.
1. Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing.
2. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS).
3. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPS).
4. Sale of High-Grade Iron Ore for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration.
5. Advance License Program (ALP).
6. Loan Guarantees from the GOI.
7. Steel Development Fund (SDF) Loans.
8. Captive Mining of Iron Ore.
9. Captive Mining Rights of Coal.
10. Duty Free Replenishment Certificate (DFRC) Scheme.
B. State Government of Gujarat Programs.
State Government of Gujarat (SGOG) Tax Incentives.
C. State Government of Karnataka (SGOK) Programs.
1. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and
Concessions of 1993 (1993 KIP).
a. Total AFA for Certain Sub-Programs.
b. VAT Refunds.
2. Other SGOK Subsidies.
3. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and
Concessions of 1996 (1996 KIP).
4. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and
Concessions of 2001 (2001 KIP).
5. SGOK's New Industrial Policy and Package of Incentives and
Concessions of 2006 (2006 KIP).
D. State Government of Maharashtra Programs (SGOM).
1. Sales Tax Program.
2. Electricity Duty Exemption Under the Package Scheme of
Incentives for 1993.
II. Programs Determined Not To Be Used:
A. GOI Programs.
1. Status Certificate Program.
2. Target Plus Scheme (TPS).
3. Export Processing Zones and Export Oriented Units.
4. Export Processing Zones.
5. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (Sections 10A, 10B, and 80HHC).
6. Market Development Assistance.
7. Market Access Initiative.
8. Exemption of Export Credit from Interest Taxes.
9. Long-Term Loans from the GOI.
10. Special Economic Zone Act of 2005.
a. Duty free import/domestic procurement of goods and service
for development, operation, and maintenance of SEZ units.
b. Exemption from excise duties on goods (i.e., machinery and
capital goods) ``brought from the Domestic Tariff Area'' (defined as
the ``whole of India'' excluding SEZs) for use by an enterprise in
the SEZ.
c. Drawback on goods brought or services provided from the
Domestic Tariff Area into a SEZ, or services provided in a SEZ by
service providers located outside India.
d. 100 percent exemption from income taxes on export income from
the first 5 years of operation, 50 percent for the next 5 years, and
a further 50 percent exemption on export income reinvested in India
for an additional 5 years.
e. Exemption from the Central Sales Tax.
f. Exemption from the national Service Tax.
B. State Government of Andhra Pradesh Programs--Grants Under the
Industrial Investment Promotion Policy of 2005-2010.
1. 25 percent reimbursement of cost of land in industrial
estates and industrial development areas.
[[Page 40298]]
2. Reimbursement of power at the rate of Rs. 0.75 ``per unit''
for the period beginning April 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006 and
for the four years thereafter to be determined by the Government of
Andhra Pradesh (GOAP).
3. 50 percent subsidy for expenses incurred for quality
certification up to RS. 100 lakhs.
4. 25 percent subsidy on ``cleaner production measures'' up to
Rs. 5 lakhs.
5. 50 percent subsidy on expenses incurred in patent
registration, up to Rs. 5 lakhs.
6. 100 percent reimbursement of stamp duty and transfer duty
paid for the purchase of land and buildings and the obtaining of
financial deeds and mortgages.
7. A grant of 25 percent of the tax paid to GAAP, which is
applied as a credit against the tax owed the following year, for a
period of five years from the date of commencement of production.
8. Exemption from the GAAP Non-Agricultural Land Assessment
(NALA).
9. Provision of ``infrastructure'' for industries located more
than 10 kilometers from existing industrial estates or industrial
development areas.
10. Guaranteed ``stable prices of municipal water for 3 years
for industrial use'' and reservation of 10% of water for industrial
use for existing and future projects.
C. State Government of Chhattusgarh Programs--Industrial Policy
2004-2009.
1. A direct subsidy of 35 percent to total capital cost for the
project, up to a maximum amount equivalent to the amount of
commercial tax/central sales tax paid in a seven year period.
2. A direct subsidy of 40 percent toward total interest paid for
a period of 5 years (up to Rs. Lakh per year) on loans and working
capital for upgrades in technology.
