[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29325-29331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-843, A-570-990, A-549-829]


Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire From Mexico, the 
People's Republic of China, and Thailand: Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigations

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

DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor (Mexico), Brian Smith 
(the People's Republic of China (the ``PRC'')), or Kate Johnson 
(Thailand) at (202) 482-4007, (202) 482-1766, or (202) 482-4929, 
respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On April 23, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') 
received antidumping duty (``AD'') petitions concerning imports of 
prestressed concrete steel rail tie wire (``PC tie wire'') from Mexico, 
the PRC, and Thailand filed in proper form on behalf of Davis Wire 
Corporation and Insteel Wire Products Company (collectively, the 
``petitioners'').\1\ The petitioners are domestic producers of PC tie 
wire. On April 26, 2013, the Department requested additional 
information and clarification of certain areas of the petitions. The 
petitioners filed responses to these requests on May 1, 2013.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Petitions on Prestressed Concrete Steel 
Rail Tie Wire from the PRC, Mexico, and Thailand, filed on April 23, 
2013 (the ``petitions'').
    \2\ See Supplement to the Mexico Petition, dated May 1, 2013 
(``Supplement to the Mexico Petition''); Supplement to the PRC 
Petition, dated May 1, 2013 (``Supplement to the PRC Petition''); 
and Supplement to the Thailand Petition, dated May 1, 2013 
(``Supplement to the Thailand Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''), the petitioners allege that imports of PC tie 
wire from Mexico, the PRC, and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, 
or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. 
Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the petitions are 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners 
supporting their allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioners filed these petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioners are interested 
parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that the petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry 
support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that 
the petitioners are requesting. See the ``Determination of Industry 
Support for the Petitions'' section below.

Period of Investigation

    Because the petitions were filed on April 23, 2013, the period of 
investigation (``POI'') for the PRC investigation is October 1, 2012, 
through March 31, 2013. The POI for the Mexico and Thailand 
investigations is April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is PC tie wire from 
Mexico, the PRC, and Thailand. For a full description of the scope of 
the investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in 
Appendix I of this notice.

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the product 
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), 
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested 
parties to submit such comments by June 3, 2013, 5:00 p.m. Eastern 
Standard Time, 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. 
All comments must be filed on the records of the Mexico, the PRC, and

[[Page 29326]]

Thailand AD investigations. All comments and submissions to the 
Department must be filed electronically using Import Administration's 
Antidumping Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System 
(``IA ACCESS'').\4\ An electronically filed document must be received 
successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records 
system, IA ACCESS, by the time and date noted above. Documents excepted 
from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually 
(i.e., in paper form) with Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, 
Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of 
receipt by the deadline noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the 
Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect 
on August 5, 2011. Information on help using IA ACCESS can be found 
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found 
at https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The period of scope comments is intended to provide the Department 
with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of PC tie wire to be reported 
in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information 
will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the 
subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs 
of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-
comparison criteria.
    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that 
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of 
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to 
which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product 
characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is 
not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-
comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful 
commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may 
be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to 
describe PC tie wire, it may be that only a select few product 
characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical 
characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the 
order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching 
products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important 
physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics 
last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, we must receive comments 
on product characteristics by June 3, 2013. Rebuttal comments must be 
received by June 10, 2013. All comments and submissions to the 
Department must be filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as referenced 
above.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), 
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' 
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See USEC, Inc. v.  United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v.  United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that PC tie wire 
constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed 
industry support in terms of that domestic like product.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire from the People's Republic 
of China (``PRC Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II, Analysis 
of Industry Support for the Petitions Covering Prestressed Concrete 
Steel Rail Tie Wire from the People's Republic of China, Mexico, and 
Thailand (``Attachment II''); Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire from 
Mexico (``Mexico Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II; and 
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Prestressed 
Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire from Thailand (``Thailand Initiation 
Checklist''), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated 
concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via IA 
ACCESS. Access to documents filed via IA ACCESS is also available in 
the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of 
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided 
their own production of the domestic like product in 2012.\7\ The 
petitioners state that there are no other known producers of PC tie 
wire in the United States; therefore, the petitions

