[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60827-60831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-844, A-489-818]
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico and Turkey: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective October 2, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore at (202) 482-3692
(Mexico); George McMahon at (202) 482-1167 (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On September 4, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') received antidumping duty (``AD'') petitions \1\
concerning imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (``rebar'') from
Mexico and Turkey filed in proper form on behalf of the Rebar Trade
Action Coalition (``RTAC'') and its individual members (collectively,
``Petitioners'').\2\ Petitioners are domestic producers of rebar. On
September 10-11, 2013, the Department requested additional information
and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.\3\ Petitioners
filed responses to these requests on September 13, 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and Turkey and the
Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Turkey, dated September 4, 2013 (``the Petitions'').
\2\ Petitioners are RTAC and its individual members: Byer Steel
Group, Inc., Schnitzer Steel Industries d/b/a Cascade Steel Rolling
Mills, Inc., Commercial Metals Company, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc.,
and Nucor Corporation.
\3\ See letters from the Department titled, ``Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,'' (A-201-844,
A-489-818, and C-489-819), dated September 10, 2013; ``Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Supplemental Questions, (A-201-844),
dated September 10, 2013; ``Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from
the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (A-489-818), dated
September 10, 2013; ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the
Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions, (C-489-819), dated
September 10, 2013; and ``Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey: Additional Supplemental Questions, (C-
489-819), dated September 11, 2013; see also letter from the
Department titled, ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and
the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey: Request for
Extension.''
\4\ See Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico: Supplement
to the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties, dated
September 13, 2013 (``Mexico AD Supplement''); see also ``Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey: Supplement to the Petition for
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties,'' dated September 13, 2013
(``Turkey AD Supplement''); see also ``Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey: Supplement to the
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties'' dated September 13, 2013 (``General Issues Supplement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ``Act''), Petitioners allege that imports of rebar from
Mexico and Turkey 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 Petitioners supporting their
allegations.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act. The
Department also finds that Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD
investigations that Petitioners are requesting. See the ``Determination
of Industry Support for the Petitions'' section below.
Period of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on September 4, 2013, the period
of investigation (``POI'') for the Mexico and Turkey investigations is
July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is steel concrete
reinforcing bar from Mexico and Turkey. For a full description of the
scope of the investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,''
in the Appendix of this notice.\6\ Petitioners note that, in addition
to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheadings included in the scope, it is possible that rebar previously
entered under HTSUS numbers 7222.30.0011 and 7222.11.0056; however,
these HTSUS numbers are no longer in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Memorandum to the File titled, ``Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey and
Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey: Scope Clarification,'' dated September
18, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with
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,\7\ we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments must be filed on the record of both the Mexico and the
Turkey AD investigations and the companion Turkey Countervailing Duty
rebar investigation by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday,
October 15, 2013. All comments and submissions to the Department must
be filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA
ACCESS'').\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.
[[Page 60828]]
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Questionnaires
The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding
the appropriate physical characteristics of rebar 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 steel concrete reinforcing bar, 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 October 15, 2013. Rebuttal comments must
be received by October 25, 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 U.S. 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,\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\10\ 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
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer
a definition of 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 rebar, as defined in the scope of
the investigations, constitutes a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico (``Mexico AD Initiation
Checklist''), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the
Petitions Covering Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and
the Republic of Turkey (``Attachment II''), and Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar
from the Republic of Turkey (``Turkey AD 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 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 Investigations'' section above. To
establish industry support, Petitioners provided their production of
the domestic like product in 2012, and compared this to the estimated
total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\12\ Petitioners estimated total 2012 production of the
domestic like product using their knowledge of the industry and data
from the ITC.\13\ We have relied upon data Petitioners provided for
purposes of measuring industry support.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-3, and General
Issues Supplement, at 2-3 and Exhibits I-Supp-1 through I-Supp-7.
\13\ Id.
\14\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist and Turkey AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the Petitions, supplemental
submission, and other information readily available to the Department,
we determine that Petitioners 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.\15\ Based on information provided in the Petitions, 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. Accordingly, the Department determines
that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the
[[Page 60829]]
domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the
Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined
in sections 771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
antidumping duty investigations that they are requesting the Department
initiate.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
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, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See General Issues Supplement, at 6-7 and Exhibit I-Supp-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price depression
or suppression; lost sales and revenues; hindered production efforts,
shipments, and capacity utilization; and decline in financial
performance.\19\ 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 16-51 and Exhibits I-6
and I-8 through I-26; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1, 6-7,
Revised Exhibit I-12B, and Exhibits I-Supp-1 and I-Supp-8.
\20\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist and Turkey AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence
of Material Injury and Causation for the Petitions Covering Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico and the Republic of Turkey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 an investigation of imports of rebar from Mexico and Turkey.
The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the Mexico AD
Initiation Checklist and the Turkey AD Initiation Checklist.
Export Price
Mexico
Petitioners calculated export prices (``EP'') based on sales-
specific information that is contemporaneous with the POI.\21\ To
derive the ex-factory prices, Petitioners made deductions to U.S. price
for foreign inland freight charges, Mexican brokerage and handling,
international freight and insurance, and U.S. inland freight expenses,
where such expenses were incurred by the seller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The source of the sales-specific details is considered
business proprietary information. See Mexico AD Checklist for
additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkey
Petitioners calculated EP based on sales-specific information that
is contemporaneous with the POI.\22\ The data serving as the basis for
EP are based on transactions which represent an ex-factory export
price. To be conservative, Petitioners made no adjustments for movement
expenses, customs duties, brokerage and handling, or port expenses in
estimating the ex-factory EP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The source of the sales-specific details is considered
business proprietary information. See Turkey AD Checklist for
additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Mexico
Petitioners provided home market prices for rebar in Mexico.
