[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60831-60834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23987]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-489-819]
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak at (202) 482-2209, 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 Petition
On September 4, 2013, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') received a countervailing duty (``CVD'') petition \1\
concerning imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (``rebar'') from
the Republic of Turkey (``Turkey''), filed in proper form on behalf of
the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (``RTAC'') and its individual members
(collectively, ``Petitioners'').\2\ The CVD petition was accompanied by
two antidumping duty (``AD'') petitions.\3\ Petitioners are domestic
producers of rebar. On September 10-11, 2013, the Department requested
additional information and clarification of certain areas of the
Petitions.\4\ Petitioners filed responses to these requests on
September 13, 2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey, dated September 4, 2013.
\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 Steel Corporation.
\3\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of
Turkey and Mexico and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey, dated
September 4, 2013 (``the Petitions'').
\4\ 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.''
\5\ 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 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), Petitioners allege that manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of rebar from Turkey received countervailable
subsidies within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, and
that such imports materially injure, or threaten material injury to,
the domestic industry producing rebar in the United States pursuant to
section 701 of the Act.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C), (E) and (F) of the Act. The Department
also finds that the Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the initiation of the investigation Petitioners
are requesting. See ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petition'' below.
Period of Investigation
The period of the investigation is January 1, 2012, through
December 31, 2012.
Scope of Investigation
The product covered by this CVD investigation is steel concrete
reinforcing bar from Turkey. For a full
[[Page 60832]]
description of the scope of these investigations, see the ``Scope of
Investigation'' in 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 Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
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 Preamble; Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments must be filed on the records of the Mexico and the
Turkey AD investigations and the Turkey CVD investigation by 5:00 p.m.
EST on 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.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department
invited representatives of and the Government of the Republic of Turkey
(``GOT'') for consultations with respect to the Petition.\9\
Consultations were held with the GOT on September 20, 2013.\10\ All
memoranda pertaining to the consultations are on file electronically
via IA ACCESS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See letter titled ``Invitation for Consultations to Discuss
the Countervailing Duty Petition,'' dated September 5, 2013.
\10\ See ex-parte memorandum titled ``Consultations with Turkish
Government Officials,'' dated September 20, 2013.
\11\ See supra note 8 for information pertaining to IA ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(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 702(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,\12\ 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\13\ 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
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on
the record, we have determined that rebar, as defined in the scope of
the investigation, constitutes a single domestic like product and we
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from the Republic of Turkey (``Turkey
CVD Initiation Checklist''), at Attachment II. The checklist is
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, Room 7046 of the main Department of
Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' 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.\15\ Petitioners estimated total 2012 production of the
domestic like product using their using their knowledge of the industry
and data from the ITC.\16\ We have relied upon data Petitioners
[[Page 60833]]
provided for purposes of measuring industry support.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Volume I of the Petitions, 3-4 and Exhibit I-3.
\16\ Id.
\17\ See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist and Turkey AD Initiation
Checklist, at Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided in the Petition, 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 Petition account for at
least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like
product.\18\ Based on information provided in the Petition, 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 Petition 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 Petition. Accordingly, the Department determines
that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition 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 CVD
investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury Test
Because Turkey is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Turkey materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
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
benefiting from countervailable subsidies. In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 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.\22\ 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 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.
\23\ See Turkey CVD 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that: (1) Alleges the elements necessary for an
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner
supporting the allegations. In the Petition, Petitioners allege that
producers and exporters of rebar in Turkey benefited from
countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOT. The Department has
examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements
of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section
702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to
determine whether manufacturers, producers, or exporters of rebar from
Turkey receive countervailable subsidies.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is
sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation of 32 alleged
programs. For one of these programs, however, we find that there is
sufficient evidence to initiate only on part of the allegation. For a
full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not
initiate on each program, see Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist.
A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation
is available on IA ACCESS and at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html.
Respondent Selection
The Petition identified 41 producers and/or exporters of steel
concrete reinforcing bar in Turkey.\24\ For this investigation, the
Department expects to select respondents for individual examination
based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S.
imports of subject merchandise during the period of investigation under
all Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings
identified in the Scope of the Investigation.\25\ We intend to release
the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (``APO'') to all
parties with access to information protected by APO shortly after the
announcement of this case initiation. Interested parties must submit
applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on
the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id., at Exhibit I-5B.
\25\ See Appendix I of this notice for a listing of the HTSUS
subheadings in the Scope of the Investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and
respondent selection within seven calendar days of publication of this
Federal Register notice. Comments must be filed in accordance with the
filing requirements stated above. We intend to make our decision
regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this
notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been
provided to the representatives of the GOT via IA ACCESS. Because of
the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the
Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of
the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the
delivery of the public version of the Petition to the GOT, consistent
with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(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
allegedly subsidized rebar
[[Page 60834]]
from Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to,
a U.S. industry.\26\ A negative ITC determination will result in the
investigation being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See section 703(a) of the Act.
\27\ 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 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 this investigation.
Please review the final rule, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in
this investigation.
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 this investigation 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)).
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\28\
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 or CVD proceedings initiated
on or after March 14, 2011.\29\ The formats for the revised
certifications are provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule.
Foreign governments and their officials may continue to submit
certifications in either the format that was in use prior to the
effective date of the Interim Final Rule, or in the format provided in
the Interim Final Rule.\30\ The Department intends to reject factual
information submissions if the submitting party does not comply with
the revised certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\29\ See Certification of Factual Information for 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) and (2).
\30\ See 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 and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
Dated: September 24, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise subject to this investigation 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. 2013-23987 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P