3. Reimbursement of 50 percent of expenses (up to Rs. 75,000)
incurred for quality certification.
4. Reimbursement of 50 percent of expenses (up to 5 lakh) for
obtaining patents.
5. Total exemption from electricity duties for a period of 15
years from the date of commencement of commercial production.
6. Exemption from stamp duty on deeds executed for purchase or
lease of land and buildings and deeds relating to loans and advances
to be taken by the company for a period of three years from the date
of registration.
7. Exemption from payment of ``entry tax'' for 7 years
(excluding minerals obtained from mining in the state).
8. 50 percent reduction of the service charges for acquisition
of private land by Chhattisgarh Industrial Development Corporation
for use by the company.
9. Allotment of land in industrial areas at a discount up to 100
percent.
D. State Government of Gujarat Programs.
1. Gujarat Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Act.
a. Stamp duty and registration fees for land transfers, loan
agreements, credit deeds, and mortgages.
b. Sales tax, purchase tax, and other taxes payable on sales and
transactions.
c. Sales and other state taxes on purchases of inputs (both
goods and services) for the SEZ or a Unit within the SEZ.
2. Captive Port Facilities.
a. Discount on Gujarat wharfage charges.
b. Credit for the cost of the capital (including interest) to
construct the port facilities, which is then applied as an offset to
the wharfage charges due Gujarat on cargo shipped through the
captive jetty.
E. State Government of Jharkhand Programs.
1. Grants and Tax Exemptions under the State Industrial Policy
of 2001.
2. Subsidies for Mega Projects under the JSIP of 2001.
F. State Government of Maharashstra Programs.
1. Refunds of Octroi Under the PSI of 1993, Maharastra
Industrial Policy of 2001, and Maharastra Industrial Policy of 2006.
2. Infrastructure Assistance for Mega Projects.
3. Land for Less than Adequate Remuneration.
4. Loan Guarantees Based on Octroi Refunds by the SGM.
5. Investment Subsidy.
III. Total Ad Valorem Rate.
IV. Analysis of Comments.
Essar
Comment 1: Whether The Department Erred In Its Calculation Of
Essar's Benefit Under The Government Of Gujarat Value Added Tax
Remission Program.
Comment 2: Whether The Department Erred In Converting Dry Metric
Tons To Wet Metric Tons In The Calculation Of The Benchmark Used To
Measure The Adequacy Of Essar's Purchases Of Iron Ore From The GOI.
Comment 3: Whether The Department Should Use Actual Transaction
Prices, Where Available, In Calculating The Benchmark Used To
Measure Essar's Benefit Under The Iron Ore Provided For Less Than
Adequate Remuneration Program.
Comment 4: Whether The Department Should Adjust The Prices
Reported By Essar For Its Purchases Of Iron Ore Lumps And Fines To
Exclude Sales Tax Which Is Not Included In The Benchmark Price.
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Deduct Certain Freight
Costs from The Benchmark Used to Measure the Adequacy of Essar's
Purchases of Iron Ore from the GOI.
Comment 6: Whether The Failure Of The GOI And The Indian State
Governments To Respond To The Department's Questions Warrants
Application Of Adverse Facts Available With Respect To Newly Subsidy
Programs Essar Claims It Did Not Use.
Comment 7: Whether Essar Adequately Demonstrated Its Non-Use of
the Special Economic Zone Act of 2005.
Comment 8: Whether Essar Adequately Demonstrated Its Non-Use of
the Gujurat Special Economic Zone Act.
Comment 9: Whether Essar Adequately Demonstrated Its Non-Use of
the Captive Port Facilities Program.
Comment 10: Whether Essar Adequately Demonstrated Its Non-Use of
the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Policy Program.
Comment 11: Whether Essar Adequately Demonstrated Its Non-Use of
the Chhattisgarh Industrial Policy Program.
Comment 12: Whether the Department Erred in Calculating the
Benefit on Essar's Pre-Shipment Export Financing.
