[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51198-51205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20881]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-843, A-570-029, A-533-865, A-588-873, A-580-881, A-421-812, A-
821-822, A-412-824]
Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, the People's
Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the
Netherlands, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Initiation
of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective date: August 24, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hermes Pinilla at (202) 482-3477
(Brazil); Scott Hoefke at (202) 482-2947 (the People's Republic of
China (PRC)); Patrick O'Connor at (202) 482-0989 (India and Japan);
Steve Bezirganian at (202) 482-1131 (the Republic of Korea (Korea));
Yang Jin Chun at (202) 482-5760 (the Netherlands); Eve Wang at (202)
482-6231 (the Russian Federation (Russia)); or Thomas Schauer at (202)
482-0410 (the United Kingdom), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petitions
On July 28, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain
cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from Brazil, the
PRC, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United
Kingdom, filed in proper form on behalf of AK Steel Corporation,
ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and
United States Steel Corporation (Petitioners).\1\ The AD petitions were
accompanied by five countervailing duty (CVD) petitions.\2\ Petitioners
are domestic producers of cold-rolled steel.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil,
China, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United
Kingdom, dated July 28, 2015 (the Petitions).
\2\ See the Petitions for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from
Brazil, China, India, Korea, and Russia, dated July 28, 2015.
\3\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 2015, the Department requested additional information
and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.\4\ Petitioners
filed responses to these requests on August 4, 2015.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Re:
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from
Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of
Korea, and Russia and Antidumping Duties on Imports from Japan,
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom: Supplemental Questions'' dated
July 31, 2015 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); and
Letters from the Department to Petitioners entitled ``Re: Petition
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Cold-
Rolled Steel Flat Products from {country{time} : Supplemental
Questions'' on each of the country-specific records, dated July 31,
2015.
\5\ See ``Response to the Department's July 31, 2015
Questionnaire Regarding Volume I of the Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated August 4, 2015
(General Issues Supplement); see also the responses to the
Department's July 31, 2015 questionnaires regarding the remaining
antidumping Volumes of the Petition for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties, each dated August 4, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of cold-rolled steel
from Brazil, the PRC, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and
the United Kingdom 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 section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also
finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with
respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are
requesting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Investigation
Because the Petitions were filed on July 28, 2015, the period of
investigation (POI) is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), as follows:
July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015, for Brazil, India, Japan, Korea,
the Netherlands, Russia,
[[Page 51199]]
and the United Kingdom, and January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2015, for
the PRC.
Scope of the Investigations
The product covered by these investigations is cold-rolled steel
from Brazil, the PRC, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and
the United Kingdom. For a full description of the scope of these
investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I
of this notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, the Department discussed with
Petitioners the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the
Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the
domestic industry is seeking relief.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum from Vicki Flynn to The File, dated August 7,
2015. See also Letter from Petitioners entitled ``Revised Scope,
Amendment to Petitions,'' dated August 10, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all
comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If
scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)),
all such factual information should be limited to public information.
In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the
Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, September 8, 2015, which is the
first business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of
this notice.\8\ Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual
information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, September 18,
2015, which is 10 calendar days after the deadline for initial
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department requests that any factual information the parties
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and
CVD investigations.
Filing Requirements
All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\9\ An electronically
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic
submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form)
with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, 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 applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046
(November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011.
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires
The Department will be giving interested parties an opportunity to
provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of cold-
rolled steel 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.
Subsequent to the publication of this notice, the Department will
be releasing a proposed list of physical characteristics and product-
comparison criteria, and interested parties will have the opportunity
to 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, although there may be some physical
product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe cold-
rolled steel, 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.
All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed
electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the
Brazil, the PRC, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and the
United Kingdom less-than-fair-value investigations.
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,\10\ they do so
[[Page 51200]]
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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
\11\ 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, 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 cold-rolled steel constitutes a
single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in
terms of that domestic like product.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil (Brazil AD
Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry
Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions
Covering Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, the
People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the
Netherlands, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom
(Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's
Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II;
Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Cold-
Rolled Steel Flat Products from India (India AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from
Japan (Japan AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping
Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel
Flat Products from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD Initiation
Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from
the Netherlands (Netherlands AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment
II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain
Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation (Russia
AD Initiation Checklist); and Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from
the United Kingdom (United Kingdom AD Initiation Checklist). These
checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file
electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is
also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 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 the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of
this notice. Petitioners provided their production of the domestic like
product in 2014, as well as total production of the domestic like
product for the entire domestic industry.\13\ To establish industry
support, Petitioners compared their own production to total production
of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-4 and Exhibits I-3 and
I-4; General Issues Supplement, at 3. Petitioners also provided an
alternate industry support calculation based on American Iron and
Steel Institute shipment data. See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-3
and Exhibit I-3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2-4 and
Exhibits I-Supp-10 through I-Supp-13. Petitioners demonstrate
requisite industry support for the initiation of these
investigations regardless of which calculation is used.