[[Page 29327]]

are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the petitions at 2-3 and Exhibit GEN-1.
    \8\ See the petitions at 2-3 and Exhibits GEN-1, GEN-3, GEN-13, 
and GEN-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the petitions and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that the 
petitioners have established industry support.\9\ First, the petitions 
established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for 
more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further 
action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\10\ 
Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory 
criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petitions 
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic 
like product.\11\ Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met 
the statutory criteria for industry support under section 
732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) 
who support the petitions account for more than 50 percent of the 
production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the 
industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions.\12\ 
Accordingly, the Department determines that the petitions were filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, Mexico 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, and Thailand Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.
    \10\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, Mexico Initiation Checklist 
at Attachment II, and Thailand Initiation Checklist at Attachment 
II.
    \11\ See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, Mexico 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II, and Thailand Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment II.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioners filed the petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that 
they are requesting the Department initiate.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, the 
petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
    The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; increased market penetration; 
underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and 
revenues; reduced production, shipments, and capacity utilization; 
reduced employment and production-related workers; and decline in 
financial performance.\14\ We have assessed the allegations and 
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material 
injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations 
are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory 
requirements for initiation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the petitions at 45-50 and Exhibits GEN-3 and GEN-7 
through GEN-13.
    \15\ See PRC Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of 
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the 
Petitions Covering Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire from the 
People's Republic of China, Mexico, and Thailand (``Attachment 
III''); Mexico Initiation Checklist at Attachment III; and Thailand 
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-
than-fair-value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate investigations of imports of PC tie wire from Mexico, the PRC, 
and Thailand. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the 
Mexico Initiation Checklist, PRC Initiation Checklist, and Thailand 
Initiation Checklist.

Export Price

Mexico

    The petitioners calculated an export price (``EP'') based on a 
price for PC tie wire from Mexico produced by Aceros Camesa S.A. de 
C.V. (``Camesa''), and sold or offered for sale to a U.S. customer 
during the POI. To derive the ex-factory price, the petitioners made 
deductions to U.S. price for U.S. inland freight, inland insurance, 
U.S. customs fees, foreign inland freight, and foreign brokerage and 
handling.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Mexico Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the petitioners calculated U.S. inland freight based 
on actual freight rates in Mexico for shipping PC tie wire from the 
U.S. border to one of Camesa's U.S. customers. The petitioners 
calculated inland insurance using a publicly-quoted premium for 
insurance coverage from P.A.F. Cargo Insurance for shipments of steel 
in sheets, coils, and bars from Mexico to the United States. Although 
the petitioners initially calculated U.S. customs fees by applying the 
customs fee percentage to the U.S. price (net of all freight and 
insurance charges), we disallowed these fees as a deduction to U.S. 
price because customs duties (specifically, merchandise processing 
fees) do not apply to the subject merchandise, pursuant to Title II of 
the North American Free Trade Agreement. The petitioners calculated 
foreign inland freight based on actual freight rates in Mexico for 
shipping PC tie wire from Camesa's mill in Mexico to the U.S. border. 
Finally, the petitioners calculated foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses using the average brokerage and handling charges for exporting 
merchandise from Mexico as reported in Doing Business 2013: Mexico by 
the World Bank.

PRC

    The petitioners calculated a constructed export price (``CEP'') 
based on a price for PC tie wire from the PRC produced by Wuxi Jinyang 
Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Wuxi Jinyang''), and sold or offered for 
sale to a U.S. customer during the POI. The petitioners used CEP 
methodology because the sale or offer for sale was made by Wuxi Jinyang 
through its affiliated U.S. sales agent, Tata Steel International 
(America) Inc. To derive the ex-factory price, the petitioners made 
deductions to U.S. price for U.S. inland freight, U.S. customs fees, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, 
foreign inland freight, and U.S. indirect selling expenses.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See PRC Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners calculated U.S. inland freight based on a U.S. 
freight rate per mile per pound of product shipped using a public 
source. The petitioners calculated U.S. customs fees (inclusive of 
harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees) by applying the 
customs fee percentage to the U.S. price (net of all freight and 
insurance charges). The petitioners calculated ocean freight using the 
average of the freight charges (inclusive of terminal handling charges 
and bunker charges) obtained from Maersk Line, a major ocean freight 
carrier, for the first quarter of 2013 for the Shanghai-to-Tacoma, WA 
ocean route. To be conservative, the petitioners used the maximum 
capacity usage of the 40-foot container. The petitioners calculated 
marine insurance charges using a publicly-quoted

[[Page 29328]]

premium for insurance coverage published by P.A.F. Cargo Insurance for 
shipments of steel sheets, coils and bars from Asia to the United 
States. The petitioners calculated foreign brokerage and handling and 
foreign inland freight using average charges (inclusive of document 
fees, terminal handling and port charges, and customs clearance 
charges) for exports from the surrogate country Thailand,\18\ as 
published in Doing Business 2013: Thailand by the World Bank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See ``Normal Value'' section below for further discussion 
of the selection of the surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners deducted a markup for the U.S. indirect selling 
expenses of Wuxi Jinyang's affiliate. To calculate the U.S. indirect 
selling expenses, the petitioners relied on the expenses reported in 
the 2011 Annual Report of STEMCOR, a steel trading company like Wuxi 
Jinyang's U.S. affiliate, as the financial statements of Wuxi Jinyang's 
affiliate are not publicly available. To be conservative, the 
petitioners made no adjustment for U.S. inventory carrying costs.