Petitioners calculated home market prices based on sales information
that is contemporaneous with the POI.\23\ To derive the ex-factory
price, Petitioners made deductions from the delivered prices for inland
freight charges and brokerage and handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The source of the sales-specific details is considered
business proprietary information. See Mexico AD Checklist for
additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkey
Petitioners calculated home market prices based on price quotes for
rebar produced by Haba[scedil] Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal
End[uuml]strisi A.S. (``Habas'') and Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve
Ulasim San AS (``ICDAS''),\24\ and sold or offered for sale to
customers in Turkey during the POI. To calculate the ex-factory normal
value (``NV''), Petitioners deducted from the delivered prices inland
freight charges and value-added tax, where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Petitioners claim Habas and ICDAS represent two of the
largest Turkish manufacturers and exporters of rebar to the United
States during the POI. See Volume III of the Petitions, at 3 and
Exhibit III-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkey
Sales-Below-Cost Allegation
Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that sales of rebar in the Turkish market were
made at prices below the fully-absorbed cost of production (``COP''),
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the
Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. The
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, states that an allegation of sales below COP need
not be specific to individual exporters or producers.\25\ The SAA
states that ``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in
the aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently
considers allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-
wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.''
\26\ Further, the SAA provides that section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act
retains the requirement that the Department have ``reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect'' that below-cost sales have occurred before
initiating such an investigation. Reasonable grounds exist when an
interested party provides specific factual information on costs and
prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign
market in question are at below-cost prices.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994).
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Production
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost
of manufacturing (``COM''); selling, general and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses; financial expenses; and packing expenses.
Petitioners calculated COM (except factory overhead) and packing
expenses based on the input factors of production from a U.S. producer
of rebar adjusted for known differences between the Turkish and U.S.
industries during the prospective POI. The input factors of production
were valued using publicly-available data on costs specific to Turkey.
To determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates,
Petitioners relied on the fiscal year (``FY'') ended December 31, 2012
audited financial statements of a Turkish producer of comparable
merchandise. We revised Petitioners' overhead expense rate because it
appears Petitioners may have double counted energy costs by including
them
[[Page 60830]]
as a part of the overhead rate calculated from the Turkish producer's
financial statements and also including energy costs as a distinct line
item in the calculation of the COP and constructed value (``CV''). To
be conservative and avoid the possibility of double counting energy
costs, we recalculated the overhead rate from the Turkish producer's
financial statements.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like product
in the home market to the calculated COP of the most comparable
product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of
the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of
section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is
initiating a country-wide cost investigation.
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Because they alleged sales below cost, pursuant to sections
773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, Petitioners calculated NV
based on CV. Petitioners calculated CV using the same average COM,
SG&A, financial expense, and packing figures used to compute the COP.
Petitioners relied on the same FY ended December 31, 2012 audited
financial statements used as the basis for the factory overhead, SG&A,
and financial expense rates to calculate the profit rate.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of rebar in Mexico and Turkey are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based
on comparisons of EP to home market prices for Mexico and EP to CV for
Turkey, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, the estimated
dumping margins for rebar from Mexico and Turkey range from 48.82-66.70
percent,\30\ and 35.01-36.99 percent,\31\ respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Mexico AD Supplement at Exhibit II-Supp-7; see also
Mexico AD Initiation Checklist.
\31\ See Turkey AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations
Based upon the examination of the Petitions on rebar from Mexico
and Turkey, 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 concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico and
Turkey 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
Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market
economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the
number of known exporters or producers for this investigation is large,
the Department may select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports of rebar from Mexico or
Turkey under all Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
subheadings identified in Scope of the Investigation.\32\ We intend to
release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') to
all parties with access to information protected by APO within five
days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Appendix I of this notice for a listing of the HTSUS
subheadings in the Scope of the Investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitions identified 10 producers and/or exporters of rebar in
Mexico,\33\ and 41 producers and/or exporters of rebar in Turkey.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-5A.
\34\ Id., at Exhibit I-5B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection
within 20 days of publication of this notice. The Department invites
comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within seven
days of publication of this Federal Register notice for Mexico and
Turkey.
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 and Turkey 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 October 21,
2013, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of rebar
from Mexico and Turkey 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.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its
regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions
in antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings. See
Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The
modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time
limits before any time limit established under Part 351 expires.
This modification also requires that an extension request must be
made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the
circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed
requests for the extension of 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
[[Page 60831]]
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 (January 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 or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\36\
Parties are hereby reminded that the Department issued a final rule
with respect to certification requirements, effective August 16, 2013.
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials as well as their
representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing
duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\37\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised
certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\37\ See Certification of Factual Information To Import
Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (``Final Rule''); see also
the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available
at the following: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: September 24, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The merchandise subject to these investigations is steel
concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil
form (``rebar'') regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or
grade. The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') primarily under
item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The
subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers
including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030,
7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059,
7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085, 7228.20.1000, and
7228.60.6000. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-
deformed or smooth rebar). HTSUS numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description
of the scope remains dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2013-23983 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P