Ispat
Comment 13: Whether The Department Should Calculate The Benefit
Attributable To Ispat's Purchase Of Iron Ore For Less Than Adequate
Remuneration From The GOI On An Ex Mines Basis Rather Than An FOB
Port Basis.
Comment 14: Whether The Department Erred In Calculating The
Benchmark Used To Measure The Adequacy Of Remuneration Of Ispat's
Purchases Of High-Grade Iron Ore From The GOI.
Comment 15: Whether The Department Should Adjust The Prices
Reported By Ispat For Its Purchases Of Iron Ore Lumps And Fines To
Exclude Sales Tax Which Is Not Included In The Benchmark Price.
Comment 16: Whether Ispat's Purchases of Iron Ore from a Private
Supplier Are a Valid Benchmark.
Comment 17: Whether to Include Fees in the Calculation of
Ispat's Long-Term Benchmark Loan Rates.
Comment 18: Whether the Department Made Clerical Errors In
Calculating Ispat's Long-Term Loan Benchmark.
Comment 19: Whether the Department Erred Calculating the
Benchmark Used for Ispat Under the EPCGS Program.
Comment 20: Whether the Department Incorrectly Included VAT
Refunds in the Benefit Calculation of the State of Maharastra's
Sales Tax Program.
Comment 21: Whether the Department Erred by Including
Countervailing Duties and Special Additional Duties in the Benefit
Calculation of the EPCGS.
Comment 22: Whether the Advance License Program is
Countervailable.
Comment 23: Whether The Failure Of The GOI And The Indian State
Governments To Respond To The Department's Questions Warrants
Application Of Adverse Facts Available With Respect To New Subsidy
Programs Ispat Claims It Did Not Use.
Tata
Comment 24: Tata's Ownership Of Captive Mines Of Iron Ore And
Coal And Whether The Provision Of Such Minerals Under The Captive
Mining Rights Program Constitutes A Financial Contribution Under The
Act.
Comment 25: Whether The Provision of Iron Ore and Coal Under the
Captive Mining Rights Programs Are Specific Under the Act.
Comment 26: The Benchmark Used to Measure Whether the Captive
Mining Rights Programs Imposed by the GOI Provide a Benefit In The
Form Of A Provision Of A Good For Less Than Adequate Remuneration.
Comment 27: Whether the Department Should Calculate Separate
Benchmarks to Measure the Adequacy of Remuneration of Tata's
Purchases of Iron Ore Lumps and Fines under the Captive Mining
Rights Program.
Comment 28: Whether the Department should include Ocean Freight
in the Coal and
[[Page 40299]]
Iron Ore Benchmark Calculation used to measure the adequacy of
remuneration of Tata's purchases of Coal and Iron Ore under the
Captive Mining Rights Program.
Comment 29: Whether the Department Should Make Adjustments for
the Benchmark Prices of Tata Steel's Iron Ore and Coal costs on an
equivalent basis.
Comment 30: Whether the TPS Conferred Benefits upon Tata during
the POR.
Comment 31: Whether the SDF Constitutes a Financial
Contribution.
Comment 32: Calculation of the Benefit to Tata under the EPCGS.
Comment 33: Whether The Department Should Revise The Manner In
Which It Conducted The ``0.5'' Percent Test When Calculating The
Benefit Attributable To Tata Under The EPCGS.
Comment 34: Attribution of Subsidies Received under the EPCGS.
Comment 35: The Use of Long-Term Prime Lending Rates as
Benchmarks.
Comment 36: Whether The Department Should Countervail Tata's
Sales Of DFRC Licenses An Untied Subsidy.
JSW
Comment 37: Whether the Department Unlawfully Used AFA Rate for
JSW.
Comment 38: Whether Assistance Under The 1993 KIP Is
Countervailable.
Comment 39: Whether JSW Purchased High Grade Iron Ore for Less
Than Adequate Remuneration.
Comment 40: Whether Loan Guarantees from the GOI Are
Countervailable.
Comment 41: Whether JSW Has Captive Mining Rights.
Comment 42: Whether the EPCGS Is Countervailable.
Comment 43: Whether DEPS Is Countervailable.
[FR Doc. E8-15966 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P