Thailand

    The petitioners calculated CEP based on a price for PC tie wire 
from Thailand produced by The Siam Industrial Wire Company Ltd. 
(``SIW''), and sold or offered for sale to a U.S. customer during the 
POI. The petitioners used CEP methodology because the sale or offer for 
sale was made by SIW through its affiliated U.S. sales agent, Tata 
Steel International (America) Inc. To derive the ex-factory price, the 
petitioners made deductions to U.S. price for foreign inland freight, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs fees, U.S. inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling charges, and U.S. indirect 
selling expenses.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Thailand Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners calculated U.S. inland freight based on a U.S. 
freight rate per mile per pound of product shipped using a public 
source. The petitioners calculated ocean freight using the average of 
the freight charges (inclusive of terminal handling charges and bunker 
charges) obtained from Maersk Line for the second quarter of 2012 for 
the ocean route from Thailand to Long Beach/Los Angeles, CA. To be 
conservative, the petitioners used the maximum capacity usage of the 
40-foot container. The petitioners calculated marine insurance using a 
publicly-quoted premium for insurance coverage published by P.A.F. 
Cargo Insurance for shipments of steel sheets, coils and bars from Asia 
to the United States. The petitioners calculated U.S. customs fees 
(inclusive of harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees) by 
applying the customs fee percentage to the U.S. price (net of all 
freight and insurance charges). The petitioners calculated foreign 
brokerage and handling and foreign inland freight using average charges 
(inclusive of document fees, terminal handling and port charges, and 
customs clearance charges) for exports from Thailand, as published in 
Doing Business 2013: Thailand by the World Bank.
    The petitioners deducted a markup for the U.S. indirect selling 
expenses of SIW's affiliate. To calculate the U.S. indirect selling 
expenses, the petitioners relied on the expenses reported in the 2011 
Annual Report of STEMCOR, a steel trading company like SIW's U.S. 
affiliate, as the financial statements of SIW's affiliate are not 
publicly available. To be conservative, the petitioners made no 
adjustment for U.S. inventory carrying costs.

Normal Value

Mexico

    The petitioners based NV on constructed value (``CV''), as neither 
a home market nor third country price was reasonably available. The 
petitioners relied on their own 2012 production costs for PC tie wire, 
adjusting for known differences between the Mexican and U.S. 
industries.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Mexico Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners calculated cost of manufacturing (``COM'') based on 
their consumption of raw material inputs, labor and energy, valued at 
the input cost in the Mexican market. Where it was necessary to rely on 
data from a period preceding the POI, in accordance with Department 
practice, the petitioners inflated such values to reflect current 
prices using the consumer price inflation index (``CPI'') data for 
Mexico published by the International Monetary Fund (``IMF'').
    The petitioners based direct material costs on the average Mexican 
FOB import value of high-carbon wire rod obtained from Global Trade 
Atlas (``GTA'') for the period February 2012 through January 2013. The 
petitioners excluded all import values from all countries either 
previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific export subsidies and/or from countries previously 
determined by the Department to be non-market economy (``NME'') 
countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, 
the import statistics average unit value excludes imports that were 
labeled as originating from an unspecified country. To calculate a 
delivered price to Camesa's plant in Mexico, the petitioners added 
average Mexican brokerage and inland freight charges, as reported in 
Doing Business 2013: Mexico published by the World Bank.
    For the other materials used to produce the subject merchandise 
(including packing materials), which the petitioners stated are minor, 
the petitioners used their own costs to value these materials.
    To value electricity and gas costs, the petitioners used 
information on 2011 electricity and gas costs in Mexico published by 
the International Energy Agency.
    The petitioners calculated labor using a 2008 Mexican wage rate 
from LABORSTA, a labor database compiled by the International Labor 
Organization (``ILO''), and adjusted this rate for inflation.
    The petitioners calculated financial ratios (i.e., manufacturing 
overhead; selling, general, and administrative (``SG&A''); and profit) 
using information in the 2011 financial statement of Altos Hornos De 
Mexico, a Mexican producer of carbon steel flat products, because no 
financial statements for a Mexican producer of PC tie wire were 
publicly available.