\14\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 2-4 and Exhibits I-3 and
I-4; General Issues Supplement, at 3. For further discussion, see
Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, India
AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD
Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation Checklist, Russia AD
Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, General Issues
Supplement, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.\15\
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).\16\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i)
of the Act for the Petitions 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.\17\ 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.\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation
Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation
Checklist, Russia AD Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\16\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Brazil AD
Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation Checklist, India AD
Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD
Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation Checklist, Russia AD
Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD Initiation Checklist, at
Attachment II.
\17\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation
Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation
Checklist, Russia AD Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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, with regard to
Brazil, the PRC, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom,
Petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 28-29 and Exhibit I-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Netherlands, while the allegedly dumped imports
from the Netherlands do not exceed the statutory requirements for
negligibility, Petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that
(1) there is a reasonable indication that data obtained in the ITC's
investigation will establish that imports exceed the negligibility
threshold,\21\ and (2) there is the potential that imports from the
Netherlands will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold and,
therefore, are not negligible for purposes of a threat
determination.\22\ Petitioners'
[[Page 51201]]
arguments regarding the limitations of publicly available import data
and the collection of scope-specific import data in the ITC's
investigation are consistent with the SAA. Furthermore, Petitioners'
arguments regarding the potential for imports from the Netherlands to
imminently exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the
statutory criteria for ``negligibility in threat analysis'' under
section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall
not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject
imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory
requirements for negligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc. No.
103-316, Vol. 1, (1994) (SAA), at 857; see also General Issues
Supplement, at 5-7 and Exhibit I-Supp-14.
\22\ See section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also Volume I of
the Petitions, at Exhibit I-8; and General Issues Supplement, at 7-9
and Exhibits I-Supp-14 and I-Supp-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share; reduced shipments, production, and
capacity utilization; underselling and price suppression or depression;
declining employment variables; lost sales and revenues; and declining
financial performance.\23\ 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 14-16, 23-45, and
Exhibits I-3, I-4, I-6, I-8 and I-10 through I-15; see also General
Issues Supplement, at Exhibits I-Supp-1, I-Supp-14, and I-Supp-15.
\24\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation
Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation
Checklist, Russia AD Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD
Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and
Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Cold-Rolled Steel
Flat Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India,
Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and the
United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 cold-rolled steel flat products
from Brazil, the PRC, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and
the United Kingdom. The sources of data for the deductions and
adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater
detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.
Export Price
For Brazil, the PRC, India, Korea, the Netherlands, and the United
Kingdom, Petitioners based export price (EP) U.S. prices on price
quotes/offers for sales of cold-rolled steel flat products produced in,
and exported from, the subject country.\25\ For the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom, Petitioners also based EP U.S. prices on average unit
values (AUVs) of U.S. imports from those countries.\26\ Petitioners
also used AUV data as the basis for U.S. price for Japan.\27\ Where
applicable, Petitioners made deductions from U.S. price for movement
expenses consistent with the delivery terms.\28\ Where applicable,
Petitioners also deducted from U.S. price trading company/distributor/
reseller mark-ups estimated using Petitioners' knowledge of the U.S.
industry.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation
Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation
Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom
AD Initiation Checklist.
\26\ See Netherlands AD Initiation Checklist and United Kingdom
AD Initiation Checklist.
\27\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist.
\28\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, PRC AD Initiation
Checklist, India AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation
Checklist, and United Kingdom AD Initiation Checklist.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constructed Export Price
For Russia, Petitioners based constructed export price (CEP) on a
price quote/offer for sale of cold-rolled steel flat products produced
in, and exported from, Russia.\30\ Petitioners made deductions from
U.S. price for movement expenses consistent with the delivery terms,
and deducted from U.S. price trading company/distributor/reseller mark-
ups estimated using publicly reported expenses in the most recently
available annual report of a distributor of steel.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Russia AD Initiation Checklist.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
For Brazil, India, Korea, and Russia, Petitioners provided home
market price information obtained through market research for cold-
rolled steel produced in and offered for sale in each of these
countries.\32\ For all four of these countries, Petitioners provided an
affidavit or declaration from a market researcher for the price
information.\33\ For India, Petitioners made a distributor mark-up
adjustment to the price.\34\ For Korea, home market imputed credit
expenses were deducted from the price, and U.S. imputed credit expenses
were added to the price.\35\ Petitioners made no other adjustments to
the offer prices to calculate NV, as no others were warranted by the
terms associated with the offers.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, India AD Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, and Russia AD Initiation
Checklist.