PRC

    The petitioners state that the Department has long treated the PRC 
as a NME country and that this designation remains in effect today. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of 
NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The 
presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the 
Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the 
initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is 
appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate 
market-economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In 
the course of this investigation, all parties, including the public, 
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to 
the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates 
to individual exporters.
    The petitioners contend that Thailand is the appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC because: (1) It is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) it is a significant 
producer of identical merchandise; and (3) the availability and quality 
of data are good. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, 
we believe that it is appropriate to use Thailand as

[[Page 29329]]

a surrogate country for initiation purposes. After initiation of the 
investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit 
comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly 
available information to value factors of production within 30 days 
before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
    The petitioners calculated NV based on their own 2012 consumption 
rates. The petitioners assert that, to the best of their knowledge, 
their consumption rates are similar to the consumption of PRC 
producers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See PRC Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners valued the factors of production for high carbon 
wire rod (i.e., the main material used to produce PC tie wire) using 
publicly available Thai import data obtained from the GTA for the 
period October 2012 through March 2013. The petitioners excluded all 
import values from all countries either previously determined by the 
Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and/or from countries previously determined by the Department 
to be NME countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, the import statistics average unit value excludes imports 
that were labeled as originating from an unspecified country. The 
petitioners added to the Thai import value the average Thai brokerage 
and inland freight charges reported for importing goods into Thailand, 
as reported in Doing Business 2013: Thailand published by the World 
Bank.
    For the other materials used to produce the subject merchandise 
(including packing materials), which the petitioners stated are minor, 
the petitioners used their own costs to value these materials.
    The petitioners calculated labor using a 2005 Thai wage rate from 
LABORSTA, a labor database compiled by the ILO, and adjusted this rate 
for inflation using the CPI data for Thailand published by the IMF.
    The petitioners valued electricity using a 2011 Thai industry 
electricity rate reported by the Electricity Generating Authority of 
Thailand.
    The petitioners valued natural gas using publicly available Thai 
data for imports of liquid natural gas obtained from GTA for the period 
October 2012 through February 2013, and universal conversion factors 
published by Chemlink Pty Ltd.
    The petitioners calculated financial ratios (i.e., manufacturing 
overhead, SG&A, and profit) using information in the 2011 and 2012 
financial statements of SIW.

Thailand

    The petitioners based NV on CV, as neither a home market nor a 
third country price was reasonably available. The petitioners relied on 
their own 2012 production costs for PC tie wire, adjusting for known 
differences between the Thai and U.S. industries.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Thailand Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners calculated COM based on their consumption of raw 
material inputs, labor and energy, valued at the input cost in the Thai 
market. Where it was necessary to rely on data from a period preceding 
the POI, in accordance with Department practice, the petitioners 
inflated such values to reflect current prices using the CPI data for 
Thailand published by the IMF.
    The petitioners based direct material costs on the average Thai CIF 
import value of high-carbon wire rod obtained from GTA for the period 
April 2012 through March 2013. The petitioners excluded all import 
values from all countries either previously determined by the 
Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and/or from countries previously determined by the Department 
to be NME countries. In addition, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, the import statistics average unit value excludes imports 
that were labeled as originating from an unspecified country. To 
calculate a delivered price to SIW's plant in Thailand, the petitioners 
added average Thai brokerage and inland freight charges, as reported in 
Doing Business 2013: Thailand published by the World Bank.
    For the other materials used to produce the subject merchandise 
(including packing materials), which the petitioners stated are minor, 
the petitioners used their own costs to value these materials.
    The petitioners used public information to value electricity and 
natural gas costs for a Thai producer. With respect to electricity, the 
petitioners used a 2011 electricity rate as reported by the Electricity 
Generating Authority of Thailand. The petitioners calculated natural 
gas costs using the average unit value of imports of liquid natural gas 
obtained from GTA for the period April 2012 through March 2013, and 
universal conversion factors published by Chemlink Pty Ltd.
    The petitioners calculated labor using a 2005 Thai wage rate from 
LABORSTA, a labor database compiled by the ILO, and adjusted this rate 
for inflation.
    The petitioners calculated financial ratios (i.e., manufacturing 
overhead, SG&A, and profit) using information in the 2011 and 2012 
financial statements of SIW.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of PC tie wire from Mexico, the PRC, and Thailand 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for PC tie wire from 
Mexico, as revised by the Department, is 159.44 percent.\23\ Based on 
comparisons of CEP to NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, 
the estimated dumping margin for PC tie wire from the PRC is 67.43 
percent.\24\ Based on comparisons of CEP to CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for PC tie 
wire from Thailand is 53.72 percent.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Mexico Initiation Checklist.
    \24\ See PRC Initiation Checklist.
    \25\ See Thailand Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the petitions on PC tie wire from 
Mexico, the PRC, and Thailand, we find that the petitions meet the 
requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD 
investigations to determine whether imports of PC tie wire from Mexico, 
the PRC, and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 
733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we 
will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after 
the date of this initiation.

Respondent Selection

    Although the Department normally relies on import data from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection to select a limited number of exporters/
producers for individual examination in AD investigations, these 
petitions name only one company as a producer and/or exporter of PC tie 
wire in Mexico--Camesa; one company as a producer and/or exporter of PC 
tie wire in Thailand--SIW; and three companies as producers/exporters 
of PC tie wire in the PRC--Silvery Dragon Group and

[[Page 29330]]

Technology (``Silvery Dragon''), Wuxi Jinyang, and Shanxi New-Mile 
International Trade Co., Ltd. (``Shanxi New-Mile'').\26\ Furthermore, 
we currently know of no additional exporters or producers of subject 
merchandise from these countries. Accordingly, the Department intends 
to examine all known exporters/producers in these investigations, i.e., 
Camesa in the Mexico investigation; SIW in the Thai investigation; and 
Silvery Dragon, Wuxi Jinyang, and Shanxi New-Mile in the PRC 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See the petitions at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will consider comments from interested parties on this issue. 
Parties wishing to comment must do so within five days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status 
application.\27\ The specific requirements for submitting the separate-
rate application in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the 
application itself, which will be available on the Department's Web 
site at http://trade.gov/ia/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of 
publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The 
separate-rate application will be due 60 days after publication of this 
initiation notice. For exporters and producers who submit a separate-
rate status application and have been selected as mandatory 
respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible 
for consideration for separate rate status unless they respond to all 
parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department 
requires that the PRC respondents submit a response to the separate-
rate application by the deadline in order to receive consideration for 
separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (``Separate 
Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin''), available on the 
Department's Web site at http://trade.gov/ia/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin 
states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination 
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin at 6 
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the petitions have been 
provided to the Governments of Mexico, the PRC, and Thailand via IA 
ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of 
the public version of the petitions to each exporter named in the 
petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than June 7, 2013, 
whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of PC tie wire 
from Mexico, the PRC, and Thailand are materially injuring or 
threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 
determination for any country will result in the investigation being 
terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.

Submission of Factual Information

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual 
Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: 
Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two 
regulations related to AD and countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
proceedings: the definition of factual information (19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual 
information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories 
of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized 
as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) 
evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any 
party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which 
subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 
and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct 
factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also 
modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time 
limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all 
proceeding segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013, and thus are 
applicable to these investigations. Please review the final rule, 
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, 
prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 
January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO 
Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (Jan. 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 
in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements 
of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as 
discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).
    Any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\29\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials as well as their 
representatives in all segments of any AD/CVD proceedings initiated on 
or after March 14, 2011.\30\

[[Page 29331]]

The formats for the revised certifications are provided at the end of 
the Interim Final Rule. The Department intends to reject factual 
submissions in any proceeding segments initiated on or after March 14, 
2011, if the submitting party does not comply with the revised 
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \30\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 7491 (February 10, 2011) 
(Interim Final Rule) amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1) & (2) and 
supplemented by Certification of Factual Information To Import 
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Supplemental Interim Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 
2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: May 13, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is high carbon steel 
wire; stress relieved or low relaxation; indented or otherwise 
deformed; meeting at a minimum the American Society for Testing 
Materials (ASTM) A881/A881M specification; regardless of shape, 
size, or other alloy element levels; suitable for use as prestressed 
tendons in concrete railroad ties (``PC tie wire''). High carbon 
steel is defined as steel that contains 0.6 percent or more of 
carbon by weight.
    PC tie wire is classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7217.10.8045, but may also 
be classified under subheadings 7217.10.7000, 7217.10.8025, 
7217.10.8030, 7217.10.9000, 7229.90.1000, 7229.90.5016, 
7229.90.5031, 7229.90.5051, and 7229.90.9000. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the investigations is 
dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2013-11970 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P