\33\ Id.; see also Memorandum to the File, ``Telephone Call to
Foreign Market Researcher Regarding Antidumping Petition,'' on each
of the country-specific records, dated August 4, 2015 (Russia),
August 5, 2015 (Korea), August 10, 2015 (Brazil), and August 10,
2015 (India).
\34\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
\35\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
\36\ See India AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation
Checklist, and Russia AD Initiation Checklist. Note that home market
price was not used as the basis for NV for Brazil, but for
calculation of net price for comparison to COP, movement expenses
were deducted for Brazil. See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Brazil, Korea, and Russia, Petitioners provided information
that sales of cold-rolled steel in the respective home markets were
made at prices below the cost of production (COP), and for the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Japan, Petitioners did not provide home
market price information because, as noted below, they were unable to
obtain home market or third country prices. For all six of these
countries, Petitioners calculated NV based on constructed value
(CV).\37\ For further discussion of COP and NV based on CV, see
below.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation
Checklist, Russia AD Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD
Initiation Checklist.
\38\ In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences
Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for
all of the investigations other than that for the PRC, the
Department will request information necessary to calculate the CV
and COP to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe
or suspect that sales of the foreign like product have been made at
prices that represent less than the COP of the product. The
Department will no longer require a COP allegation to conduct this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the PRC, Petitioners stated that the Department has
found the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) country in every
previous less-than-fair-value investigation.\39\ 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 (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market
economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the
course of this investigation, all parties, and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51202]]
Petitioners claim that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate
country because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer
of the merchandise under consideration, and the data for valuing FOPs,
factory overhead, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses
and profit are both available and reliable.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe it is
appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for initiation
purposes. 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 FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled
date of the preliminary determination.
Factors of Production
Petitioners based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on a
petitioning U.S. producer's consumption rates for producing cold-rolled
steel as they did not have access to the consumption rates of PRC
producers of the subject merchandise.\41\ Petitioners note that the
selected U.S. producer was chosen because, like the Chinese producer of
the U.S. price offers, the U.S. producer is a large, integrated
producer of subject merchandise.\42\ Petitioners valued the estimated
factors of production using surrogate values from South Africa.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit II-14 (page 1).
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id., at Exhibit II-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Raw Materials
Petitioners valued the FOPs for raw materials (e.g., coke, iron
ore, aluminum, ferromanganese) using reasonably available, public
import data for South Africa from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the
period of investigation.\44\ Petitioners excluded all import values
from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from
countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.
In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the average
import value excludes imports that were labeled as originating from an
unidentified country. The Department determines that the surrogate
values used by Petitioners are reasonably available and, thus, are
acceptable for purposes of initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Volume II of the Petitions, at Exhibit II-14(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Labor
Petitioners valued labor using South African labor data published
by the International Labor Organization (ILO).\45\ Specifically,
Petitioners relied on industry-specific wage rate data from Chapter 5A
of the ILO's ``Labor Cost in Manufacturing'' publication as South
African wage information was not available in Chapter 6A of the ILO's
``Yearbook of Labor Statistics'' publication.\46\ As the South African
wage data are monthly data from 2012 in South African Rand, Petitioners
converted the wage rates to hourly, adjusted for inflation and then
converted to U.S. Dollars using the average exchange rate during the
POI.\47\ Petitioners then applied that resulting labor rate to the
labor hours expended by the U.S. producer of cold-rolled-resistant
steel.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id., at Exhibit II-14 (page 5 and Exhibit II-14(E)).
\46\ Id.
\47\ Id.
\48\ Id., at Exhibit II-14(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Energy
Petitioners used public information, as compiled by Eskom (a South
African electricity producer), to value electricity.\49\ This 2014-2015
Eskom price information was converted to U.S. Dollars and from kilowatt
hours to thousand kilowatt hours in order to be compared to the U.S
producer factor usage rates.\50\ The cost of natural gas in South
Africa was calculated from the average unit value of imports of liquid
natural gas for the period, as reported by GTA.\51\ Using universal
conversion factors, Petitioners converted that cost to the U.S.
producer-reported factor unit of million British thermal units to
ensure the proper comparison.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id., at Exhibit II-14(F).
\50\ Id., at Exhibit II-14 (page 7 and Exhibit II-14(F)).
\51\ Id., at Exhibit II-14(G).
\52\ Id., at Exhibit II-14 (page 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative
Expenses, and Profit
Petitioners calculated surrogate financial ratios (i.e.,
manufacturing overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit) using the 2013
audited financial statement of EVRAZ Highveld Steel and Vanadium, a
South African producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., flat-rolled
steel).\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id., at Exhibit II-14 (page 8 and Exhibit II-14(H)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost
of manufacturing (COM); SG&A expenses; financial expenses; and packing
expenses. Petitioners calculated COM based on Petitioners' experience
adjusted for known differences between their industry in the United
States and the industries of the respective country (i.e., Brazil,
Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United Kingdom), during
the proposed POI.\54\ Using publicly-available data to account for
price differences, Petitioners multiplied their usage quantities by the
submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture cold-rolled steel in
each country.\55\ For Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia,
and the United Kingdom, labor rates were derived from publicly
available sources multiplied by the product-specific usage rates.\56\
For Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United
Kingdom, to determine factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense
rates, Petitioners relied on financial statements of producers of
comparable merchandise operating in the respective foreign country,
although for Brazil and Japan, we made adjustments to Petitioners'
calculations of these rates.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation
Checklist, Russia AD Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD
Initiation Checklist.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Brazil, Korea, and Russia, because certain home market prices
fell below COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b), and 773(e) of
the Act, as noted above, Petitioners calculated NVs based on
constructed value (CV) for those countries.\58\ For the Japan, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, Petitioners indicated they were
unable to obtain home market or third country prices; accordingly,
Petitioners based NV only on CV for those countries.\59\ Pursuant to
section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A, financial
expenses, packing expenses, and profit. Petitioners calculated CV using
the same average COM, SG&A, and financial expenses, to calculate
COP.\60\
[[Page 51203]]
Petitioners relied on the financial statements of the same producers
that they used for calculating manufacturing overhead, SG&A, and
financial expenses to calculate the profit rate, though for Brazil and
Japan, in addition to the same adjustments to Petitioners' calculations
of factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates as we made for
the calculation of COP, we made an adjustment to the Petitioners'
calculated profit rates.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Korea Initiation
Checklist, and Russia Initiation Checklist.
\59\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD
Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD Initiation Checklist.
\60\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Japan AD Initiation
Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Netherlands AD Initiation
Checklist, Russia AD Initiation Checklist, and United Kingdom AD
Initiation Checklist.
\61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, the PRC, India,
Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United Kingdom are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair
value. Based on comparisons of EP or CEP to NV in accordance with
sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for
cold-rolled steel for each country are as follows: (1) Brazil ranges
from 30.28 to 35.43 percent; \62\ (2) India is 43.12 percent; \63\ (3)
Japan is 71.35 percent; \64\ (4) Korea ranges from 75.42 to 177.50
percent; \65\ (5) the Netherlands ranges from 39.43 to 121.53 percent;
\66\ (6) Russia ranges from 69.12 to 227.52 percent; \67\ and (7) the
United Kingdom ranges from 32.59 to 69.30 percent.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.
\63\ See India AD Initiation Checklist.
\64\ See Japan AD Initiation Checklist.
\65\ See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.
\66\ See Netherlands AD Initiation Checklist.
\67\ See Russia AD Initiation Checklist.
\68\ See United Kingdom AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c)
of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for cold-rolled steel from the
PRC is 265.79 percent.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations
Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on cold-rolled steel
from Brazil, the PRC, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and
the United Kingdom, 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 cold-rolled steel from Brazil, the PRC,
India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United Kingdom
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.
On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into
law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous
amendments to the AD and CVD law.\70\ The 2015 law does not specify
dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the
Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the
applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\71\ The amendments to
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply
to these AD investigations.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
\71\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).
\72\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent Selection
Petitioners named eight companies from Brazil,\73\ 43 companies
from India,\74\ 13 companies from Japan,\75\ nine companies from
Korea,\76\ four companies from the Netherlands,\77\ 11 companies from
Russia,\78\ and nine companies from the United Kingdom,\79\ as
producers/exporters of cold-rolled steel. Following standard practice
in AD investigations involving market economy countries, the Department
intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate HTSUS
numbers listed with the scope in Appendix I, below. We intend to
release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all
parties with access to information protected by APO within five
business days of publication of this Federal Register notice.
Interested parties wishing to comment regarding respondent selection
must do so within seven business days of the publication of this
notice. Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An
electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00
p.m. ET by the date noted above. We intend to make our decision
regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ See the Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.
\74\ Id.
\75\ Id.
\76\ Id.
\77\ See the Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7. See also
the Volume XI of the Petitions, at 1.
\78\ See the Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7.
\79\ See the Volume I of the Petitions, at Exhibit I-7. See also
the Volume XIV of the Petitions, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the PRC, Petitioners named 224 companies as
producers/exporters of cold-rolled steel.\80\ In accordance with our
standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME
countries, we intend to issue quantity-and-value (Q&V) questionnaires
to each potential respondent and base respondent selection on the
responses received. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V
questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and
Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporters/producers of cold-rolled steel from the PRC that do not
receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the
Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement and
Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC
exporters/producers no later than August 31, 2015, which is two weeks
from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed
electronically via ACCESS.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\81\
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in
the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself,
which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation
notice.\82\ Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate
application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be
eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they
respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory
respondents. The
[[Page 51204]]
Department requires that respondents from the PRC submit a response to
both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their
respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-
rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin
05.1).
\82\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that ``the Secretary
may request any person to submit factual information at any time
during a proceeding,'' this deadline is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 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 Brazil, the PRC, India, Japan, Korea,
the Netherlands, Russia, and the United Kingdom via 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, within 45 days after the date
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, the PRC,
India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Russia and/or the United Kingdom
are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S.
industry.\84\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country;
\85\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
\85\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Factual Information
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (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). Any party, when submitting
factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR
351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted \86\ 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.\87\ Time limits for
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301,
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to
submitting factual information in these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
\87\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensions of Time Limits
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the
time limit established under 19 CFR 351 expires. For submissions that
are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will
be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due
date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different
time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual
information in these investigations.
Certification Requirements
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\88\
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final
Rule.\89\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
\89\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under
APO 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 in 19 CFR
351.103(d)).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: August 17, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigations
The products covered by these investigations are certain cold-
rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not
annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-
metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that
are clad, plated, or coated
[[Page 51205]]
with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or
other lateral measurement (``width'') of 12.7 mm or greater,
regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed
layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also
include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a
thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater
and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products
covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight
lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150
mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products
described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape
and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-
section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the
rolling process, i.e., products which have been ``worked after
rolling'' (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the
edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements
referenced above:
(1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is
within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual
measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions
set forth above, and
(2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product
(e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-
section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape,
etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.
Steel products included in the scope of these investigations are
products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of
the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or
less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds
the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
2.50 percent of manganese, or
3.30 percent of silicon, or
1.50 percent of copper, or
1.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
2.00 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or
0.80 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or
0.30 percent of vanadium, or
0.30 percent of zirconium
Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this
scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.
For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum
degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-
free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor
lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra
High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon
steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/
or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA
steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of
elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and
molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of
elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered
high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and
UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or
high elongation steels.
Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been
further processed in a third country, including but not limited to
annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting,
punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not
otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the
investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the
cold-rolled steel.
All products that meet the written physical description, and in
which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted
element levels listed above, are within the scope of these
investigations unless specifically excluded. The following products
are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of these
investigations:
Ball bearing steels; \90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in
addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the
amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent
of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of
manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv)
none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than
0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25
nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than
0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent
of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of
molybdenum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tool steels; \91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the
following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight
respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more
than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon
and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or
(iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8
percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent,
inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive,
molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less
than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent
carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silico-manganese steel; \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by
weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or
more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6
percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in
the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-
Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and
Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances,
79 FR 42,501, 42,503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This
determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as ``a flat-
rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent
but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent
of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other
element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics
of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in
the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in
Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China,
Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of
China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan:
Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71,741, 71,741-42 (Dep't of Commerce,
Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as ``cold-rolled, flat-rolled,
alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width,
having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core
loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the
plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the
cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the
straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss.
NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla
when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along
(i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800
value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon
but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of
carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a
surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be
applied.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The products subject to these investigations are currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030,
7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030,
7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530,
7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580,
7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000,
7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,
7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500,
7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6075, 7211.23.6085,
7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030,
7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000,
7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8015, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090,
7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject
to the investigations may also enter under the following HTSUS
numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080,
7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061,
7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000,
7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000,
7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090,
7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180,
7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and
7229.90.1000.
The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and
U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of
the investigations is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2015-20881 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P